Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

The advancement of any marginalized group relies on the willingness of the majority to support this mission. Historically, this relationship in America has been between African Americans and white moderates. That said, this relationship is plagued by the reluctance of white moderates to affect change, creating a stagnant system that activists were forced to operate in. Phillis Wheatley, for example, was forced to hide much of her pro-abolition rhetoric behind the guise of religion in order to be published. When calls for abolition were growing in the 1850s, it became clear that the federal government “would end slavery only under conditions controlled by whites, and only when required by the political and economic needs of the business elite of the North” (Zinn 3926). This expectation was warranted given the short-lived Reconstruction Era, which was soon replaced with voter disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and vagrancy laws, replacing slavery with a new racial caste system.

This relationship continues to abate attempts at civil rights improvements. In Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he criticizes the performative improvements made by white moderates: “Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue” (King). Even today, white moderates hide behind social media posts about justice and police brutality, refusing to take actionable steps in order to address the systemic racism that has plagued our nation since slavery.

2 Comments

After reading chapter 9, Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom, I was again overwhelmed with a new perspective on previous history I thought I knew and understood to be the truth. I thought this chapter did a great job on diving deep into the issue of slavery in our nation’s history by giving more context than I had ever before known, especially context from the slaves themselves and their experiences. I felt like in this book they were highlighted for the individual people they were, not grouped together as one single unit- all under the category of “slaves”. For example, when former slave John Little says, “…at night, we would sing and dance, and make others laugh at the rattling of our chains. Happy men we must have been! We did it to keep down trouble, and to keep our hearts from being completely broken”(172). This quote emphasizes their humanity and the idea that they really are just people, a stark contrast from many textbooks who only brush over the concept that they are indeed separate individuals who have feelings and lives too.

Adding to the idea that this chapter really emphasized the compassion of the slaves, the author gives detailed insight on the process of the separation of families at auctions, something I had heard once or twice but was not something my history classes focused on previously. My heart broke reading the letters from the families being torn apart, asking for a piece of their child’s hair, because that was all they would have left of them to cling on to and remember them by.

Finally, I was shocked when I read that “there was no slavery in history, even that of the Israelites of Egypt, worse than the slavery of the black man in America” (180). I think I found this so hard to believe because I had never really thought about the comparison of the slavery in our country to other countries, and how they could possibly be different. I think this is a telling sign that my education was not complete or as thorough as it should have been, because what I was learning was focused only on the United States, with the idea that we are the superior country and everything else not connected to us is irrelevant. I think this is a big flaw of the United States education system, as we need to understand the big picture of history, and not centralize only on us, because there is indeed a whole world out there that we need to learn about.

4 Comments

This week’s listening and reading activities helped me to better comprehend how complex the institution of slavery was when analyzing it through the contexts of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. When we look at slavery as the underlying cause of the Civil War, Dr. Bezio points out that we also see slavery being directly tied to issues of economic oppression and states’ rights. Northern economies in the 19^th century were booming because of industrialization and the North’s increased usage of textile mills and machine shops; whereas, Southern economies were prospering because of the slave plantation system, which grew after Eli Whitney’s cotton gin was made. As a result, both the North and the South were threatened by each other’s successful economy because, at this time, there was a relatively equal balance of power due to there being the same number of northern states as southern states. Over time, as white Americans began their quest to expand westward, this balance of power was upset because newer states would decide which economy they would join. This, of course, came with conditions. Joining the Northern economy meant taking a stance against the institution of slavery, which was the backbone of the Southern economy. Contrarily, joining the Southern economy meant advocating for the institution of slavery and against Northerners’ ideals of taking away states’ individual rights to slavery. Learning this piece of history was not comforting nor was learning that white anti-slavery individuals in the North only opposed slavery because the institution of slavery threatened the North’s economy and their livelihood. While I have been taught to believe that white anti-slavery individuals in the North opposed slavery because they felt that it was unethical, I know the brutal truth and I say that a successful rebellion needs to take place so that people of African descent can stop being viewed and treated as commodities by white Americans in power.

Before reading Zinn’s (1980) chapter on “Slavery without Submission, Emancipation without Freedom,” I knew that Abraham Lincoln intention’s with the Emancipation Proclamation was not to set slaves free- the emancipation of slaves was rather an indirect result of a much larger military tactic at play. On page 191, Zinn (1980) explores the Emancipation Proclamation’s dual function that it had in September 1862 versus the function it played in January 1863. When President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, he did so with the terms that Confederate states would have four months to stop rebelling against the Union or else the Union would set slaves in those Confederate states free. However, if during this time any Confederate states submitted to the authority of the Union, then the Union would not disrupt that Confederate state’s institution of slavery. In January 1863, though, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation with the declaration that all slaves in Confederate states, that had not yet submitted to the authority of the Union, would be free. The nuance Zinn (1980) applies to the Union’s actual stance on the institution of slavery reinforces what mostly all white Americans cared about, which was a stable and growing economy. Lincoln, and members of the Union, did not want southern states to secede because it would result in a disruption in the economic relationship that the North had with the South- for instance, commerce, manufacturing, and agriculture. The Union knew that by taking away the institution of slavery from the South, they would be angering slaveowners, who may not continue the economic relationships they had developed for decades. Thus, the language regarding the freedom of enslaved people in the Emancipation Proclamation was carefully articulated so that both the North and the South could gain something out of the Civil War.

Leave a Comment

Zinn’s chapter, Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom, intorduced me to the harsh truths about Americas history with slavery, the treatment of black people, and the false narrative of the civil war. This chapter yet again provided us with a true depiction of what happened with the emancipation, as well as the civil war, and debunked the narratives stories that we as American learners were taught throughout our time in the education system.

 

To begin, Lincoln is revered as an American hero as he “ended slavery” with the emancipation. While this is technically true, Lincoln, as portrayed by Zinn, was indifferent towards the idea of racial equality, and wanted to abolsih slavery to preserve the Union, and capitalist ties between the North and the South. The idea that Lincoln isn’t what histroy books portrayed him to be makes me wonder whether or not he too, will have his name tarnished and statue deminished for the untrue depiction of his morals that most Americans view him with.

 

Secondly, I found it fascinating that the Southern and Northern Elites werent entirely different as their views pertianed to slavery. Zinn alluded to the fact that neither party cared about slaves, they cared about finances. This leads me to beleive that many people at the time didn’t see the true problem with slavery, yet saw it as a beneficail aspect of life that would make White Americans more well off. These types of truth’s, the ones that depict real reactions towards slavery, are the ones that need to be taught in school. The commonly agreed upon purpose of instructing histroy is to prevent bad thigns from repeating themselves… that will not happen unless the truth be told.

 

To conclude, this chapter introduced me to the truth’s behind slavery, its abolition, and the true American perceptions of the maltreatment of Black’s, and it was heart breaking. The fact that Black people were of such miniscule importance and social standing is cruel and wrong, and luckily that has begun to change today. While there are many modern day problems with the treatment of Black Americans, we as a people and as a coutnry are moving in the right direction towards a society of equality and equal opportunity.

 

 

 

 

3 Comments

At the beginning of this chapter, a very important point is brought up. “Liberation from the top would go only so far as the interests of the dominant groups permitted.” The same group of people that weren’t sure about granting freedom to slaves were also being credited with their emancipation. Not only that but their newly found freedom lied in their hands. This just goes to show how important it is for us to look at the context and the bigger picture. This is tied to another very important point that is brought up later in the chapter; the government will only accept the conditions if they are controlled by the whites. The time this was referring to, it solely meant white people but it is still just as true today. The government will only make a change if it is on their terms, not the peoples’, even if they make it seem like it is the peoples’ choice.

We see a lot of this today. Whatever policy change the people want to see never comes easily or without some type of adjustment by the government. This brings me to my next point. There were a few things that were mentioned in this chapter that are closely related to current issues. The first one would be Frederick Douglass’s opinion about the fourth of July. He brings up a very important point, how is it that we are celebrating freedom for a country when some of its people had yet to be free. There was a lot of talk about this past summer because of the recent spark of the Black Lives Matter movement. Even after recognizing that the fourth of July only freed white America, we still celebrate it even though we definitely shouldn’t. We have already started recognizing the problem with Columbus Day and began addressing that but when will the same happen for the fourth of July? Another parallel I thought about between then and now is the KKK. While they are a group that has never disappeared, it feels as if the recent influx of social justice movements has brought them out. The parallel that I see between then and now is not only how they determine justice from a radical perspective, but also how it goes unpunished. In this chapter, we read about the crimes the KKK started committing and how bad they were but that is about it. It is acknowledged that it is pretty bad and gruesome but at the same time, nothing was done to change or stop it. We are seeing the same thing happening right now, but I would say it is even worse. Now, this blatant racism isn’t hidden under KKK robes how it once was, we see it every day behind police badges, in positions of power, by open radical white supremacists, and all around us, but nothing is being done by the government to change it.

I am genuinely curious, what are racists people actually so mad about? Do they genuinely believe that giving other people basic human rights somehow takes away theirs? Or are they just that ignorantly racist? Somehow this anger towards another race has lasted for hundreds of years and that anger is still very much alive today.

 

2 Comments

When I think of Abraham Lincoln, one of the first things that come to mind is the Emancipation Proclamation and the fact that Lincoln played a huge role in abolishing slavery. However, while reading Chapter 9 of Zinn’s PHUS and watching the first part of The American Civil War video, I realized that abolishing slavery wasn’t all that Lincoln was concerned about. Of course, I understood that the Civil War was first started because of disputes between State rights vs. Federal rights, but I always believed Lincoln was all for making the war about slavery.

In the chapter I read and the video I watched, I learned that Lincoln’s motivations weren’t entirely driven by freeing the slaves. On the contrary, his main goal was to keep the Union together. Lincoln knew that if he was blunt about getting rid of slavery, he would lose a lot of support, so he simply played it safe and said that from now on, no more states could have slavery. I also found it interesting that the only reason Lincoln finally decided to drop the Emancipation Proclamation is because of the foreign support the Confederacy was gaining. Although I understand to a degree where Lincoln was coming from, I still find it sad that basic human rights and liberties have to be politicized.

3 Comments

After reading chapter 9 of “A People’s History of the United States,” I was surprised to feel that I actually was taught in my schooling something very similar to what Zinn discusses. Previous chapters have made me feel as though I have been lied to but some of the facts that were brought about throughout this chapter were quite familiar to me. One thing that particularly stood out to me was the fact that Abraham Lincoln was not as heroic as we think. His intentions were not fully to abolish slavery but instead, he wanted to strengthen the Union. We look at Lincoln as a man who cared so deeply for the African Americans but instead his main source of motivation was to benefit himself. 

Later in the chapter, Zinn discusses the future for the slaves after the Civil War. Right after the Civil War laws were in place to try to allow the African Americans to have somewhat of an equal opportunity and resources in their lives. It was a big adjustment from having the African Americans being treated as property to them being viewed as equal. White plantation owners got their only way of making money taken away from them which created extreme anger. They were not ready to give up their power.

Another thing that stood out to me was Zinn’s question at the end of the chapter. He asked, “In the growth of American capitalism, before and after the Civil War, whites, as well as blacks, were in some sense becoming slaves?” This shows how people in power abuse their power. It is an ongoing cycle of the lower status of people being controlled by rich people who love to control others. 

4 Comments

Going to a boarding school, which brought in students from all over the country, conversations about the civil war were always very interesting and informative. While I, a student from the north was taught about the war that freed the slaves from southern cruelty, my friends from the south were taught about a war for the state’s rights and resisting an overcontrolling federal government. Thus, in history class, we examined the surface claims of both the north and the south but also the multi-layered reasons for the civil war. The different views of different parts of the country still exist and are part of the reason there was such a debate with the removal of confederate statues.

While the north did generally want to end slavery, part of the reason was the economic prosperity that the cotton industry and slavery gave the south over the north, whose lands permitted industry. They thought too much southern power would mean their oppression. The north wanted to preserve the union as well.  The south also had a stake in the game and felt particularly threatened as the balance of free and slave states shifted giving the North more federal power. Without slavery, the Southern economy would take a big hit, and they feared the northern power that would ensue as a result.

However, I found it very interesting to dive more specifically into Abraham Lincoln, who is usually considered a hero for the emancipation proclamation. Yet, looking at his changing statements regarding slavery it brings a new element of politics that has to be considered. Do you think that it matters what other intentions went into the emancipation proclamation because, at the end of the day, it went into effect and ended slavery? Is the end result all that matters when examining Lincoln, or is that just glorifying a history that needs to be looked at with critique?

4 Comments

After reading Chapter 9, Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom and watching the video, I began to realize how different the story of the Civil War is from what is told. Firstly, Abraham Lincoln is painted as the great emancipator who tirelessly fought against slavery when in actuality in the beginning, he repeatedly said he was not going to take slavery away from the south just prevent its growth. Moreover, for many of the first few years of the war he refused to make the battle about slavery instead he was just fighting to keep the union together. This made me wonder if he should get all the praise that he does. Although, he did always retain that his personal views were against slavery, but he would do whatever was best for the nation.

Another thing that really struck me from the reading is that the southerners were confused when their slaves were not loyal to them. I honestly found these accounts hilarious because the slave owners were consistently surprised when their slaves deserted to the “enemy” meaning the north. This just shows how deeply engrained slave culture was into the society that these people could not even see the cruelty that happened every day and why it was wrong. Zinn told us that it was estimated about 1/5 enslaved people ran away to the north and helped by doing the most grueling parts of army work like digging trenches.

3 Comments

In chapter 7 “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs” of Zinn’s book the author focuses on describing how indigenous people of colonial America were mistreated through the westward expansion. I was always aware of how badly indigenous people struggled as America was always described to me as “the stolen native land”. Western immigrants and Andrew Jackson did horrifying murders and were disturbing to me. However, what I am really shocked about was not the struggle of the indigenous people but to see how lots of Americans are not aware of this part of the history as a lot of Americans believe that westward expansion was one of the best things that happened and they still view Jackson as a great president. 

Jackson supported the cultural belief of the manifest destiny which implanted the idea that American settlers are more superior and were destined to expand the lands and move North towards Canada and Florida. Jackson was described to be a “land speculator, slave trader, and the most aggressive enemy of the Indians”. He killed many people and justified it by the idea that Americans were biologically more fit to live in these lands than the indigenous people; he wanted to completely remove the natives from this land. Such actions had an effect that lasted until nowadays in terms of associating indigenous people with negative stereotypes and not recognizing native tribes or giving them their rights. 

4 Comments

In As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs, Zinn focuses on the perpetual mistreatment of Native Americans in the United States.  Andrew Jackson wanted to expand westward as the idea of manifest destiny started to burn through the hearts and minds of the American people.  While many Americans have long believed that westward expansion was glorious, Zinn explains how that is not the case.  Under Jackson and Van Buren, “Seventy thousand Indians east of the Mississippi were forced westward.”  While Jackson is celebrated as a great president by some, many are now changing their tone on Jackson because of the mistreatment of Native Americans.

 Jackson’s mistreatment of Native Americans can likely be attributed to a mixture of racism as well as American imperialism.  One of his main arguments was that Native Americans just weren’t fit for American culture.  For example in a speech Jackson said,  “They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.”  Jackson’s goal was always to make America the best country it could be, no matter the human cost.  His utter disregard for human life is outright horrifying to me, and he committed a genocide out of greed.

6 Comments

What would our world look like today without the American Destiny expansion dream of our nation’s early leaders was a perpetual question I asked myself during this reading of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, As Long as the Grass Grows or Water Runs. Although I know that Indigenous people suffered extensively and incomprehensibly at the hands of the Western immigrants and conquerors, Andrew Jackson’s time period, in particular, seems like an extremely disturbing aspect of American history that is almost unaccounted for in history textbooks nation-wide. 

Although expansion started with Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase, Jackson fueled the idea that the people of the United States have the right to expand into areas like Florida, Canada, and farther west because they are biologically superior and more advanced. Jefferson pushed into Native American culture more subtly by allowing people to move into known Native land with the facade of helping them adjust to the progressing capitalist economy and giving them the option to move elsewhere. This competition lifestyle is completely different from the communal lifestyle typical of most tribes that had worked for the past 15,000 to 20,000 years. Andrew Jackson conquered, stomped, and killed as many Native American lives and connections to cultures as possible, with his highlight being the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and conquest of parts of Florida. Jackson had more overt goals compared to Jefferson and wanted to remove Native Americans completely. In almost every situation, tribes were betrayed by either a promise, a treaty, a company, a leader, or a government in an effort to force simulation of “typical American life” or to make money. Why is this truth of American history not discussed in our textbooks? Does this silence connect to the pro-white, hero bias historians have to further American nationalism, or is there another motive? What can we change about how the legacy of Andrew Jackson is taught in order to include more information about the different native tribes and their struggle/resistance from the 1800s to the present day?

Jackson’s senseless and constant use of force in interactions changed the country’s perception of Native Americans and stained their possible future by instilling many false stereotypes/myths and integrating incorrect judgments. Although there has been some legislation to raise Indigenous people up in society and government, these laws have had minimal effects until the 1990s and early 2000s. Many tribes were not even recognized until two years ago, which means that there is still a distinct separation of human rights applied to Native American people. For blacks in America, the perception of equality (as Blacks at the time were still not legally or socially equal) in America began when aspects of Black culture began becoming popular in “pop-culture”. Even though the idea behind this can be slightly problematic as one culture is definitely not defined by its effect on another and are equally valid and acceptable, integration creates normalization. At what point in our future could parts of Native American culture like music, casual dress (not cultural dress), or ideas, be integrated into mainstream culture? Would more Native American pieces in pop-culture help change federal laws to aid their advancement in society? Personally, I think it would definitely help and would bring more attention to the voices of Indigenous people. At what point could we see an end of Jackson’s enforced ideas about Native Americans in the 19th century in the 21st century?

5 Comments

In Zinn’s Chapter, “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs”, he talks about the Indian Removal Act as Andrew Jackson’s influence in it. Like the other chapters, a history that I thought I knew has a cruel twist to it. I was taught about the Indian Removal Act and how the US government wanted to grow which led to the forceful removal of the Indians. The US wanted to expand and be able to produce more agriculture and have bigger civilizations, which required the Indians to move westward.

The really surprising part about this chapter is the description of Andrew Jackson. I was never really taught about Andrew Jackson in school and I always remember questioning why he is on the 20 dollar bill. The vague teachings of him led to me thinking that he did something worth getting recognized for and created this image of Jackson as a good person. Zinn does a great job in this chapter making Jackson look to be the opposite of this. Zinn goes on and mentions how he, Jackson, was one of the biggest enemies to the Indians while being a terrible leader with treating his soldiers terribly. Jackson, who has been vaguly remembered as the guy on the 20 dollar bill, is actually another hero that the history books made up. Zinn greatly emphasizes that Jackson persited on removing Indians westward even after most of them had already fled or been killed. Jackson used policies to take the blame of Indian displacement and death off his hands. In this chapter, Zinn gives another prime example of how the history that schooling systems teach its students, focuses on vague stories about “heroes”, like Andrew Jackson and Christopher Columbus, that do not grasp nearly the full history of what happened.

6 Comments

In today’s readings, Zinn’s history of the early to middle nineteenth century from the Native American perspective informs the Roanhorse piece, allowing the symbolism of the story to be more deeply understood. The main character of Roanhorse’s “Welcome to Your Authentic Indian Experience,” works as a virtual spiritual leader. In this imagined job, Jesse Turnblatt pretends to be a barely-literate, Indian spiritual leader who provides customers (referred to as tourists) with an “authentic” Indian, spiritual experience entailing vast nature, costumes, long hair, and spirit animals. Indeed, this is what the character known as White Wolf looks for when he makes an appointment with Jesse. Despite initial doubts about the experience, White Wolf eventually warms up to Jesse and the two become friends. However, after about a month of friendship, Jesse gets sick and White Wolf steals his job, wife, and eventually house. 

Jesse’s character arch is not a simple tragedy; rather, his story ironically provides himself with the authentic Indian experience that White Wolf originally sought. White Wolf — a pale, brown haired, white male — represents the Anglo-Saxon settlers of North America. After a timid, failed attempt at settling into the landscape (Roanoke), the settlers were welcomed by Native Americans as traders. Likewise, White Wolf is initially timid and helpless before Jesse welcomes him and gifts him his nickname. However, after the two fraternize, things start to go poorly for Jesse in a similar fashion to the Native Americans of history. Indeed, Jesse soon finds himself sick like many Native American communities did after the arrival of Anglo-Saxon settlers. Additionally, White Wolf stealing Jesse’s job, wife, and house is analogous to the confiscation of Native American lands under the Indian Removal Act. Indeed, this is why Roanhorse’s piece begins with the quote from Sherman Alexie: “In the Great American Indian novel, when it is finally written, all of the white people will be Indians and all of the Indians will be ghosts.” In this story, a white man steals a Native American’s life because that is the “authentic” Indian experience he asked for. Meanwhile, Jesse, the Native American, watches his life fade away as he becomes a ghost in his own home. 

The reason the quintessential American Indian story should end this way is deeply rooted in the history and proven by America’s response to that history. While white Americans enjoy the fruits of Native American lands, they also choose to forget the painful history of Native Americans in this country, thus subjecting them to ghost status.

5 Comments

Chapter seven of Zinn’s book pertains to the atrocities committed by Andrew Jackson in response to Indian Tribes being in the way of American expansion.  This is yet again another example of how so many history books see the past through tinted lenses.  Up until today I saw Andrew Jackson as a positive figure in American history that contributed to the expansion and progression of America.  Andrew Jackson is even on the twenty dollar bill!  I see Andrew Jackson’s face almost everyday, and I am just now learning that he killed thousands of Native Americans for an indecent cause.  There were many Native Amercians that were ready to assimilate and coexist with the expanding Americans, yet Andrew Jackson still encouraged Americans to essentially take land and kick the Native Americans out.  I find it very interesting how each of Zinn’s chapters have connections to each other, and they all share a common theme of inequality and injustice.  

 

Andrew Jackson blatantly killed and pushed the Native American tribes away from the territory they previously held, yet these parts of American history are oftentimes pushed aside.  This chapter from Zinn’s book, and every chapter prior to this one has collectively brought me to a conclusion.  The American education system must be reformed to have a more balanced teaching of American history.  We learned all about how bad Nazi Germany was, and all about the atrocities committed by Stalin, yet America is seen as a morally and ethically superior country in many aspects.  I would question who is pushing for America to be seen in such a positive light, and why is this misinterpretation of history happening?  Is America better off now that its citizens feel the country is morally superior?  I genuinely do not know why the teachings of American history are so flawed, but I believe education reform in America is of the utmost importance.

6 Comments

Chapter seven in Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs,” focuses on US expansion westward and its effect on the Native Americans that inhabited the land. I think it is fairly safe to say that we have learned about the tragedy that was westward expansion in our more mature history classes. From the Louisiana Purchase to the Trail of Tears, and every battle in between, the indigenous people of what is now the United States suffered. Zinn also discusses how various tribes had various fates, such as the Creek people of Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama or Cherokee tribe, which was pushed all the way to Oklahoma via the Trail of Tears. 

 

Growing up in Wisconsin, which has the 23rd largest Native American population (1.6%), the remains of indigenous culture are very present. Many names of towns, parks, counties and bodies of water are derived from Native American words. Even the word “Wisconsin” has Native roots, as it is the French version of the word “Meskonsing,” which more or less means “river running through a red place.” I grew up on land owned by the Oneida tribe. The tribe’s presence is strongly felt in Green Bay, with casinos, country clubs, herbal shops, and even a gate named for it at Lambeau Field. While the tribe has its own police force, school system, government, etc, it is closely tied with the city. However, one can’t help but think what could have been if the Oneida tribe had not been pushed from upstate New York all the way to northeast Wisconsin. Was there a better way to have shared the land with its original inhabitants? We can’t know the answer, and we can’t rewrite the past, but we can honor it and learn from it.

5 Comments

Chapter 7 of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, we see yet another first hand account of the brutality of culture and social class in America, specifically early America. As a past chapter taught us, the colonists decision to revolt against Britain was a decision made by the few, at the expense of the many, and for benefit of one single demographic and economically affluent group, the land owning white male. The reason I reference this is because we see the same narrative in this chapter. We see the same social group, the powerful white men, driving out a demographic that had every right to inhabit the land that they did. Native Americans during this time occupied large regions west of the Appalachian mountains. Once Jefferson was elected he drove them out of their native land to help cater to the westward moving Americans. While this moment in time was powerful and without question a horrible act, I want to connect this behavior to a more current affair.

In a similar fashion, African Americans once free, were driven into inter-cities and areas that had poor access to essential needs such as fresh food. This is a result of many things, but perhaps most importantly, the reflection of the segregation and oppression that this demographic and race has faced since their arrival in America. My question to you all is who is at fault for this? Is it people like Thomas Jefferson? A man that taught modern day Americans that this behavior was acceptable. Or is it the people of today that haven’t done what is needed to change this narrative and this reality for black and other minority Americans?

 

 

4 Comments

In Howard Zinn’s Chapter “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs” we are introduced to Andrew Jackson, an American Hero” … Well, reading all about what Andrew Jackson had ‘accomplished’ before becoming president scares me. How many more presidents have been considered hero’s for killing off Indians? This seems to me to be an idea of ‘being American’ of course some people thought this was outrageous and yes, some people agreed that killing the Indians and pushing them out is totally the right thing to do.

Wanting to know a little more about how Jackson’s history is told; I looked up ‘Andrew Jackson U.S. history’. From there I found a link to www.biography.com and it states that Jackson is “known as the people’s president”. One thing is for sure, from what I know about Jackson from Zinn’s chapter how is he a people’s president… Maybe it was the white elite men who were his people. This brings up a lot of clashes with classes and gender gaps. The article also states that Jackson “instituted policies that resulted in forced migration of Native Americans” (biograohy.com). The Indians still alive probably figured that if they don’t get out, they have a very good chance of being killed just like the other 800.

This is just another example of how history is taught in a skewed way. Maybe one day we will start writing history books and teaching history in a way that does not just idolize white males.

 

4 Comments

Reading Zinn’s chapter, “As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs” was extremely enlightening and upsetting at the same time. This chapter again left me questioning everything I had learned previously. In this chapter Zinn goes into great detail about American and Indian relations in the 1800s. Zinn discusses the evil/selfishness that was the American government. The government and prominent figures such as President Andrew Jackson supported the “Indian Removal” because it, “was necessary for the opening of the vast American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the development of the modern capitalist economy.” (126) This indian removal consisted of the use of force to drive native tribes from their home lands. This created great suffering, loss of a huge amount of Indian lives, and the destruction of Indian ways of life/culture/and traditions. The American government continuously oppressed, lied to, and endangered the indian population of America. This disgusts me. Even when tribes would attempt to assimilate to “white” American culture the government still took advantage and harmed them. I never knew the extent of government wrongdoing until reading this chapter. “ The leading books on the Jacksonian period, written by respected historians…do not mention Jackson’s Indian policy, but there is much talk in them of tariffs, banking, political parties, political rhetoric. If you look through high school textbooks and elementary school school textbooks in American history you will find Jackson the frontiersman, soldier, democrat, man of the people-not Jackson the slaverholder, land speculator, executioner of dissident soldiers, exterminator of Indians.” (130) This quote struck a chord in me. This whole chapter left me with many questions. Why is it that our history teaches a figure like Jackson in this way? Does it have to do with American patriotism? Why are we unable to teach American failures and wrongdoings? Why could we just not have a peaceful relationship with the Indian tribes who were settled long before the white Americans? 

 

4 Comments

Reading Ch.7 of PHUS I was most surprised when learning about Andrew Jackson. In elementary, middle, and high school, I never learned much more than that he was a president that fought and led bravely in the War of 1812. Was Andrew Jackson just another one of the “American Myths” that I learned growing up? Never did I learn of the atrocities he committed against the Native Americans. Not only did Jackson pass the Indian Removal Act, but in Florida he lied to them, killed, manipulated, and ordered villages to be destroyed when they did not agree with his terms and conditions. 

Another idea Zinn brought up that I found to be most interesting was “tribal disintegration”. I had never heard of the term in relation to tribes, but it fits perfectly. The Americans at the time could not always fight the Native Americans, thus they employed other tactics, such as killing game so that there were food shortages, influencing them with whiskey, and smaller military attacks. Of course the Natives had no chance of winning if the Americans were slowly starving them, getting them drunk, and then attacking them. Zinn also repeats the term “Indian Removal,” a more harsh way of saying, what I was taught growing up- expansion. In order to expand, the Native Americans needed to be removed from the territory because there was no chance that the white people would live with them, because they were “savages,” “uncivilized,” and “violent”. I think the unwillingness of the Americans to live amongst shows how scared and intimidated they really were by them. 

In terms of the short story, Welcome to Your Authentic Indian Experience, I thought it was very interesting how the idea of a VR “experience” was something people paid for to go on a spiritual journey. I feel like this is disrespectful to Native Americans, because vision quests are so sacred and the idea of people who may not necessarily come from Native American descent capitalizing off of them seems wrong. The main character changing his last name from Turnblatt to Trueblood was what made me consider this. It seemed like he was trying to sell something false and foreign to him. And in the end, this caught up to him.

4 Comments