1. Actively read Chapter 1 of "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn.
Consider the question posed by the author on page 17, "was all this bloodshed and deceit ... a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?"
2. Respond to this question incorporating details from the reading and the other materials we explored together in class this week. Your reflection should be no less than 250 words. Due Monday, September 15.
Upcoming Seminar (counts as a key grade this marking period.)
Be prepared to have a seminar on this chapter on Monday. You should prepare three text-based discussion questions. You will be graded on preparation and participation in the debate on the following scale:
1- unprepared - missing book and/or question and did not participate in discussion
2- moderately prepared with notes or comments, but contributions were mainly reactive and/or did not reflect close work with the text
3- well prepared with thoughtful notes and comments. Contributions were based on text OR academically sound, but general in nature.
4- Well prepared and insightful contributions to discussion. Comments/ questions reflected a fair comprehension of the text but may reflect some slight misunderstandings.
5 - Very well prepared and actively engaged in discussion. Comments and questions were insightful and reflected a deep understanding of the text. References to outside examples were submitted and relevant.
due monday at the beginning of class
the first chapter of this book is available to read in full at: http://historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html
19 comments:
Im first to post, so I gess everyone has to talk afta me.............k, ummmm,...............i dident even read da book yet. Peace
All the bloodshed and deceit between many explorers and the Indian people was not necessity in order for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization. Before the Europeans settled and took over the lands of many Indians, the Indians were very civilized. With there own form of society consisting of a chief or ruler, priests, and other working jobs. Homes were made to fit 600 people in one complex. The Indians made all there clothing, jewelry, weapons, did weaving, had temples, and had religious ceremonies. As the Europeans came to the new lands they were crazed to find gold and take all forms of goods back to their home lands. While doing so they killed many of Indians and even taking some home to be slaves. The explorers left behind were killed by the Indians out of rage. As the Europeans came to the new world the Indians greeted them by swimming out to help and give gifts. This is probably why so many Indians became raged and wanted to fight against those who betrayed their hospitality. The amount of bloodshed caused the Indian population to decrease in only a matter of a few years. The Indians were civilized people and due to the killings of them its as if this allowed many others thru the centuries to cause war and racial discrimination. If the Europeans left the Indians to themselves then maybe today we would be even more civilized.
Bloodshed and deceit were tools not needed to progress the human race from savagery to civilization. Though such tactics prove to work to progress the human race from savagery it may have not been needed. Less violent methods could have been found but, due desperation violence was the only way for the explorers. Many times it seems as though violence didn't have to be used to gain treasure.
Explorers like Columbus sought the new world for treasures like, gold. When Columbus could not find the treasures he sought he quickly turned violent using the Indians as slaves just to find treasure. The violence had seemed to be caused by Columbus’ ambiguous statements of filling boats with gold. Many Indians had been slaughtered by the greed of explorers Indians had been apart of a genocide. None of the Indians had been safe from the genocide even the children had been mindlessly slaughtered for enjoyment.
The Indians were very giving people and violence could have easily been avoided. An example of meaningless slaughter was when Indians refused to trade for as many bows and arrows for what the explorers wanted and ended up being killed. Indians were also quite intelligent they knew how to harvest food and hide stealthily in the forest when being invaded. If not murdered they could have progressed the human race from savagery with the Spaniards and other explorers.
I totally agree with Brianna Kohm in that bloodshed wasn’t a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery. Though the Indians showed their hospitality towards the explorers all they had got in return was fake treaties that had led to war. If the explorers had lived in harmony with the Indians they most likely would have became civilized quicker like what Brianna had said. The Indians believed in equality but obviously the explorers thought otherwise as seen through, slave labor and genocide.
Briana, you make a good point. The Indians had their own way of living and they were advancing slowly. They were able to create a class system, and lived peacefully. But you didn't mention anything about how women were independent which was more advanced than Europe.
Savagery is a term used to describe a civilization that is not like your own. Bloodshed and deceit is not necessary for human progression for civilization. Although the Indians were not as advanced as the European settler’s, bloodshed was not necessary. When the European explorers came to the “new world” the Indians greeted them with joy and gave them what they needed. The Europeans had taken them for granted and took advantage. The Indians actually were pretty advanced for the resources available to them. According to Edmund Morgan the Indians were better woodsmen then the English. War was not necessary for human progress. War actually slows down the advancements of human. After the wars thousands of Indians died. Besides the fact, Indians were slowly advancing. They created their own class systems and even built housing complexes that could hold up to 600 people. Indian women in America had rights which were unusual to the Europeans, but later in European revolution women would be getting the same rights these Indians have now. In my opinion these Indians may have been just as advanced or even more advanced than the Europeans in culture and lifestyle. “So Columbus and his successors were not coming into an empty wilderness, but into a world which in some places was as densely populated as Europe itself, where the culture was complex, where human relations were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among men, women, and children, and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world” (Zinn 21).
From the minute Columbus and his crew had set foot on the Americas they brought nothing but bloodshed and cruelty to the people who lived there. There was no reason to bring all this violence upon the Indians who had been open and welcoming to Columbus and his crew. The terrible ways in which Columbus treated the Indians was definitely not a necessity for progressing the human race, if anything the cruelty in which the Indians were treated by Columbus made the human race less civilized. Columbus had destroyed a civilization, for nothing other then greed. He had ripped apart the Indians life style so that he could gain gold, power, and slaves. Columbus had made the Indians work in mines collecting gold, if the Indians had not collected a certain amount of gold by the end of three months theres hands would be chopped off so they could bleed to death. This cruelty had killed more then half of the Indians living on the island of Heiti. Columbus had used the advanced technology from Europe to inflict fear upon the Indians and make them do all the work, labor, and thrills that he wanted. Columbus and his crew had not only abused the Indians so they would do labor but they would kill men, woman, and children for fun. Maybe killing and slaughtering an entire group of people was Columbus's idea of making humans more civilized but it was the complete opposite, and instead of progressing the human race he had actually made them more barbaric. I completely agree with Ho on how Columbus had turned to violence to fast and that the killing of the Indian people could've been avoided because they were such giving people. I also agree with the idea that without the murder of the Indian people human kinda could have progressed greatly.
Bloodshed and deceit were not necessities for human race to progress from savagery to civilization. If you ask me, we are still living like savage beasts. Any how, like Brianna says the Native Indians were pretty … (I don’t want to use the word “civilize” because who determines what’s civilized or ethic? So, the Native Indians were pretty) adjusted in using their environment to provide a decent life for themselves. They could go through life with just bison. Before the Europeans found the “New World”, The Native Indians had already established a political/social system. Also, what’s more impressive, is the fact that the Natives had connected trade routes between themselves around the Mississippi River. Another evidence of “adjusting” is The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations. The constitution implies the Indian values of truth and acceptance. It mentions truth all throughout the documents and holds a few statements about tolerance with “any man or nations out side The Five Nation”. The American constitution was actually developed off of the Iroquoian Constitution. In order for this to have happened the New Worlders must have held some praise towards the Indians.
The Native Indians had very different practices from monarchal Britain. The Indians were actually more modern for the fact that they didn’t discriminate against women. The Native woman is praised to have one of the most important duties in an Indian family. She must built the teepee and guard it. It is her possession and responsibility. It is now in America and in other parts of the world that we feel comfortable in giving woman money and allowing her to run in office.
Native Indians were more adjusted than the British for the fact that they were more ethnical than them. I use the word “ethnical” in the Christian term. The Natives were never greedy with any of there resources because they were aware that all of their goods came in abundance and as a gift from the gods. They happily gave items to the British for no cost. The British settlers saw “The New World” as a place of savagery and barbarians. But really it was just a world that they didn’t understand. And like most men, when they don’t understand something they make a mockery about it. When I study the history of Native Indians, some questions that arouse in my mind are: Who invented clothing and who decided that private parts are meant to be private?
In Response to Laurel: That quote that you used at the end of your blog is beautiful. Zinn’s word choice in “empty wilderness” really makes me think of the kind of bewildered things that roamed in the “New World. He makes it clear that their home wasn’t lifeless but, in fact, something useful.
~ Khadijat
The bloodshed and deceit between the Indians and the European explorers was not a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization. Long before the European explorers (Spaniards), the Indians were a civil group of people. The Indians had their own laws, and form of society very different from those of Europe, who were dominated by the religion of popes, the government of kings and the passion for money. The Indians lived in their own homes built from very strong wood and palm leaves, they housed up to 600 people at once. The Indians had a developed agriculture of corn, yams, and cassava; they also weaved their own clothes, designed their own jewelry, and constructed their own weapons such as, bows and arrows. Christopher Columbus was leading the Europeans to Asia only to find that there was land between the continents of Europe and Asia. They docked there to find civilizations there already. The Europeans were greeted with grand hospitality; they were given parrots, balls of cotton, spears and many other things. Christopher Columbus and his men took advantage of the Indians and their generosity. They thought the Indians to be naïve. “I took some of the natives by force in order that they might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.” He used the Indians to find gold in their land. The Indians pointed him to an island where he later than called Navidad (Christmas) and left the thirty-nine crew members from the Santa Maria on the island with instructions to find and store gold. From that island, Columbus took more prisoners that are Indian. Not all the Indians made it through the weather conditions sailing back to Spain, most of them died. The ones that survived become slaves, the women and children became slaves for sex and labor. Back on the island of Navidad, the thirty-nine crew members left with the Indians were slaughtered because of the Indians rage toward them. The Indians fought back because the Europeans were treating the Indians poorly and took advantage of their hospitality toward the Europeans. The Europeans worked the Indians at a ferocious pace, and the Indians were dying by thousands. By 1515, only fifty thousand Indians were left. By 1550, only five hundred Indians were left. Then by 1650, there was no record of the original Arawak Indians or their descendents left on the island. If the Europeans did not treat the Indians so harshly, or did not bother them at all, I believe that the Indians could have taught us all to be more civilized throughout history.
I agree with Ho Lee, “Less violent methods could have been found but, due desperation violence was the only way for the explorers. Many times it seems as though violence didn't have to be used to gain treasure.” He made a great point here in saying that to gain treasure the act of violence was not needed. The Europeans would have been better off it they treated the Indians with the same hospitality they showed them because then they would have showered them with gold and other treasures.
by: Samantha Esposito
Prior to the European arrival into the Americas, the Native Americans lived in equilibriums of social equality, gender equality, natural rights, cooperation, and a lawless, yet peaceful societies. Some had developed agricultural societies, while others had continued to hunt and gather; living in a balance of power among all the individuals. Howard Zinn in his “Peoples History of the United States” outlines the savage approach of Europeans as they conquered these welcoming Indians in various regions of the continent. Zinn also questions the events that took place asking if the violence was essential to the advancement of humans.
The answer is obviously no. Based on Zinn, the natives like the “Arawaks” and the “Iroquois” were surprisingly amicable, greeting the explorers from the far off European countries. Moreover, the natives were willing to share their valuables, and knowledge of the land. Despite their friendly behavior, and lack of any significant weapons the European explorers like Columbus and Cortes came to the continent solely for the acquisition of wealth. Due to the kindness of the Indians, and their compliance towards trading, the desires of the explorers to obtain gold, and spices could have been satisfied, even without the brutality of eliminating thousands of them, along with their crops, homes, and villages. The Powhatan letter to John Smith proved the aforementioned statement claiming “…Why will you take by force what you may have quietly by love? Why will you destroy us who supply you with food? What can you get by war?…We are unarmed and willing to give you what you ask, if you come in a friendly manner”(Zinn 13).
Despite the pleas of many natives, the behavior towards them remained the same. The demand for valuables from the newly discovered locations, along with the religious reasoning placed behind the unacceptably bloody efforts, and the belief in Social Darwinism all fueled support given to conquests of the Americas. One of the examples of the previously mentioned reasons, include the illustrations that accompanied the letter from Amerigo Vespucci, which depict the Indian tribes as inferior people that would be valid targets for gaining slaves, land and wealth (Kennedy and Bailey, 2). Furthermore, Columbus himself considered the Indians substandard stating “They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane… They would make fine servants…With fifty men we would subjugate them and make them do whatever we want” (Zinn, 1).
Although, the deeds of the expeditionary Europeans were not the moral, ethic, or honorable ways to take over the Americas, those actions were required in order to create a country for those Europeans to dominate, and eventually create a new country, excluding the Indians. Basically, the bloodshed was necessary not for all humans or for any kind of progress, but important for specifically those who benefited from that brutality towards the Indian tribes or clans in the Americas. Briana Kohm’s concluding statement, along with Ho Lee’s claims ignore the superiority of the lifestyles of the various tribes of the Indians. Ho Lee also ignores the fact that the Indians themselves were also human, and that if progress occurred the Indians would have been included. On the other hand, Katie McSherry only emphasizes Columbus’s actions, overshadowing the Europeans like Cortes who behaved similarly, and sometimes even worse, after him. However, Laurel Haim while saying “Indians may have been just as advanced or even more advanced than the Europeans in culture and lifestyle” presents a valid perspective because evidence from Zinn’s “Peoples History of the United States” supports this view.
When compared to the Europeans; because of the existence of social balance, lack of private ownership, and lack of competitive capitalism, some of the Native tribes possessed the ideal societies, while the European countries consisted of corrupt monarchies, domination of the Pope and clergy, patriarchy, and hierarchical metropolises. In conclusion, the warfare between the Indians and the Europeans in the Americas did not achieve any progress, rather caused numerous casualties on mainly the Native populations, and the exploring Europeans as well.
The bloodshed and deceit between the explorers and indians was not a necessity for the human race evolve from animals to a fully fuctioning civilazation. The indians were fully taken advantge of. As you read ahead in the book Zinn mentions how the indians were highly civilized for what modernization the did and didn't have. The indians on their own had equality through race and sex, which europe was yet to fully have. women were able work usally on crops while the men would hunt or fish.Women were also aloud to divorce men. Indians had no written language but documented histroy through folklore and within their dancing rituals. Therer economy was based through crops and weaving they did not have a large need for a currency instead htey would trade. The even had social sytyems in which the women who have most power(senior women) would choose a represntitve for there congress like meetings(tribal council or the 49 chiefs). Similar to right to self goverment. Proving they had a balnced civilization without huge amounts of bloodshed, they had a world similar to ours. They believed when the english came if killed an englishmen you should be trialed by their law. When a law of theres was broken they would perform acts of labor as punishment. When the spanish along with Colombus came the indians came with gifts and open arms as the spanish came with drawn swords. Colombus quickly realized how generous they were and would usally never say no to any demand. Behore they knew it they were being taken advantage of, when they realized this they became slaves forced to look for gold and perform hard labor. They were sold and when war broke out they were slained insantly due there lack of modernization guns and spears against wooden spears and rocks. The indians had yet industrailize themseves with metal. All that flolowed Colombus later also did betray the trust of the indians which led to mass bloodshed of what would refered to today as genocide.
All of the bloodshed and deceit was not a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization because the Native Americans were not savages. The Native Americans were actually civilized before Christopher Columbus even got to America. In fact, when Columbus landed on America the Arawak men and woman went to greet them. They brought these men water, food, and other gifts. Even though these people where not wearing clothes, that didn’t mean they weren’t civilized. Columbus and his people came off the ships with their swords and the Arawaks had spears made of cane, even thought the spears weren’t sharp there were still some type of weaponry. These people were very welcoming, which makes them civilized in a way because they know how to react to people. Uncivilized people would have been on the defense, and would have attacked the new arrivers. Columbus took advantage of these Indians, and forcefully took some of them to evaluate them. He used them to find out how they got their resources and where they got them from. Columbus said that the Indians were naïve and gave away their possessions easily. In other words he didn’t care about them; he just cared about what they could give him, and how he can use them to his own advantage. The Indians had their own lives and civilizations before Columbus came in, and changed everything. These different tribes learned how to hunt, farm, gather, fish, and do much more. They knew how to do everything without anyone telling them. The Indians were developing knew things around the same time as Europe and Asia. They even had trade routes all throughout North America.
I agree with Brianna the more Columbus and his men killed and brought harm to the Indians, the more discrimination it brought. This harm they brought to the Indians could have changed there views and their beliefs. They were warm and welcoming in the beginning, but how can they be like that anymore. They were welcoming to Columbus and his men and look where that got them. He took advantage of them and now the Indians will make sure that doesn’t happen again.
In The People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, shows a part of history that was very intriguing. As Briana Kohm stated, the bloodshed and deceit between the people was not all meant to be for the human race. Before Christopher Columbus invaded the Indian's land, they were civilized. The Indians took care of themselves and believed that sharing was an essential part of life. When Christopher Columbus came to the America’s he claims to have brought weapons into their lives. Before he came, weapons and violence did not exist. Since Columbus saw that these people we very weak, he decided to take over them. Columbus and his crew members made, I guess you could say, a bet. Whoever saw land or discovered it first got a reward. Of course, the reward was money. Columbus arrived to the land he once claimed, but it was actually founded by a sailor, Rodrigo. He arrived at the land and the Indians came out to the sea to greet him. When Columbus stepped onto land he noticed that this group had a well developed system of agriculture. Also, the Indians could make their own clothing and wore their own jewelry. It was obvious to Columbus that they were not wealthy, but wondered where their gold could be. As his part of taking control, he took advantage of the Indians by taking some of them on his ship to search for gold. When Columbus had “kidnapped” them, he realized that these people were willing to do anything, and never said no as an answer. It the outcome of this, Columbus made these Indians into his slaves. If they didn’t do any work, or weren’t doing the work good enough he would chop their hands off or torture them some other way.
I agree with Ho Lee and Briana Kohm that if Christopher Columbus never invaded the Indians, then maybe our society would be civilized. Also, I agree with Laurel Haim about the women. The independence of freedom to everyone, including women, was vital to life. As Laurel quoted from Zinn 21, the Indians might not have been as civilized and modernized as the European settlers, but at least when they invaded they came into a different place. This different place was considered a complex life and where everything that was done was seen as perfect work. The Indian’s led and started the basics of life, but others just progressed on the making.
All the bloodshed and deceit between many explorers and the Indian people was not necessity in order for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization. The Indians were perfectly fine before the explorers came to their homeland. Christopher Columbus in history is looked upon as a hero yet we have only learned about him through eyes that only know how to praise him and his accomplishments. Not once have we thought to wonder what the Arawaks felt toward what Columbus after what he did to them. In 1492 when Columbus mistakenly stumbled upon the uncharted land, he discovered a whole new way of life- the Indians. Even though the Indians weren’t familiar to the idea of having new people in their homeland, they were still extremely welcoming. As Katherine McSherry mentioned in her blog how there was absolutely no need for the Europeans to bring upon all this violence to people who were so welcoming to them is completely true. What gave the Europeans the right to call the Indians “uncivilized” and take matters into their own hands by trying to whip them into being civilized? The Indians would have been perfectly fine without the Europeans if anything Columbus had turned to the use of violence way too quickly, yet was eventually able to gain control of the Indians. The worst thing of this entire situation was that they taught the Indians how to be violent, turning them into what can be considered barbarians. Therefore the Indians definitely would have been perfectly fine probably even better off without all the bloodshed the European carelessly caused.
The bloodshed and deceit was not necessity for the human race to process from savagery to civilization because there could have been peaceful ways to resolve the situation. As European settlers arrived on Native American soil, they knew that they were leaving their own country for a new foreign, land. The Europeans had no authority to take over Native American land because they were simply visitor not citizens of the land. Early settlers similar to Columbus approached the “New World” with high expectations of finding valuables and treasures such as spices and gold. In agreement with Simit Christian, the Natives were welcoming the settlers and trying to befriend the foreigners. They even exchanged there goods and offered items to the Europeans as welcoming gifts. As the Arawak, men and women greeted the settlers with much to offer, and many Europeans gladly accepted that offer, so even to a greater advantage. Christopher Columbus once stated, “Are so naïve and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no”. The Europeans used the generosity of the Indians, and used this for their own advantage. Since the Indians were organized to a certain degree, the Europeans had absolutely no right to overtake the land that so rightfully belonged to the natives. The land was the Indians, they established their own way of life and customs before the settlers arrived. Abundance in agriculture, farming, hunting, and constructing their own homes, Native Americans were civilized people who already had their own arrangements for life, and did not need the Europeans enslaving and binding them under European authority. Zinn discusses how the natives possessed their own society and culture before settlers arrived, and the Europeans over welcomed their stay by taken advantage of the natives. The European settlers searched for prosperity on their journey to the New World, and believed that the natives were too barbaric to have such a land. Establishing their own structure of colonization and using the natives, the settlers believed that they were more civilized and should teach the natives the true ways of life. The Europeans did not have to overpower the Indians to get what they wanted, a more peaceful approach could have helped the settlers, and bloodshed would not be necessary for humanity progression to civilization.
By: Racquel Wood
All the bloodshed and deceit during the human race to progress from savagery to civilization was not a necessity. It was a disgrace for Europeans to kill all those thousands of Indians. Indians were slowly progressing and becoming more civilized and advance. They started a class system and even began to build homes to give Indians a shelter (600 per household). They began to make their own jewelry and clothing and most importantly weapons. As Europeans sailed to what they knew as the ‘new lands’, they wanted to take all the goods from the Indians. What they really wanted was gold. Gold is the reason why most of the fighting began. Christopher Columbus went back to his country telling them that ‘ the Indians were so nice and they would give anything you ask for’. Columbus had left thirty-nine crewmembers on the first European military base in the Western Hemisphere with instructions a goal to find and store the gold. He then took Indians as prisoners and put them aboard his two remaining ships, and when the ships took sail and weather turned cold, Indian prisoners began to die.
When Columbus arrived back Columbus reported that the Indians “are so naïve and so free with their possessions…when you ask for something they have, they never say no” (Zinn, pg. 3). Columbus then asked for their Majesties for little help for his next voyage and in return he would bring back ‘as much gold and slaves as they asked’. Columbus then returned to the news lands and his aim was: slaves and gold. The Indians task was almost impossible. The only gold around was bits of dust from the streams. The Indians then quickly fled before being captured. Unfortunately they were hunted down with dogs and then killed.
Spaniards started taking over the Indians land and became more and more lazy. Indians became slaves to Spaniards. “Total control led to total cruelty” (Zinn, pg. 6). As Morison describes his thoughts on this he uses one word, genocide. Killing the complete Indian race, all because the greedy Spaniards wanted their goods and the Indians could not give it to them. Indians were still progressing and did not have as much gold and goods as Columbus exaggerated about. Indians went on a rage killing many of Columbus’s crew members, and later on, not only Columbus but other explorers as well, continued on to kill Indians because they were not getting what they wanted. The killing of Indians lead explorers no where, but gave them the power knowing they had killed so many people.
I am in agreement with Briana Kohm. The Indians felt betrayed. After taking in the Europeans and greeting them with gifts, in return the receive nothing. Instead the kill the entire race. The Indians were progressing and European explorers demolished everything that the Indians had worked so hard for. Could is be possible is Indians were left alone, the world as we know it today could be more civilized?
Was all of the bloodshed and deceit from Columbus, Cortez, Pizzaro, and the puritans a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization? The violence that occurred was not necessary. How can humans call themselves civilized if they are killing each other? Howard Zinn brings up this issue on page 17. Zinn feels that humans can’t be civilized if they are constantly at war. He feels fighting is not necessary for civilization. Zinn believes violence prevents society from advancing instead of helping it progress. Is it fair to rank people according to their social class? Howard Zinn feels this practice is wrong. On page 17, Zinn lists a few events where people have suffered persecution and suffering due to their social class. Were the Europeans right to declare the Native Americans inferior to them? The Europeans were totally wrong. In European societies, women were not treated equal. The Native Americans believed every person was created equal. Native American men and women had the same rights. The Native Americans were a peaceful society. Although they had no currency, they had vast trade routes. When they Christopher Columbus arrived in the Americas, he took advantage of the Native Americans. The Europeans thought they could enslave Native Americans and send them to work in Europe. When the Native Americans resisted, the Europeans began to slaughter Native Americans for fun. How could Europeans call themselves civilized if they were literally killing and mutilating Native Americans? The Europeans actions were unjust and did not help the human race progress from savagery to civilization.
I agree with Brianne, Columbus took advantage of the Native Americans. Columbus took everything the Native Americans had to offer, then he began to kill them because he felt they were inferior to him. Who gave him the right to declare the Native Americans inferior? The Native American tribes had rich cultures. They had numerous trade routes and were skilled hunters and farmers. Columbus felt the Native Americans were uncivilized because they walked around naked. He didn’t think about their culture.
The first chapter of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States reviews the relationship between Europeans and Native Americans. More importantly, it outlines the change in social history when the two were made to coexist.
The question "was all this bloodshed and deceit... a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?" (Zinn 17) is false on many accounts. The question untruthfully implies Native Americans were, before the arrival of Europeans, savages. Zinn himself has emphasized many characteristics of Native American life that clearly contradict all beliefs that they were savage. He called the Arawaks, natives of the Bahama Islands, "remarkable.. for their hospitality, their belief in sharing." They were kind, though others may see it as naiveness; they ran to greet the White men on big ships, brought them food, and were happy to give them gifts when they could not trade. Though they may not have had vast ships, they were able to build stable housing, farm and gather food, maintain a stable society,and thrive as a nation. Secondly, the quote implies that the result of the European's brutality towards Native Americans resulted in a more "civilized" society. The men brought by Columbus' and those who followed were able to destroy a fruitful nation. Through slavery and blood lust, Europeans were able to destroy the Arawaks; where million once thrived, "by 1550, there were five hundred," and one century later "1650 shows none of the original Arawaks or their descendants left on the island" (Zinn 5). How can life in peace be considered savagery while life in misery be considered civilization? Therefore, I can honestly say that the bloodshed and deceit displayed by the Europeans was in no way crucial to the formation of a civilized nation. Even if it were made clear that Native Americans and Europeans were unable to live on any one land, there were definitely manners in which these problems could have been resolved. Violence, European against Native, was surely not it. But, of course, when has violence ever solved anything?
In conclusion, I must respond to Laurel's concluding quote. “So Columbus and his successors were not coming into an empty wilderness, but into a world which in some places was as densely populated as Europe itself, where the culture was complex, where human relations were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among men, women, and children, and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world” (Zinn 21). It beautifully describes the peaceful world which European invasion and supposed "exploration" destroyed. Therefore, it portrays exactly what kind of pure civilization violence altered into savagery.
All of the bloodshed and deceit was absolutley not a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization. When the Europeans first set foot on the 'New World', the Indians were very hospitable and sharing with their belongings, and were totally willing to trade anything for anything. The way Howard Zinn describes the scene of the Europeans meeting the Indians, it seems that the explorers took full advantage of the Indians so called weaknesses. For instance, the very first page of Zinn's novel has a passage written by Columbus himself stating the idea of slavery right from the start. The Europeans took the Indians generosity as a sign of weakness instead of a sign of civilized individuals. Also, Howard Zinn describes the Americas as a place where 'millions thrived on the land' and no such governmental system exsisted, which leads to thought of the Indians actually being much more civilized then the modern world of today. Both the Arawaks and the Iroquois lacked a government, which leads to ideas of the Indians having much more Independence then America does, and were so advanced that the need for a government was out of the question. Columbus only saw the weaknesses of the Indians and not the strong points because of European cultural influences, and his deed that he had to obey from the Monarchy he grew up into. Still, the question remains valid if violence was the answer. As quoted on page 13, Powhaten asks John Smith "What can you get by war? Why are you jealous of us? Why will you take by force what you may have quitely by love?"
Too much of my surprise, everybody wrote the same opinion, which I feel has made this particular blog a sort of droll going on and on about the same thing. To mix things up, I am going to also write about having the other option, saying all the bloodshed and deceit was neseccary, but not as my actual choice of heart.
Bloodshed and deceit was neseccary for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization for an assortment of righteous reasons. For example, Columbus was under the impression from the Monarchial laws that he was raised from that his duties were a mission from God. As Columbus set foot onto the New World, he was under the impression that his actions were meant to be from the divine state of God, which was to expand a colony. Also, the European explorers were under the impression that they had landed in India. The explorers had a state of mind that these tribes of people were just a crazy bunch of folk who decided to leave the life of civilization and become nomadic. Much to the Indians dismay, the European Explorers took the graciousness of them and turned it against themselfs. In order to progress in civilization, the Europeans needed to change the very foundation of the Indian tribes and create a system of order. If a catastrophe struck the Indian population, such as famine, their would be no government to fall back on for support. In addition, if a major war broke out between them and others, a government would be essential to maintain an order of society and military because of two reasons: patriotism and structure. Patriotism is needed because nobody wants to fight for an unknown cause, and structure because the government can handle a system which ensures supplies and weapons to the battlefield whenever needed. All in all, the only way to achieve full civilization was by taking over the land without mercy and with full throttle, because of the sense to spread the empires needs swifter, and to snuff out any competition which might be in the way in the future.
I am total, positive aggrement with everybodies opinions. I just wanted to mix things up a bit by going with the opposition for a change.
Bloodshed and deceit was unfortunately necessary for the creation of the new world. Without the wars and violent crimes, we would most likely not be here today. The wars between the native Americans and the colonial settlers were constant throughout the creation of the new world. The battles eliminated the population of both the colonial settlers and the native Americans.
Columbus was looked at as a young, brave explorer who founded the "New World". Many don't know the real story behind Columbus' first days at the New World. He and his army were welcomed to America by a group of native Americans. They gave Columbus gold, and other valuable materials. Columbus, instead of accepting them and not harming them, he immediately turned most of the native Americans into slaves, and killed some also. Even though this was not necessary, it still affected our current world.
The Native Americans were stabilized with a government, economy and a language system. This was all ruined by most of the settlers from all countries.
Post a Comment