Category: Uncategorized

In the reading “A Kind of Revolution” Howard Zinn discusses the American Revolution. I found this chapter particularly interesting as it created a brand new perspective for me. When discussing important moments in history, we often glorify the leaders, officers, and generals. We often forget to mention the hard working common people & soldiers. We downplay their efforts and create these “god-like” identities for their leaders. As I internally reflect on myself, I realize I have done the same. Throughout my daily life, I catch myself thinking of the leader of the group as more important and worthy than everyone else. Whether it’s a team or another group of people this happens often. 

 

Zinn also mentions the Constitution and the intuition & thoughts behind it. The Constitution failed to represent slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. Charles Beard explains that the founding fathers created this document in order to represent their dominant economic interests & intended to serve these interests. Zinn further analyzes the Constitution by saying it, “illustrates the complexity of the American system: that it serves the interests of a wealthy elite, but also does enough for small property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, to build a broad base of support”(99). The Constitution created this foundation, yet people are still being treated differently by law enforcement. We claim to be the land of the free, but our own American people are not being treated equally. It is through our actions and desire for change that can create an everlasting impact on our country for the better. 

 

5 Comments

Zinn’s chapter of PHUS “A Kind of Revolution” puts the entire idea of American war-time unity into question. The idea of a united militia against the British is clearly a dramatization of military coordination, but even worse, it’s a narrative that eliminates the class struggles that always existed. By telling a history that does not see the flaws and disagreements in a society during wartime, I believe that historiography creates a cycle of glorification of war. In my experience, the most I’ve ever learned about domestic discontent during American wars was within the scope of Vietnam counter-culture. To see that the Revolutionary War, and probably every war after that, had an extreme amount of complexities in who was fighting and why, is to reconsider important divisions in our own society. Zinn notes that the militia was not only exclusionary, but those that did join often did so with the hopes of alleviating the pressure of their low socio-economic status (Zinn 80). Furthermore, the militia men who fought back against poor treatment were violently suppressed by wealthier soldiers (Zinn 85). Unity was clearly more of an idealistic notion than a reality of the time. The idea that class tensions were so divisive that they could not be put aside to fight a (not so) common enemy speaks volumes to the climate in which our country was founded. 

America exists in a militarized society, this is an unavoidable truth of our time. However, I do believe that if education focused more on the caveats and complexities of the domestic front during wartime, we might reconsider our current foreign policies and approaches to global militarization. This might be a large conclusion to draw from just this chapter about the Revolutionary War, however, this analysis of its faults on the home front can act as a micro-example of historiography’s faults in the re-telling of American wars. 

3 Comments

What’s interesting to me is how twisted the story of the American Revolution has become. When I learned about it, it seemed like everyone in the colonies was for the war and was very patriotic. The reality was, there were a lot of people who didn’t want it and wanted to better their circumstances instead of getting involved with the war. However, it was hard for them to show their opposition to it when they were legally being forced to fight. When it’s these stories and perspectives of events that are being ignored, it’s easier to push the false narrative that the Revolution was great for everyone.

I just want to take a minute to talk about William Scott. He was a great revolutionary fighter who sacrificed a lot for the war, but up until this reading, I have never heard anything about him. This just goes to show that it was class before anything else to the wealthy people in power. Scott was another white man in “power” who didn’t get the recognition he deserved despite taking part in a war to carry out the agenda of those above him. Despite this, he was just another poor citizen that fought in the war while middle-class and higher citizens just watched. Instead, we learn about George Washington, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin who all had money before the war, and only made their pockets bigger.

Even years ago when the phrase “We The People” was written, it didn’t actually mean the people of the United States. It excluded the most important people in the country, the slaves, indentured servants, the working-class and poor citizens, and just about every other group that was not a rich white man. Considering the racial demographic of this nation’s politicians, it pretty much means the same thing.

Everything about reading this chapter shows how there has always been such a big disconnect between the rich and the poor. Although it is has been a problem for such a long time, I really don’t think it has to be a problem, but the reason it is is to keep the classes separate. More than economically, now and even during revolutionary times, the rich and the poor lived in two different worlds. The wealthy men in power were happy to be finding success in the war while the poor citizens were the reason that was possible. Now, big companies and CEO’s are able to get richer and richer by the day, but the working-class and poor citizens that work underneath them, are hardly recognized or properly rewarded for their work. Although things don’t always have to be about class, it is very hard to escape when it is ingrained in our country’s foundations.

 

3 Comments

I am forever startled by the greediness of human nature. When people are given a chance they always seem to choose themselves over the greater community. That is why this quote stuck out to me as a perfect synopsis of American history. Zinn said, “Indeed this became the characteristic of the new nation: finding itself possessed enormous wealth, it could create the richest ruling class in history, and still have enough for the middle class to act as a buffer between the rich and the dispossessed.” This quote opened my eyes to the reality of the American Revolution, and it wasn’t about freedom it was about economic control.

With this realization in mind, it is crazy to think about how much of history may have been rewritten to be the perfect narrative. If the American Revolution can be rewritten to become about a small group of revolutionaries who believed in democracy and wanted to fight against the elite who taxed them without representation. These same men turn around and crush shays rebellion. These supposed insurgents quickly become the regulators and they are quite good at their jobs because they put systems in place that no one has been able to rise up and overthrow to this day.

6 Comments

After viewing the Leader Portraits I am reminded of the values that leaders want to portray. Art is a way to show things without using words. When studying history, photographs and paintings are brought up to show things symbolically. For example, in at least one of all of the leader’s portraits we looked at, they are either wearing red or there is some kind of red in the background. Red is known to be a color of power and royalty. Obviously in the painting or photograph the person cannot say “I am royalty and I am powerful”, but the colors (and other things can). I find the study of art history very interesting (especially when looking at paintings) because something one of my past history teachers told me is that every single thing in a painting is there for a reason. Whether it be who is in the painting, what colors are used, what the weather is like, and so on, all of it plays a key role in what the image is trying to depict and what message it is trying to tell. You are able to tell a lot about a person and what they want to portray about themselves in art. 

 

Something I also found interesting was that up until recently, in their portraits, leaders did not smile and if they did it was very subtle. This makes me wonder if there was a switch in how citizens see and want to see their leaders. Perhaps leaders used to be “all powerful” and more commanding, but now the type of leader that people want is someone that they can relate to and feel on a human level, instead of feeling like they are above everyone. I personally feel that a leader that is less of a god like figure and more of a regular person with authoritative qualities is someone I would vote for and feel comfortable with. 

4 Comments

After reading the chapter “A Kind of Revolution” in our text, I felt like I had just read the transcript for one of John Green’s Crash Course history videos. Although a little overwhelmed with all the information, I now feel like I have a good base of the background history of the US during the later 1700s, even though I did take AP US History junior year and it was giving me not-so friendly flashbacks. Although much of the information I had learned about before, I felt like the facts were not just facts, but part of a story due to the conversational tone of the writing, which I really enjoyed.

One part that really stood out to me from this chapter was when it was highlighting how the Revolution started to create a space for blacks to start making demands of white society, and the author includes a excerpt from Benjamin Banneker who was appointed to plan the new city of Washington. I thought his phrase, “…One universal Father hath given being to us all; and that he hath not only made us all one flesh, but that he hath also, without partiality, afforded us all the same sensations and endowed us all with the same facilities…” was extremely powerful and was definitely a big stepping stone in gaining rights for the blacks (89).

I also found many of the statistical information astonishing. I could not believe during the Revolutionary period, 1/3 of the population were small farmers, while only 3% of the population had large holdings and could be considered wealthy. In addition, the fact that in Maryland to run for governor one had to own 5,000 pounds of property, or 1,000 pounds for senator, which excluded 90% of the population from office. I always knew about the large gap between the elite holding all the cards and everyone else in society, but I don’t think I ever realized how far the gap widened and just how much the wealthy did control, with so little people.

2 Comments

I am always fascinated by the way Zinn portrays the founding of our country, but i understand why he does so. This chapter focused a lot on the constitution and Zinn’s views of it. He viewed it as an oppressive device that has the sole focus of protecting white, Christian males. While this is a very understandable conclusion given the fact that those are the types of people that created the document; I personally believe that his claim is very far fetched. The document was written to preserve and protect the rights of American citizens, so to answer the question being asked in the chapter that focuses on who the laws apply to, it is Americans. The American people are protected by the constitution and are frankly the most free people on the planet, so I believe Zinn’s opinion is extreme, but i respect it.

There is also a focus on the creation of myths, which reflects the podcast content, and that is what i find most interesting about the reading. I have never heard about all of the lies that are the foundations of our country, but frankly i do not care. I believe that historians and politicians create these myths for a reason; and while there are people who will distrust the history and foundation that our country claims, I believe that the myth creators did what they saw fit to create the worlds greatest country, and they did a good job. I find it incredibly interesting to examine and identify what is true and what is fake just to have the information, but I don’t feel as that it makes a difference in the way i feel about America. I would be curious though to know what Zinn would propose in education reform because he is incredibly adiment about exposing these false narratives that are the pinnacle of our history.

Leave a Comment

I was surprised by how much I learned from the third chapter of the book ”Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” which talks about how servants were deprived of their freedom, united with black slaves and indigenous people to rebel against the early English colonies in America. The way servants were treated fascinated me, how brutal and inhumane the American system was who promised them a different reality. Only the minority of the upper class were able to achieve freedom and wealth while the majority of people (women, slaves, natives, and the poor whites) were deprived of their rights, seen as just a labor force, and were just a tool for the government and the rich to benefit from. 

Knowing that this was the way American society came to existence, it does not surprise me now to see all the racial acts and violence in the country that happen nowadays. The system from the very start deprived servants from their rights made them a property; they even needed to get permission to get married and have kids and much more. This for me is just another form of slavery. Zinn mentioned that” Beatings and whippings were common. Servant women were raped…Servants could not marry without permission, could be separated from their families, could be whipped for various offenses”. These rich white people consider themselves better than the indigenous and people of color and were discriminating against them throughout that time. This kind of treatment led to Bacon’s Rebellion against the colonial government and the racist acts of the powerful rich people. “Violence had escalated on the frontier before the rebellion. Some Doeg Indians took a few hogs to redress a debt, and whites, retrieving the hogs, murdered two Indians. The Doegs then sent out a war party to kill a white herdsman, after which a white militia company killed twenty-four Indians”. This sparked fear for the rich minority who wanted to maintain their status. As a result, the controlling minority created a division and separated black slaves, the Indians ( indigenous people), and poor white people. Thus, they benefited from the rebellion using racism and classism.  

Class still plays a role in the American system to this day. It intersects with the race so that white rich people feed on the black poor minority and make them poorer. After BLM riots sparked in the county, white rich people used the strategy of addressing the issues of the lower class while still being in power.

4 Comments

To me, this chapter again highlighted a common theme we have seen throughout Pre-revolutionary America: those with immense power or those with referent power will consistently manipulate those in poverty with the expectation of possible power in attempts to control and distract. There were many different examples of this in this PHUS’s Chapter, Persons of Mean and Vile Condition, but I think the most striking one for me was Bacon’s Rebellion as it was the one I knew most about. Before reading this I honestly had a positive view of Nathaniel Bacon because I saw Bacon’s Rebellion as one of the first movements against over-taxation before revolution. Even though it had a bloody ending, with many killed and 23 hung, I thought it was rooted with a good motive. Realizing that this movement, that was facilitated to both control and kill Native Americans and suppress the poor, was named after someone who had substantial government power (meaning he was not just a regular farmer) and enthusiastically wanted to kill Native Americans again forced me to re-evaluate how I examine history. Those that joined, including real impoverished people, slaves, and indentured servants, were ripped of an opportunity to make real change because they were deceived by someone with power. This reminded me of what is happening currently where many people join or contribute to a movement with an initial positive idea, but then have their contributions manipulated by those in charge for a “larger purpose”, usually unknown to those who participated. This I think speaks volumes about the structure of American society (or about humans themselves) if the same type of behavior can be seen 400 years later. 

 

I have, and honestly will continue to see, America as the land of the best opportunity to progress and allows for the most social mobility, but a quote from page 50 really stuck with me in terms of the foundation of our current society. “The country therefore was not ‘born free’ but born slave and free, servant and master, tenant and landlord, poor and rich.” These relationships founded in extreme power dynamics and fear are the basis for our country today, which I think transcends the idea that America was founded by those who were free. Those in power feared the intersection of disparity, which I think is something that is still feared in modern politics but obviously with less of a direct and more intertwined connection. No one was free at the time unless they had money, which is a concept that resonates with many today.

5 Comments

In A People’s History of the United States, Zinn talks about the social divide in the chapter titled “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition”. The divide was too one-sided that it made the wealthy fear of being outnumbered by the slaves, Indians, and white lower class, so the wealthy and legislators created a bigger divide between whites and blacks so that there would be more balance. This was the time when the majority of the social divide came from the color of a persons skin instead of socio-economic value.

Again, another chapter in one of Zinn’s makes me rethink what I already know about history. I always was under the impression that slavery in the United States and racism came hand and hand right from the beginning, but apparently, racism came a bit after. We read earlier about how slavery came from a time of low income and a necessity of cheap labor, but I thought that with that came what we know today to be racism. I never was taught about a rebellion that gave more power to the whites so that the balance could be maintained for the wealthy. This is why the majority of the middle class was white. It was to keep a divide from the black and Indian people and it was a way for the wealthy elite to keep their power.

 

7 Comments

Jamestown was founded on an ideology of classism along with racism. It’s disheartening to know that the first English settlement was a pretense to what was to come before even getting settled in. The new settlers not only thought they were better than the Indians but, they were also just racist as well.  Bacon’s Rebellion was not only just about being oppressed, “That might explain the character of their rebellion, not easily classifiable as either antiaristocrat or anti-Indian, because it was both.” This is another example of History telling lies, when learning about Bacon’s Rebellion, I remember learning about the struggle of the farmers. That they were just standing up to the rich and powerful of Jamestown. However, Zinn explains how not only was Bacon’s Rebellion about standing up to the rich and powerful, but also just plain racism.

Furthermore, violence had escalated prior to Bacon’s Rebellion. It was just plain racism, “Violence had escalated on the frontier before the rebellion. Some Doeg Indians took a few hogs to redress a debt, and whited, retrieving the hogs murdered two Indians.” This caused a spree of skirmishes among the Indians and the settlers. While the Indians just wanted to protect themselves and their land, the settlers were racist and wanted to annex the Indians land. This led to a war, “But proposed to exempt those Indians who cooperated.” Out of racism and poverty, “This seemed to anger the tierspeople, who wanted total war but also resented the high taxes assessed to pay for the war.” The Jamestown Settlement was completely racist, and just out of spite. Instead of being peaceful they killed and tried to annex their land.

5 Comments

In Zinn’s “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” chapter, he argues that one of the main priorities of the colonial elites’ was to divide the persecuted people of North America, specifically between racial lines, so they could maintain their power in society and prevent rebellions. This division was created through laws such as forbidding interracial marriages and preventing blacks from traveling into Indian territory.  It still baffles me that the colonial legislature could create such racially motivated laws during this time period. I am thankful that no laws exist with such explicit racism within them today, but I cannot say our government is completely free of these underlying racist motives that divide society. 

In Zinn’s “Tyranny is Tyranny” chapter, he brings in a new idea of how the colonial elite managed to hold such immense power over all other classes. In order to truly assert power, the elite had to gain the working-class’ loyalty. This weapon of power became the “rhetoric of freedom” that Zinn deems “the most effective system of national control devised in modern times”. According to Zinn, the elite managed to focus the anger of the working-class towards the British instead of at the rich to keep the power dynamic undisturbed. The Declaration of Independence was a tool for this,  with the phrase “all men are created equal” blurring out any distinctions between the rich and poor. 

Reading these chapters honestly makes me question the intentions of any ruling body now. I have never been taught the hidden flaws within the American Revolution until coming to Richmond. A class I took freshmen year, Slavery and Freedom, highlighted that the Revolution was quite hypocritical in that Americans were vouching for freedom while still possessing slaves. Now I hear the argument that the Revolution was an attempt for colonial elites to maintain their power by pinning the anger from the working-class against the British. I am sure there are many critiques of the American Revolution and other glorified moments of American history, and I am glad I am finally learning about them. Despite scholars formulating arguments of the true intentions of America’s leaders, how will we ever truly know their motivations if it is all in the past and there is no historical document that clearly states it?

6 Comments

“It was a complex chain of oppression in Virginia,” (Zinn, 42). Zinn makes this declaration while explaining Bacon’s Rebellion, which is often considered to be the first armed insurgence led by American colonists against the British. Nathaniel Bacon (who is not related to Kevin Bacon) and his followers were angered by the government’s lackluster response to skirmishes with Native Americans. The “chain” that Zinn speaks of refers to how the Native Americans were oppressed by the settlers moving westward (ie. Bacon and his followers), who were being oppressed by the government of Virginia. Everyone, however, was being oppressed by England and its love of tobacco and trade-control. 

 

This idea of a chain of oppression is not new. We see it with the story of Christoper Columbus (the Native Americans were oppressed by Columbus’ sailors/colonizers and everyone was oppressed by Columbus), slavery (slaves were oppressed by just about everyone, and there were probably workers in between the slaves and the plantation owners that were oppressed), etc. You see it today, of course, all around the world. It’s a similar concept to that of a bully. The bully picks on the weak kid that can’t stand up for themself, but, outside of school, the bully could be picked on by another bully. However, just because you don’t always know what the aggressor is going through does not excuse mean or violent behavior. This apparently hasn’t entirely clicked for the human race.

 

Oppression has historically proved to be a bad idea. You bully your colonies? They start a war to get away from you. You force people into slavery and later regulate them based on their skin color? You get a Civil Rights Act passed and a lot of protesting for more change in the decades that follow. You invade other countries even though you were told not to? You lose two world wars. 

 

Oppression will never go away. There will always be a Bacon who oppresses because they themselves are oppressed. One can hope, however, that it can evolve into something a little more humane, and a lot less harmful.

5 Comments

“Through all that growth, the upper class was getting most of the benefits and monopolized political power. A historian who studied Boston tax lists in 1687 and 1771 found that in 1687 there were, out of a population of six thousand, about one thousand property owners. and that the top 5 percent- 1 percent of the population- consisted of fifty who rich individuals who had 25 percent of the wealth. By 1770, the top 1 percent of property owners owned 44 percent of the wealth” p.49

“The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% of the Country, Study Finds” Forbes 2017

Throughout this chapter, it becomes clear that much of the racism present in America during the 1600 and 1700s  spawned from white poverty/desperation that the upper class exploited as a means to guarantee their own wealth and power. The book clearly lays out evidence that racial hatred is not a naturally occurring phenomenon in humans so it must be developed through life experience. All throughout history those who have the money have the influence and ability to shape society to whatever suits their needs best. At the time it was in the upper classes’ interest to prevent white poor Americans from teaming up with black slaves to remove them from power. The book also mentions how it was in rich people’s interest to create a barrier between their property and the indigenous people and their means of doing so was by placing less wealthy white people there to act as a barrier. I became angry reading the chapter at the thought of rich people throwing their money around to manipulate society to their gain in a way that destroys the livelihood of so many people. Not only did they dehumanize an entire population of people based solely on their race, manipulate politics/politicians to secure there place in society, and allow the whole lower section of society to starve and go cold in winter, but they then proceeded to hoodwink that entire underprivileged section of society into believing they could move up in society and were not at the bottom of the totem pole through the exploitation of black and indigenous people.

The reasons I include the Forbes quote above is that it is eerily similar to the quote from the book despite the fact that they are speaking about time periods well over 200 years apart. My anger carries over to modern day. This is a textbook example of historical fallout and demonstrates that it is easy to see the faults of societies of the past, but more difficult to recognize the significance of modern day issues. Rich exploitation of the lower class and politics permeates history and still exists in our current period. After all, Americans today still go hungry and freeze during the winter, despite the fact that there are also Americans(Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett) who have more wealth than they could ever possibly spend in one lifetime. One of the greatest moral flaws of our nation is that we allow for both of these social classes to exist in the name of capitalism. The majority of Americans do not seem to understand how little the system has changed over the years and how much they are being kept in the dark on these issues. The American Dream hoodwinks people into accepting the system with the belief that they could someday, through hard work, be apart of the exploiting group of society when it is highly unlikely. Even worse, the same minority groups of the past who paid the price for the economic gap, still suffer the consequences today.  How do you think people will write about the modern economic disparity in 200 years? I personally don’t think it will be viewed in a high regard.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/#277076913cf8

5 Comments

In class on Monday, we entered a debate about how social media might shape our world into either a more egalitarian utopia or will continue to exacerbate the problems of our modern society. Reading through Chapters 3 and 4 of Howard Zinn’s history, I believe that American colonial society offers us an idea as to how we will shape the internet in the future. Like the internet, many Europeans viewed the “new” world as a chance to create a new society, free from the constraints of European norms. Indeed, the vastness of the continents lended itself nicely to this idea given the frequent fighting over land in Europe. For some, the new world offered a chance to create a society free of the extreme classism of Europe. Indeed, the new world originally did not have serfs or feudal lords; however, the system of indentured servitude, and eventually slavery, ended any hopes of a new, utopian society. The system did not offer servants any real, statistical chance of joining the land owning upper class. Instead, indentured servitude was designed to increase the wealth of already wealthy Europeans who had been sold land in America before others were given a chance. When these wealthy landowners mistreated their servants, justice was rarely served. Instead, the British government set up the House of Burgesses to arbitrate contract disputes between servants and landowners. Since the House was designed in Europe, many European qualities stained the institution. Likewise, when internet algorithms were designed to police the internet, many real, human stains were left in the programming. Thus, as it is impossible for an algorithm to go against its code, it became impossible for the House of Burgesses to promote equality in the new world. Instead, the first democratically elected body in America was designed to encourage class division.

 

Another interesting point from the reading was how the founding fathers, all of which were landowning elite, were able to divert the anger of the white lower class away from themselves and towards the English, dodging a cross-racial, class revolution in the process. For many poor white workers in colonial America, it was difficult to associate with the rich landowners like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. In fact, many despised the founding fathers more than the English. Thus, a logical step towards overthrowing the system of oppression in the new world would have been to join forces with enslaved African Americans and overthrow the elite. However, through unfair legal treatment and impassioned speeches (ie Patrick Henry), the founding fathers were able to unite white Americans against the British at the expense of African American slaves and indigenous communities. When reflecting on this today, we cannot ignore the fact that racism was a tactic used to garner support for the American revolution, deeply embedding it into our country’s political philosophy, in addition to our economics.

3 Comments

In these two chapters of Peoples History of the United States, Zinn discusses a growing gap between the rich and poor as well as a racial division. In 1676, Bacons rebellion occurred. It began over a conflict of how to deal with the Indians on the western frontier and included violence, Indian raids, extreme poverty. The Indians fought white settlers as a way to defend their land. The white settlers were angry with the wealthy land-owners for raising taxes and making them leave. In Zinn’s chapter, persons of mean and vile condition, the quote that stuck out to me most was, “Better to make war on the Indian, gain the support of the white, divert possible class conflict by turning poor whites against Indians for the security of the elite” (54). And this is exactly what Bacon’s rebellion did. The part that really strikes me is when he says “protecting the elite” because it shows that this class divide was wanted and they didn’t care that they were creating violence between the Indians and poor white people. While some servants eventually became free, it was rare and Abbot Smith says this was a system, “dominated by men who had money enough to make others work for them” (46). This created a lasting and stronger divide in classes. 

In Zinn’s next chapter, Tyranny is Tyranny, he discusses the American Revolution and how it was actually “a work of genius.” He talks about how people in the English colonies discovered by uniting themselves as the United States, they could gain land and political power from the British colonies. analyzes the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. Zinn says that the declaration is to secure life, liberty and happiness. By saying this, it lets people be hopeful for the idea that maybe they will work their way up the class system, when in reality Zinn tells us of the majority of servants who never made it up, no matter how hard they worked. We see this in Zinn’s examples as well as today in our current society. Zinn later says, “how could people truly have equal rights, with stark differences in wealth?” (73). Both this question, and the title of the chapter, tyranny is tyranny go hand in hand to me. We talked about this in an earlier class, but people of power and wealth want to keep it, and whether they don’t want this to change. Whether they like being the people in power or don’t realize the harmful patterns created, nothing is as equal as promised.

4 Comments

I found the chapter titled, “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” very interesting and very relevant to a point brought up in class on Monday. The chapter highlights the life of a servant and the lack of freedom they have that is, in theory “promised” to them. In class, the idea of the American dream was brought up. And shortly after the debunking of this theory, categorizing the American dream as bullshit. Zinn states that the large underclass of poor whites was made up of people who came to North America because their European home was eager to get rid of them. These people were brought over mostly as servants, to be sold, like slaves, for 5 or 7 year contracts. Upon arrival they were struck with the harsh reality that the colonies were nothing like what they were promised or for that matter, imagined.

While some servants made it out and somehow succeeded in owning land and following out their dream to a certain extent, many died or killed themselves due to the harsh conditions they faced everyday. My question then, is more broad…what really is the American dream and how has it shifted in meaning now in 2020? Is the American dream a real concept or just something made up by the English to rid their lands of these people they did not want? In addition to this, was Bacon’s Rebellion in vain and what did he do to shape the colonies and the lives of the frontiersmen?

Furthermore I find the persistent economic theme throughout both chapters very relevant today. Zinn mentions the idea of “levelling,” which was a call to equalize the wealth of the colonies. This is directly applicable in the United States now, almost 400 years later, as we face a large disparity in wealth distribution. In many ways the colonies, our past, directly relate to the future. While it may not seem like it, we are a lot more similar to our harsh, exclusive past than we would like to accept.

4 Comments

While reading this chapter, I kept thinking about the world today, and the similarities between completely different ages. The divide between the colonists, and the blacks, and the Indians was great, and although most of it may be for different reasons, the United States today is often very divided. In the 1600s and 1700s there was a major gap between the rich and poor whites and “by 1770, the top 1 percent of property owners owned 44% of the wealth”, now it’s around 38%. The difference is close to nothing. Zinn mentions how there was this wealth disparity, which created a lot of violent conflicts, riots, and rebellions. 

 

Along with this wealth gap, there was a major gap between races, and although today the gap is shown in a different way, it is still there. The divide between people in the Americas in the early 1700s came from the system of servant/slave and master relationships, and it was kept that way because of the wealthy classes’ fear of the servant/slave revolts. Today, a lot of the divide in the nation is not only the wealth gap, but political, and we still see riots, for example in the BLM movement. While the way things are handled and the extent to which the divide shows are very different than they were 300 years ago, the basic roots of this division within the country remains in some ways the same. 

5 Comments

 

Money is the root of all evil.  In the chapters “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” and “Tyranny is Tyranny,”  I feel that economic issues ultimately started the many atrocities of this time period.  Indentured servitude ultimately stemmed from the rich getting richer, and the gap between the rich and poor grew drastically.  After reading these chapters I would argue that America’s horrible past can be attributed primarily to the American Elite. The American Elite did so much to try to tarnish the relationship between the poor whites and the black and the indigenous people. The American Elite set laws into place that prevented interracial sex and prohibited white business owners from hiring black people for skilled labor.  The American Revolution seems to have been a way for the American Elite to avoid a rebellion and keep their economic status.

 

Economic divide has always been a problem in America.  I believe the indentured servitude has connections to the economic system in America today.  Minimum wage is sub eight dollars in many states including my home state of Pennsylvania.  This is not a wage that can support a person in America, let alone a family of five.  We can see how wrong it was to have indentured servants, yet people work twelve hours a day at a minimum wage job, and they can barely support themselves.  Times have obviously changed greatly, and a minimum wage worker still has life way better off than an indentured servant, but the premise of the argument still stands.  There is so much to be learned from the development of early America, and I feel like more can be done to increase the standard of living for all people.

4 Comments

There were a lot of significant takeaways, in my opinion, from Chapters 3 and 4 of Zinn’s book that definitely needs to be discussed more often and made a part of public knowledge or education. When I first read about the horrible injustices like rape, domestic violence, and other crimes that were committed by rich white males that were ultimately swept under the rug and ignored by the governing bodies (which were also made up of rich white males) I was disgusted but not shocked. It, unfortunately, reminded me of the current justice system and the rapes by white men like Brock Turner which aren’t rightfully punished. It was disheartening to see that this trend is embedded in our history and that it is still being repeated today.

Secondly, I am a very big fan of the Broadway production Hamilton and I used to take away from it, and US history in general, a story about the classic American dream and the victorious and honorable American Revolution. However, now I honestly see the American dream as a façade and a ploy by rich white males to maintain their power. Europeans were fleeing their home countries for a better life the American way, and from the beginning of time, that was all a lie. It makes me wonder why the American dream even became something that was strived for when in reality the US was always a place of division. Another key component of the American dream is that there is a chance for class mobility and that anyone can succeed and improve their living situations. However, I honestly don’t know how this came to be because the wealth disparity was so fixed that the wealthiest people didn’t want anyone else to rise to power and the middle class didn’t even bother trying to fight back; they were just happy that they weren’t the lower class. There was no unity before, during, or after the American revolution. There were no “us” or “our people” or common “man” that was equal as stated in the Constitution; these were all fake linguistic tools that were deployed by the wealthy out of fear of rebellion.

Further, the persistence of the top 1% of people to enforce racism in the lower classes was so intensive it makes me question why people ever thought that African Americans were naturally and innately inferior. The interracial relations were everywhere throughout history, yet the narrative of the minority, which was the white men with property, somehow prevailed and created consequences that are still unfolding today. It’s honestly perplexing to me how racism developed, yet I do understand the manipulation by leaders to end the phenomenon between white and black servants (and Native Americans as well) that can be described by the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

3 Comments