Postings Due by 1/03/11 @ 11:59 pm
Please post your reply to the following questions from A Peoples History of the Untied States, Chapter 1-3.
1. Discuss Zinn's perspective on the writing of history.
2. What were the historical forces that caused white plantation owners to choose black slaves as their labor source? Was it a decision to make a profit, or were Englishmen forced to do it? Would the Powhatans have accepted wages to labor in the fields of the plantation owners?
3. What experiences besides economic deprivation or hardship might have caused colonists to resent their local or state governments?
1. History depends on each person’s perspective. For example, in children books, Columbus is found to be a hero for “discovering America”. We celebrate Columbus Day without knowing much about the brutal massacres that occurred with the Indians. This point of view is from the conquerors, who believe that the death of the Indians and discovery of America would lead to economic prosperity. If we are to look at the Indian’s perspective, for instance, we would see that the Indians treated the settlers with respect most of the time. Zinn also writes about how some historians leave out important details, such as how some settlers beheaded two boys just for fun. The historian’s excuse would be that they believe that it is ok to have these massacres because it is one step towards leading to human progress. Throughout most of the chapter, Zinn asks whether it is necessary to have these massacres and if it does lead to progress. In the middle of the first chapter, he starts out by saying that he is going to use different point of views: the settlers and the Native Americans. Therefore, we would not have only a one way viewpoint.
ReplyDelete2. There are many historical forces that caused white plantation owners to choose black slaves as their labor source. For example, in the year 1619, many people from Virginia were desperate to have some kind of labor to grow their crops. As stated on page 25 of "A People's History of the United States", the Virginians were outnumbered by the Indians. The Indians were known to be "tough and defiant" and the European settlers would "face massacre in return." The Indians were more susceptible to diseases than the black slaves. They died off quickly as they were forced to work. The Africans, on the other hand, were more resistant to the diseases. On page 38, of The American Pageant, it is stated that the Africans had experience in cultivating rice. Therefore, many of them were exported to the New World to produce these types of crops. Settlers later found out that there were abundances of Africans they can make use of. African rulers would trade other Africans to the white settlers for a good profit. Also, there were not enough indentured servants who wanted to work in the New World. As stated in The American Pageant book on page 68, the white servants who did go to the New World were able to own land after completing a couple of years of labor. The use of land was becoming scarcer. Therefore, people decided to turn to black slaves. These slaves can work for the rest of their lives and have harsher punishments than the English settlers. The white plantation owners chose black slaves as their labor source in order to make a profit. For example, James Madison was able to make over $200 from black slave labors. Blacks could produce more crops and harder work than the Native Americans. In addition, the white settlers saw the black slaves as inferior because of their skin color. According to the English dictionary, the color black was considered "atrocious” and "wicked". The black slaves were also considered helpless. They were forced onto a different land full of other Africans who speak a different language than them. Unlike the Native Americans, they had no home to go to. Therefore, the Europeans thought it was ok to treat the black slaves inhumanely. The Powhatans would not have accepted wages to labor in the fields of the plantation owners because they believe that European settlers are causing destruction to everything. For example, Powhatan states that the Europeans are starting wars and killing the other Indians when they are not going to get anything out of it. He thinks that the Europeans are going to end up starving themselves in the future. Slavery is a foreign concept to the Powhatans as all the Native Americans are treated equally to one another. They are defiant in a way that they would rather die for their land than to be subjugated by the Europeans.
ReplyDelete3. Some of the European settlers were angry with their local or state governments because a lot of them were poor. The rich continued to become rich while the poor ended up becoming poorer. Some people believed that William Berkeley was not against the Indians like a lot of people were. In fact, on page 40 of “The History of the United States”, it was stated that he considered some of the Indians as allies. The European settlers did not like how there was violence between them and the Indians near the Western frontier. Berkeley was also known for “monopolizing the beaver trade.” The European settlers also believed that he raised taxes and put his favorite people in high positions. As a part of the Bacon rebellion, people wanted everyone to have an equal social status. This did not seem to work as well because the merchants were also becoming richer.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the other messages! I couldn't fit each of the questions on one blog post since there was a limit on how much I can write.
1. Zinn states that there are many ways of viewing history. For examples, he listed how the Spanish conquest and destruction of American natives could be interpreted as both a step leading to human progress or destruction of entire cultures that could be considered as advanced as European cultures. This ways he demonstrates that there are multiple views of history depending on whose perspective you are viewing it from.
ReplyDelete2. As Zinn put it, the main forces leading to African slavery are firstly there were not enough whites for the labor needed to grow tobacco, secondly Africans were much easier to control than whites due to the shock of being taken away from Africa, and thirdly Africans have much more resistance to diseases common to southern U.S. While the colonists were undoubtedly interested in making money, there is the added pressure that they must make money or else they will be abandoned by the joint-stock companies that funded them. Judging by Powhatan’s lack of the concept of land ownership, the colonists would have needed labor to produce the resources needed for them to survive, thus they began to rely on slavery.
3. Several reasons lead colonists to resent the government, besides the obvious taxes and other such economic hardships the government might impose. Among them were social clash, lack of government response to Indian attacks, and harsh treatment by masters. This combined with economic hardships of taxes and lack of a chance to improve their welfare lead to government resentment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) Zinn's perspective on history is based on the fact that history is written by the victors. He believes that bias in history exists because the group of people that prevailed in the end gets the privilege of recording what happened. For example, Elementary school textbooks and Thanksgiving decorations show the Pilgrims and Indians as good friends. This is because the Indians were not in a position of power to correct the colonists recordings. If the Indians would have some how prevailed and the Europeans were the minority, Thanksgiving may not be such a joyous time.
ReplyDelete2)White plantation workers picked African slaves through a process of elimination. Indentured servants were not available in high enough numbers to provide a steady work force. Indians were too stubborn and too susceptible to European diseases like small pox. Africans were the best option because there was an entire continent full of them and a mutation in their genes gave them stronger immunity to foreign disease.
The decision to use African slaves is not excusable. The colonists needed some work force for food, but most slaves worked on luxury crops such as tobacco. Englishmen made this choice for no reason other to make a profit.
The Powhatans would not have accepted wages to labor in the fields because they were quite content with their old way of life. They were thriving in the forests before the colonists killed many of them. The colonists and Powhatans were not on good enough terms to make a deal like that.
3)Aside from economic hardships, the colonists hunger for independence was fed by distance. The English had less and less interaction within the colonies. As a result, the colonists felt more like colonists than Englishmen. Another reason were the numerous reasons colonists left England in the first place. Colonists wanted religious independence and equal social status and opportunities. The colonies were a large collection of people that wanted to be escape from British rule so it is natural for them to want to cut all ties from them.
1. Zinn states that history is written from the perspective of the victors: those who lose the battle also lose their right to record their view of the events. He also makes the point that while the facts are often all presented to the reader, they are weighted based on the author’s view of the subject; either consciously or subconsciously. For example, authors may mention that Columbus and his crew were cruel to the Arawaks, but downplay Columbus’s negative traits with redeeming qualities. Zinn argues that this is just as frightening as leaving out information altogether: we are taught from a young age that Columbus is the hero, and any atrocities he committed were necessary for development. All of this leads to a skewed image of what really happened, leaving the victims side of the story unmentioned and forgotten.
ReplyDelete2. Plantation owners ultimately fell into slavery as a measure of convenience. Native Americans were much too defiant, resourceful, and at-home in the woods to be captured and forced into work. White indentured servants from England only had to work for a period of years and were not plentiful enough to fulfill the needs of the plantation owners, and white settlers were either skilled craftsmen able to make a living through their trade or not desperate enough to work for the pitiful wages offered by the plantation owners. Therefore, the plantation owners fell onto the most convenient source of free labor – the captured Africans were too shocked by being taken from their homes to be able to fight and didn’t have the home-front advantage that the Native Americans utilized. They were also better adapted to the diseases in the south than the Native Americans.
The Englishmen were not forced to take slaves – there is always a choice, and the plantation owners simply took the choice that would most benefit them and that was the most convenient. Profit was ultimately the deciding factor that caused the plantation owners to choose the cheapest option available. However, even if the plantation owners had tried to come up with a solution that didn’t involve slavery, like offering wages to the Powhatans, I don’t think that the Powhatans would have accepted. They were happy with their lives, and the forest provided them with all the resources they needed. Their towns that were based on a system of trading didn’t have much use for European money, and the Native Americans and the white settlers were not on the friendliest of terms in that time that labor was needed.
3. Economic deprivation and hardships were certainly contributing factors to the resentment felt by the colonists toward their governments, but other events such as conflict with the Native Americans and hatred of taxation became much more prevalent issues. The colonists felt like they were no longer a part of their country as a whole, and were quite content with their sense of independence that they gained by being an ocean away from their country. So, when taxes from a government they no longer felt attached to threatened their lives, they fought back. Yet they also resented when they were not given ample protection by their government against threats from the Native Americans. They wanted to become fully independent, but they also wanted protection, and the conflicting wants angered the colonists even more because it was very nearly impossible to make the colonists one-hundred percent happy.
1. From the beginning of A People's History of the United States, Zinn emphasizes the fact that recorded history is limited by the perspective of its author. Zinn seeks to shed light on the perspective of the victims of predicaments throughout history, but not to side with them; even the victims commit atrocities on each other. He decides not to follow the popular approach to writing history, which is to tell each story from the point of view of the victors; rather, he tends to expose the breadth and entirety of an event. He exemplifies the fact that we celebrate the day that Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas as a day of homage and honor to Columbus, however, we fail to recognize that Columbus was a murderer who had thousands of innocent native Americans killed.
ReplyDelete2. The use of black slaves stemmed from a plethora of issues in early America. Upon arrival in the New World, English emigrants found disease and starvation waiting for them. They were driven to extreme measures of scavenging for food, such as feasting on human carcasses and other seemingly inedible things. While all of this occurred, Native American tribes lived happily and prosperously, thriving off their knowledge of the land. Some Englishmen defected to the Native American camps out of starvation. Thus, relations between the colonists and the Natives were shaky, often exploding into large battles and massacres. When Americans needed a stable workforce to tend their crops, the Native Americans were unwilling to work; they already had the knowledge and skill to cultivate corn and other crops. They were also highly susceptible to new European diseases, and perished easily. English servants were too few and far between, and could not be used for work. All signs pointed to Africa, whose inhabitants were strong and resilient. Also, African slave traders were ready and willing to sell individuals to the Europeans for a profit. Colonial slave traders made handsome profits in the slave trade, and continued to import slaves on this basis. The Englishmen were somewhat pressured to make profits to impress their charter companies, but they engaged in the African slave trade mainly to make a profit. The Powhatans were skilled farmers with hundreds of years of experience cultivating their crops, and would not have accepted wages to labor in the fields of plantation owners. They lived very well on their own.
3. Colonists resented their governments for several reasons. Indeed, consideration must be given to the economic hardships and financial inequalities which plagued the New World. However, during the time of Bacon's Rebellion, colonists in Virginia were quite discontented with their governor, William Berkeley, who they accused of corruption. The colonists lived in a buffer zone on the border of Indian territory, and were constantly pelted with small attacks from the Native Americans. They accused Berkeley of ignoring their safety in favor of preserving an open trade relationship with the Indians, and picking favorites when electing government officers. Berkeley reffered to the colonists as "poore, endebted, discontented, and armed." Government corruption such as Berkeley's was a major cause of the discontentment of the colonists toward their governments.
1. Zinn argues that the people with power -- the victors -- write history. Those who conquer obtain the means to put themselves in a positive light and can omit the details that they choose. For example, when we learn about Christopher Columbus, the emphasis is put on the birth of a new country rather than the genocide of the Native Americans. Even if the genocide is mentioned, it seems small and insignificant in comparison to all the "good" that Columbus achieved. Zinn also points out that history can be seen from various viewpoints, and in his book he attempts to show us how other groups saw history as it happened as opposed to the textbook's "common interest of the nation" perspective.
ReplyDelete2. White plantation owners chose black slaves as their labor source because the Native Americans were at home in America -- they were proud, could survive without European help, and knew the land; the black slaves were extracted from their home and placed in a land with a different culture and way of living than the one they had previously known. The Native Americans had communities and could thrive in their own settlements, but the Europeans had a hard time living in America even with their advanced technology. White plantation owners, who were interested in making a profit, could not go to the Native Americans for a labor source, and instead chose to take the African slave trade route. Africans were not at home in America; they were separated from their families, thrust into a new culture, and the subject of brutal racism because laws stated that all whites were superior to blacks. The Powhatans would not have accepted wages to labor in the fields of plantation owners; the Powhatans were proud people and had no reason to make wages when their tribe believed common rather than personal wealth.
ReplyDelete3. American colonists resented their local or state governments because of tensions with the Native Americans and the aristocratic tendencies of the government. For example, when land became scarce, the government issued land to people in the western frontier. However, the colonists could not obtain this land because it was populated by numerous groups of Native Americans. This caused a clash between the colonists on the western frontier, the Native Americans, and the government. The government did not want to harm relations with the Native Americans, so the western frontier colonists rebelled against the government as well as went on a rampage and killed Native Americans. Because the government was run by the wealthier class and did not have the direct problem of being in the same territory as the Native Americans, the western frontier served as a buffer zone. Since situations like these -- ones where the government did not care for the interests of the governed -- arose in America, some colonists grew to dislike their government and riot against it.
ReplyDelete1. It has been said in some shape or form that history is written by the victor. There is no doubt that Columbus was victorious over the Arawaks and therefore Columbus has been taught at a hero, and the great founder of The New World. In his biographies authors tell about his many sea adventures and his discoveries, with the short and occasional mention of the people he massacred along the way. In a few short paragraphs authors like Samuel Morison mention the “complete genocide” that Colombus and his successors created. This is all in short and surrounded by praise because he was the victor in his adventures and that is how history is usually written. Howard Zinn takes a different road in telling the history of the United States. As Zinn himself says, “being as blunt as I can”. Zinn does not romanticize victories or feel bad for the victims, he uses a point of view that will tell all. He will tell what happened to the Arawaks, the Cherokees, the New York Irish, and many others mire bluntly than if told by those who conquered these peoples to “emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past” that may seem to horrific for the conqueror to admit to.
ReplyDelete2. As the settlers came to America they found themselves usually in one of two positions; 1) to weak or incapable of working or 2) to good to work. So, servants (slaves) were needed. Having hostile relations with the local Indian tribes did not help them and taking them by force was not an options. The Indians out numbered them and out powered them. Through their history the settlers had known of black slaves. Africans were brought to Portugal to work as slaves and it was natural to see. Their excuse to use Africans slaves was that Africans themselves were using them as slaves, even though under much different circumstances. In Africa they were servants, not slaves, and most of the time the servant became part of the family. This was not the same relationship the slaves and slave owners had in the colonies. In the end the colonist wanted to make a profit on the tobacco, or whatever crop they were growing, and didn’t want to do the work themselves so they turned to what they thought was normal and started a time in history that evolved around racism and hate for fellow humans.
3. Living in the colonies was a hardship in itself at the beginning. It was a way of living that the colonists were not used to and it was hard to change to that lifestyle. But as time went on and colonies grew more livable others problems started. In The New World, there were Indians and the colonist usually had a hostile relationship with them. Different people had different views on how to handle these problems. In 1676, Bacon started an armed detachment to fight the Indians and was labeled a rebel. He led Bacon’s Rebellion killing many Indians and raiding their villages. All this because disagreement on how to deal with the Indians. This hostile relationship would always be a factor in the colonist’s lives. Other than that, the social classes in the colonies were extremely lopsided. Fifty individuals controlled over 25% of the wealth in the colonies. The number of Beggars rose and new laws came about to deal with those beggars. People were whipped and beaten if caught begging. This economical gap caused problems within the colonies along with other things.
1) Zinn believes history is told from the perspective of the victor. The victor has the power to add bias to the happenings of history. Zinn believes history is never completely revealed because only one side of the story is being told.
ReplyDelete2)White plantation owners need an efficient, less costly way to plow and harvest their land. Africans were removed from their homes and sent thousands of miles away. In their shock they didn't put up a fight, they worked as they were told and only later would think to question.The English brought over the Africans strictly for the profit and their own benefit. The Powhatans wouldn't have worked for the plantation owners because the owners were not on good terms with the Powhatans. The powhatans also believed in a system of trades and the plantation owners only wanted to take.
3)The colonists began to resent their local and state governments becasue they were not living the lives they wished they could have. The colonists were poor. Many of the colonists were fearful after attacks from the Native Americans. The colonists began to revolt with the desire for better, less corrupt government.
1. Howard Zinn makes it very clear in the beginning of the novel what his perspective on history is. He believes that “we must not accept the memory of the states as our own” and that his perspective is not presented as the history of a family, but rather from the view of those who were the victims, conquered and the oppressed. Instead of grieving for these victims or denouncing their oppressors, such as Columbus and his relations to the Arawaks, Zinn remains neutral and states that he does not want to romanticize them or take sides.
ReplyDelete2. The need for labor did not arise until tobacco was perfected by John Rolfe, and when the first shipment went to England in 1617, the high profits persuaded the Englishmen to continue growing more and thus buying more slave labor. The Indians were out of the question because they had grown so hostile to the Englishmen’s advances, so they could not force them to work for them. The Powhatan’s wouldn’t have accepted wages to work after years of warfare between them and Jamestown. White servants were also another option for labor, but they had not yet been brought over in a sufficient quantity. The free white settlers of America were little inclined to work the land as well, leaving the last and only option left to black slaves. Black slaves had already been imported as slaves long before slavery was regularized and legalized to the Americas, so it was only natural to assume they would be the source of slave labor. Their helplessness made them easier to enslave as well.
3. As America continued to progress, the colonists grew increasingly agitated as the separation of classes grew unfairly large. Much of their resentment towards the local and state governments was caused not only by economic deprivation or hardship, but by the differences between the rich and the poor as well. The rich received most of the land from proprietors, leaving the poor to become squatters. By moving these poor landowners farther out in Indian territory, they provided a buffer for the rich against their problems with the Indians. Outraged, this led to Bacon’s Rebellion, which was one of the first experiences that caused the colonists to resent their government. Other experiences later on included strikes against the government-controlled fees of wheat, salt and other products. Also when rents were demanded of landowners and when men were drafted for naval service as well.
1. Zinn states that History can be seen in different perspectives. Columbus's expedition to the New World can be seen in different perspectives. In the perspective of the sailors, Columbus was a hero because he discovered the "New World". This increased slave trade and caused settlers to claim land. This brought wealth and prosperity. In the perspective of the Indians, it was mass murder, or genocide. Columbus and his men raided village after village and as a result, there are no more Arawak people and their descendants. People can see history through different perspectives and that is what Zinn is going to use throughout the book: the perspective of the settler and the Indians.
ReplyDelete2. White Plantation owners wanted to choose black slaves because the Native Americans were already defiant toward English settlers. They died quickly due to diseases brought by the English settlers. African-Americans were resistant toward diseases and there were plenty of them living on one continent. African Americans did not know what was going on and they just did the work without asking any questions. The English settlers needed the African-American slaves because they did not have enough people to grow tobacco and other crops. It was better taking African-American slaves because due they are introduced to an unfamiliar environement and the Indians were against the settlers and would not do anything to help since they are already experienced it with other settlers. They made this decision to choose African-Americans because they can make profit. Indians didn't need English settlers because they were fine without them. For example, the Powhatans were a successful tribe of Indians who were in bad relationships with the English settlers. They would have not wanted to work with the the owners because they wanted to take everything from them and the Powhatans wanted to only trade with them.
3. Most colonists felt that this wasn't how they thought it would be. Most colonists were poor and they were cautious due to high attacks by Indians. They were ruled by a corrupt government. For example, Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 was the first sign of rebellion against the government. It chased the governor out of town. The wealth was unevenly distributed and there was a handful of individuals that held about half of the wealth. The poor people decided to beg and there laws passed that begging was illegal. This turned the colonists against the government in the later years.
1. Zinn shares a very interesting perspective on the development of our nation's history. Instead of only regarding the discoveries as solely honorable, he also regards the tragedies that occur during the process of the discovery. He relays his prospective as not only in the memory of our states but also in the memory of the victims taken advantage of during the discovery of our glorious nation. He uses many world history references to back up his opinion of the oppressed victim in the situation of wars, discoveries, and creations of document like the Constitution. Listing an entire paragraph of instances of alternative victims to a discovery solidifies the perspective of Zinn as somewhat valid.
ReplyDelete1. History contains everything that occurred in the past, but because there are victors and losers, the way history is told often is biased and we learn about history in a certain way. Most of the time, history unfolds and passes on as the victors tell the story. For example, Howard Zinn states that he prefers to tell the story about Andrew Jackson from the viewpoint of the Cherokee Indians. Andrew Jackson was hailed as a hero, but in reality killed mass amounts of Cherokees by forcing them out of their homelands and making them walk the Trail of Tears. Though he does seem to side with the victims of the past, he never fails to mention if the victims ever did commit cruel acts, such as the Aztec sacrificing to please the gods. Not only does he state the facts that occurred, but also he allows the facts to sink in to the reader instead of burying the gruesome facts under a pile of facts. Zinn decides to tell the story how it happened instead of how the victors wrote history.
ReplyDelete2. White plantation owners had huge amounts of land, but without anyone to cultivate the land, they could not profit from their lands, and since the white indentured servants “had not yet been brought over in sufficient quantity” there weren’t enough indentured servants to work the land. The settlers couldn’t force the Indians to labor for them either, because the Indians had the home court advantage, defied the settlers if captured, and could escape if enslaved. The Powhatans were a group of Indians who had helped English settlers in Virginia to survive through harsh weathers but when the English start wars with the Powhatans, the Indian’s chief asks why the English wish to fight the Indians who supply the English with food. Since the Powhatan Indians are unselfish and believe in sharing, I don’t think they would work on the plantations for wages because they don’t believe in private property and the superiority of any human beings over others. Because the settlers themselves could not work their own land without profit losses, the English were both forced and decided to utilize the imported Africans as slaves. Black slaves were profitable because unlike the Indians, they had been broken down physiologically and physically during their trip to America. The slaves had been taken away from their families and stashed together with others from different tribes. Furthermore, the slaves also were taught that they were inferior because of the color of their skin.
3. Colonists mainly detested their local or state governments due to economic hardships, but also disliked having to be the buffer zone between the colonists in the east and the Indian territory in the west. When the rich colonists grabbed for land in the east, the poorer colonists had to move to the western front to earn a living. Because the colonists moved west, they also traveled into Indian territory, which caused a clash between the two groups. The colonists wanted the government to interfere and send the Indians west, but the government, composed of the rich, saw no reason to harm their relations with the Indians. Since the government didn’t take any actions, the colonists started to anger that the government would not take action to protect the settlers in the western front.
1. Zinn believes that history is written by the victors and frankly I agree. For example, while learning about the American Revolution the English side of the story is never told. We never learn about the aftermath of the war and how it affected England. Same with countless examples, the Civil War, the world wars, and as said by Zinn even Colombus reaching the Americas and decimating the Native Americans.
ReplyDelete2. The reason why Englishmen chose Africans as a labour source was for a couple reasons, health and money.The reason behind health was that Black slaves were much more resistant to European diseases and wouldn't die out unlike the Native Americans. Also they were only paid for once and then kept till they died unlike Indentured servents. Also the Englishmen were not forced to use slaves to harvest. Since tobacco became a popular product, the Englishmen grew greedy and demanded more workers, more workers mean more output which means more money.And Indians would not have accepted money in return for their labor because little round pieces of metal ment nothing to them in their culture.
3. One of the biggest reasons the colonists resented the government was because of how the government treated the colonists.They imposed unfair laws and taxes and granted unobtaniable land. These acts were exactly what the colonists were trying to escape from in Englad.
The color line is a controversial topic even today. A beginning of the issue was the absolute desperations to feed America's brand new colonies. For example in the newest American colony, Jamestown, settlers struggle feeding the small colony to begin with. The ration was one ladle of barley per person and with populations on the rise in the new world, the ration shrunk even more. The pristine englishmen were in desperation and saw people of color as barbarians, in effect the answer seemed obvious. With little labor force and crops necessity on the rise, englishmen looked toward the "barbarians" as the solution. In the beginning I believe the choice was necessary to survive, however the constant obsession that arose from the utilization of the slaves, created a monster-racism. The cruelties slaves endured unfortunately lasted for decades to come, including the slave trade which increased demand of slave tenfold. Powhatans would not work on land for money due to their sharing nature of the land, whit supremacy was not their idea of sharing, Regardless of their opinion, the new colonists were not interested in the affairs of the Powhatan and mire concerned with the well being of their own family, striking at the American dream.
ReplyDelete3. Besides the pressures of the new economy, the power used against common colonists wore the patience of the common man. Rich and powerful aristocrats used their power to push the common colonists into indian territory. This became known as Bacon's Rebellion and occurred on numerous occasions. Rebel forces were crushed under the fire power of Tomas Grantham but tensions were never 100% lifted but rather simmered and would once boil again.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Zinn takes a different approach then is accustomed in his telling of history. He believes that history is written by the victor, therefore producing many different perspectives and viewpoints. In the production of his novel "A People's History of the United States" he presents different points of views, those of the "losers." History that he writes of is not what is commonly read in typical American textbooks. By writing from a different viewpoint, he reverses the victors/losers and heroes/villains.
ReplyDelete1. Zinn states that history is always written from the side of the victor, or as he says the "executioner". Some may say this makes history biased, however in my opinion human is biased,so a unbiased history is unavailable. If the indians who columbus first discovered had written their own history it may just consist of a story of the gods who came from the horizon and then turned on the natives and killed/enslaved them all. That story, however true, would still contain bias, false beliefs (in some people's eyes), and never be taken seriously (excluding the few believers). Zinn percieves history in his book as something that has been sculpted by the oppresors and executioners of the world, and he is now going to " be skeptical of governments, and their attempts, through politics and culture, to ensnare ordinary people in a giant web of nationhood pretending to be a common interest" (Zinn 10)
ReplyDelete2. Historical forces which caused white plantation owners to choose black slaves as their labor source come down to three main points. First, Blacks were strong workers, easily available and inexpensive, it was a one time payment and you owned a slave for a lifetime. Next, Blacks were very unlikely to contract diseases that indians were suseptible to in north america. Finally, there just wasnt enough of a white labor force and there was a need for more workers. The decision was completely motivated by plantation owners want for more money. Black labor was cheap one time payment and very productive, kind of like new machinery in a modern factory. powahatans would not have accepted money, because it had no value to them.
3. Reasons in which colonists may have resent their local or state governments was unfair taxes in which were opposed on them, unfair laws which were enforced in the colonies, and the constant pressure for colonists to move west into Indian territory, and then receiving no protection from Indian attacks. These were an added stress to economic deprivation and hardship which in turn made colonists resent their local and state goevernments
1. Howard Zinn's main argument against the most popular perspective on the writing of history, is that it is incomplete and heavily one-sided. He presents the best example of the incomplete nature of history with Christopher Columbus. Described from the white explorer's point of view, Columbus's "discovery" was a heroic discovery of a whole new continent, an advancement in agriculture, and an economic boom. But told from the minority's side, the Native American's point of view, Columbus intruded on sacred lands, massacred a people, and corrupted a culture. In order to maintain a proper understanding of history, Zinn believes we must learn from all sides, the winners and the losers.
ReplyDelete2. The two most important forces that led white plantation owners to choose black slaves as a labor source were greed and a lack of cheaper choices. White plantation owners thrived on selling their crops to exporters. With hundreds of acres of farmland to maintain, these men looked for a cheap labor source that allowed them to maximize their profits. They first looked to the Native Americans, holding them captive as slaves. But these workers were very difficult to subdue as they escaped, rebelled, and/or quickly died of disease. Native Americans were not proving to be lasting sources of labor, so the plantation owners looked to white indentured servants from Europe. Once word got around Europe that there was work available in the New World, many living in poverty jumped at the chance to start a new life. But indentured servants proved costly, feeding, housing, and paying hundreds of workers was a feat too difficult for the greedy plantation owners, who quickly abandoned this method once their next option came along. The black slaves, fresh from Africa. These humans were taken from their homeland, already belittled by their captors and made to feel less than their white peers, these people would make excellent workers. Black slaves were less likely to fall sick from the white man's disease and quite inexpensive. As man had no better choice than the enslavement of another race, no other choice that fit so nicely in his pocket, saving him hundreds of dollars, he threw ethics in the backseat and chose black slaves.
3. Colonists came to resent their local or state governments, because of its members. Government during the colonial period, consisted of only rich aristocrats or plantation owners who passed laws and taxes to benefit only the upper class, making the upper class richer and the lower class poorer. But not only were laws and taxes passed, the less fortunate colonist was shoved and prodded onto the outskirts of the towns, forced to live in constant fear of an Indian attack.
1) Zinn's perspective on the history is not to glorify anything. In my mind he is strictly here to tell facts, but also to give his input on why he thinks the way he does. Zinn will tell the truth it seems. He wont just boast about someone for example Columbus he never thought how Columbus helped us he showed what Columbus really did and how it affected the world. Another example is when talks about how the English came over to the new world. He shares with us how we just took the native Americans land and tried to enforce our laws over them. Zinn writes in the perspective of the Indians because there story is usually not told its almost always told from the European point of view. Zinn is trying to show how the other poeple we invaded felt and show there point of view.
ReplyDelete2) Forces that helped plantation owners to choose black labors as their slave force was based on how well they can control them. Plantation owners did not like Native Americans because they were to hard to control and could run away easily. Blacks on the other hand were easier to break and easier to control. It was on the plantations own accord to use the black labors to make profit. I can only see how it was their choice and I do not believe that poeple made them use blacks, Native Americans or anybody else. If the plantation owners tried to make the native Americans work for wages or even work for them I do not think they would have done it. The Powhatan's would have done it out of the kindness of their heart but since they forced themselves on the Powhatan's it meant that they would revolt against them every single time.
3) Local hardships and deprivation were caused not only buy lack of money but also chronic Indian attacks. This caused the colonist to resent their government mostly because they would not help the lower class protect them self. In the end this would cause revolts for example Bacon's rebellion where free black and whites and slaves banded together to revolt against the government for not helping against the Indians.
1) Winston Churchill, a famous orator and politician once said, “history is written by the victor”, which is absolutely true. How much do we know of the Arawaks’ fear when their entire life was mutilated, burned and all together destroyed? Far less than the victorious feelings of the conquerors’. All we know is that it was “necessary”. Howard Zinn’s perspective allows us to see past the “necessary” genocides- it allows us to examine history from the eyes of the conquered.
ReplyDeleteIn his opening chapter, Zinn explains his need to tell “the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks” and all the other stories of the suppressed and defeated so that we won’t make the same mistakes as we did in the past. He believes that it is not enough to simply look back at the fire of destruction that the new-comers bestowed upon the Natives- we must also dig into the ashes that were the byproduct of our “necessary” fire, and actually understand the destruction we have caused and learn to live by the Natives’ ways of peace and friendship.
Zinn’s perspective is that of the loser.
2) The white plantation owners decided to use Africans for their main source of labor for three reasons, which were based on economic, social, and location factors. The first factor caused the owners to use Africans was because it was a cheap source of labor. The African slaves didn’t have to be paid like the indentured servants, and the slaves didn’t have a “retirement” plan so to speak. The plantation owners could keep them as long as they wanted, unlike the servants. The slaves were also a more fiscally savvy move than servants, since the plantation owners could buy more for less. The slaves also had their “economic benefits” due to the facts that once bought, they were property- and once you had a male and female, the owners could have as much as they wanted. And for all the slaves the owners had to pay very little, in fact James Madison told a British visitor that “he could make $257 on every N----- in a year, and spend only $12 or $13 on his keep”. Another important factor was the social aspect of African slave. But not socially for the whites- but for the African slaves themselves. One of the most beneficial reasons for having Africans for slaves was the fact that they didn’t know anybody. Before the Middle Passage, future slaves were separated from members of their tribes in order circumvent any rebellions. And for the most part, it worked, it also worked for the plantation owners as well, because those mixed slaves were mixed even more. The third reason why African slaves were “better” than Native slaves was because the Africans were just the opposite of the Native- they weren’t. They weren’t familiar with the lay-out of the expansive wilderness, they didn’t know which streams led where. Which made them the perfect captives, they were captives with no means of escape.
The decision of the Englishmen was both based on profit and on the fact that they were forced to use blacks as a source of labor. The African slaves were a profitable choice, but there weren’t many labor sources to choose from. Unlike Colombus, the Virginians couldn’t attack the Powhatans and other Indians because there were just too many of them. Zinn also states that “they were outnumbered, and while, with superior firearms, they could massacre Indians, they would face massacre in return”. Another reason why the Africans were the “only” choice was because the natives knew the land like the backs of their hands. They could easily slip away in the dead of night with their tribes and never be seen again by the “owners”.
The Powhatans would not have accepted wages to labor in the fields, because they didn’t need to. All of their basic necessities came from nature. Furthermore, money was not a source of currency in the Indian tribes, all they needed to do was trade for goods. Also, the Powhatans wouldn’t have succumbed to that kind of degrading work; they were a powerful people and didn’t need Englishmen telling them what to do in order to be civilized.
3) There are few reasons that caused the colonists to resent their government, the most obvious being economic hardships, and one a little more “behind-the-scenes”. This reason was brought to attention by Bacon’s Rebellion.
ReplyDeleteThe reasons for all the resentment were due to the Virginian aristocrats and their refusal to act on the constant flow of Indian attacks. The first wrong-doing was when the southern aristocrats forced the small farm owners west, into densely populated Indian Territory. Then more resentment was caused when the government “seemed indecisive in fighting the Indians”. Although Bacon’s Rebellion was largely based on economic hardships, it also based on the colony’s government’s refusal to protect the colonists. So another reason for mutiny is a lack of “protection”.
2. White plantation owners chose African Americans to be their slaves because in their eyes, it was the most profitable and logical decision. They wanted to get the most out of their money, and at the time, the African Americans offered that. Their resistance to disease and strong work ethic made them better choices then the Native Americans and their "insuperiority" and mass numbers made them better choices then the indentured servants. The plantation owners wanted to make a profit off of these slaves because the slaves had no rights so they could not defend themselves and the owners were desperate to be successful in the new land. The Powhatans would not have accepted wages to work for plantation owners mostly because they were content in their lives and did not believe they needed more money to be happier.
ReplyDelete3.There are many reasons that the colonists resented their state or local governments, most prominent of which may have been because the governments were not providing what they promised. Governments failed to protect the colonists in the new, strange land they were attempting to survive in. Fear turned into anger toward governments. The question of government corruption also crossed the minds of many colonists as they watched their leaders care less and less about those who they were supposed to be governing.
!) Often in history books, we read of the facts of war—who attacked, when they attacked, who was defeated—but history books tend to overlook the details. The livelihood of the people and places are maybe given one sentence. But in Zinn’s account of the history of the United States, we are taken straight into the lives of the Native Americans and given their perspective of Columbus’s ship. Zinn also portrays Columbus as not the great figure we’ve learned about before, but a greedy man who has an “exaggerated report” and longs for nothing but what he sailed here for—gold. Zinn obviously is not on the side of the successful Spaniards, but the helpless Natives who history books have often overlooked.
ReplyDelete2) White plantation owners needed slaves to work their fields so that their crops would grow successfully and so that the colonists wouldn’t have to get their hands dirty. Africans had the proper knowledge of growing rice, so they were the primary choice to farm. Triangular trade provided for the export of slaves from West Africa to America in the late sixteenth century. These is no question the colonists did this for profit, especially with their big money-maker, tobacco, but the colonists did feel pressure from certain companies to make that profit. The Powhatans would not have accepted wages from the colonists to man the farms because the Native Americans were not interested in money, but rather trade goods, like tools and furs.
3) Colonists resented their governments because their governments refused to retaliate against the Indians when they attacked the colonists. This led to Bacon;s Rebellion, which was the fighting back of Nathaniel Bacon against the Virginia Governor William Berkeley. Berkeley refused to punish the Indians after they attacked the colonists, fearing they would fight back, so Bacon and an army of farmers chased Berkeley out of the state and fought back at the Indians themselves.
1. History is written by the victor. This cliché describes Zinn’s perspective on the writing of history—whoever wins the battle, writes down the score. At the end of his first chapter, “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress”, Zinn states, “it is enough to make us question…the telling of history from the standpoint of the conquerors and leaders of Western Civilization.” Zinn tries to capture this ideal in his writing because it is essential to fully understanding the events of history. He often refers to sources that are sympathetic to what happened to the “losers” and the complete story, such as Bartolomé de las Casas, who had the chief source of information as to what happened to the Indians after Columbus. What Las Casas offers is horrifically true—probably the reason Zinn decided to include him in his novel.
ReplyDeleteZinn even simply declares, “I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks…” This statement—and countless others made in the first few pages of his novel—make Zinn out to be a magnificently un-bias historian.
2. Zinn states in his third chapter that “the Indians were tough, resourceful, defiant, and at home in these woods…” This was the main difference between trying to keep Indian slaves and black slaves from Africa. Black slaves were torn away from their homeland, their culture, and their families; even if they wanted to, they could not start a rebellion and trudge on home, they were in foreign territory. The Indians, on the other hand, could counterattack, they could go home—unlike the Africans—and there were great numbers of them. Of course, the Europeans had better weapons, but the Indians could cause great damage back.
Zinn later says, “it was because they came from a settled culture, of tribal customs and family ties, of communal life and traditional ritual, that African blacks found themselves especially helpless when removed from this.” Zinn also goes on to show that the Africans spoke different languages, which wouldn’t help when an escaped slave runs to the Indians and needs to know how to grow corn in a strange land. The Africans unique culture is ultimately a part of what made them susceptible to slavery.
Other factors that made African blacks more “ideal” slaves were their immunity to European diseases. Indians would die off quickly from transferred bacteria, but the Africans—being from the eastern half of the world—did not acquire these diseases as easily. Also, because of their skin color, whites saw the blacks as inferior. Zinn states, “The slaves were taught…to see blackness as a sign of subordination…” The slavery that the white Europeans forces on the African blacks was not only physical, it was psychological as well.
3. The colonists came to America because they wanted to turn their life around. When they arrived in America, and found most of the young white men to be poor, they were angry. And what’s worse is that the government wouldn’t listen to them. Because of the distance from the motherland, the government chose to put the colonists under harsher conditions. Because of the lack of colonists, they were never able to show a successful rebellion. Most of the population in the first colonies were slaves, and even those slaves were brought under great discipline from rebelling. Harsh conditions from masters to servants were also a great problem. Zinn discusses the harsh discipline of the servant, “Servants could not marry without permission, could be separated from their families, could be whipped for various offenses.” Most of the problems for the colonists stemmed from a corrupt and immature government.
1. Howard Zinn has decided to write history from the view of the bystanders. At first I thought, "Why would Zinn spend so much time looking for a less-available, difficult to find sources?" Two thoughts came to mind. Number one, he's got a lot of free time and lots of experience doing this; number two, history written by the opressed and opressor is always biased. Bystanders in most cases, are more prone to tell the truth and notice details that are overlooked by the belligerents. Combined with the effect of time and the ability of hindsight, Zinn is able to see both side of history.
ReplyDelete2. White plantation owners choose black slaves because of availibility and because of laziness. The plantation owners were not ones to do physical labor. To make a profit and survive in an environment weeks away from supplies, they needed laborers for the fields. Native Americans from the surrounding areas were not the best workers. Africans were hardier, and because of their distance away from country and comrades, they were not able to run away to a favorable location. To answer the last question, Powhatans would not have accepted wages to work the fields. Money was worthless to them since everything was shared within their communities.
3. Colonists resenting their governments without reasons relating to temporary hardship and economic situations are probably caused by corruption, war and taxation. As written by Zinn, Virginian governor Berkeley put friends in office. Since people protested when President Andrew Jackson did the same thing, i'm sure colonists felt the same way as well. Colonists were also angry with war; albeit the lack of war. Colonists wanted to fight with the local Native American population. Anything less than total war angered people. War requires money and to make money, taxes are raised. Combined with a bad harvest, taxes probably wasn't the best thing to put in the blender.
1. In this book, Zinn sets out to rewrite American history in an honest fashion. He states that history is written by the winners, which is entirely true. When I lived in England as a child, we learned mostly about medieval times, a time period in which we were a very successful nation. I was unaware of the Revolutionary War until I moved to America, something that is taught to the American youth at a very young age. Instead of showing Andrew Jackson as a heroic figure, Zinn gives equal attention to the Native Americans whose lives he ruined.
ReplyDelete2. Early plantation owners did not begin America's infamous streak of slavery with Africans, but rather they attempted to enslave the local Native Americans in order to work the fields. There were a couple things that made Africans more suited for the job (if you could call it that) however. The most obvious one was the Native Americans' lack of resistance to colonial disease. Sicknesses such as smallpox were not known in the new world before the colonists, whereas Africa had been dealing with such diseases for a long time. Another advantage Africans had was their previous experience growing cash crops such as rice. Having laborers with experience helped increase productivity growing tobacco. As such, the plantation owners purchased African slaves to increase profits. Due to the Powhatan culture, money was completely worthless to them, so they would not work for money, and they already owned the land, so they wouldn't work for land either.
3. The colonies experienced hardship from the beginning, as the issues of adapting to a new environment took their toll. Combine this with the control England asserted over these people who considered themselves free, along with corrupt local governments, and you have a restless and rebellious population. Perhaps the best example of governmental failure at the local level was Bacon's Rebellion, in which angry colonists who were forced further into the aggravated Indians' territory rebelled against their governor, overthrowing the local government and taking leadership into their own hands.
1. Zinn's perspective on the writing of history, is that it is commonly told in the perspective of the victor. He believes that because history is told in the perspective of the victor, many significant or small events are not included. For example, when we hear the name Christopher Columbus, we immediately think of how he discovered new land, and of his many wondrous adventures. What we do not think of is how he killed thousands of Native American in the process.
ReplyDelete2. White plantation owners chose black slaves over Native Americans or white slaves for many reasons. The Native Americans were accustomed to the land, because they had lived there for many years. They had pride, for they could survive with plenty of food, and other necessities. If taken as slaves, they would cause fights to break out. While Native Americans would create havoc, black slaves would be helpless to the new surrounding, and culture. Englishmen were not forced to have slaves, or grow more crops, they did these things for profit, and self gain. The Powhatan’s would not have accepted wages to work in the fields of plantation owner because they had no reason to make wages, for they were already successful as a tribe.
3. Other than the hardships, and economic deprivation, things such as the difference in upper and lower class between colonists, and numerous fights breaking out between the Indians and the colonists may have caused colonists to resent their local or state governments. As the lower class moved west, seeking land, they encountered the Indians living there. Due to no cooperation between the Indians and the colonists, fights broke out.
1. In the book, "A People's History", Zinn states there are many different types of perspective to each story that is being told. For example, Zinn mentions a book by Henry Kissinger that tells a viewpoint on the leaders of Austria England. What he didn't mention was the millions of innocent people who suffered the statesmen's policies. This shows we, as the readers, only get a understanding from one viewer on the story, without getting the know other people or things that were also involved or affected. Zinn also mentions the story about Columbus. As children we saw Christopher Columbus as a heroic man, however we never saw how Columbus treated the Arawaks and sold them to slavery. Overall, Zinn is stating as readers, there are many viewpoints we can see in a story. There is not only one.
ReplyDeleteZinn stated white settlers needed labor to grow food for them in order to survive. The settlers needed slaves that would be able to grow corn and tobacco for export. Their first thought was using Indians as a source of labor. However, they knew if they massacre the Indians, they would massacre back. Therefore, they chose black slaves. Black slaves were much easier to use as a source for labor than the Indians becuase they did not own land. It was a decision to make a profit becuase on pg 29 Zinn stated "one of every three blacks trasported overseas died, but the huge profits made it worthwhile for the slave trader..." This sentence shows the settlers only wanted to blacks in order to make profit on crops. No, I believe Powahatan would not accept wages to labor because he asks "why the white men destory them when they provide them with food." Powhatan would not let the white men treat his people in such a disgusting manner.
ReplyDelete3. Besided economic deprivation or hardship, colonists might have resented their local government due to the fact many Whites encountered with Indians. In Bacon's Rebellion the whites went west in order to find land because they had been ignored when the lands around Jamestown were given away. This made it look as if the Whites were going to fight the Indians. The Governor William Berkeley didn't want to fight with the Indians, so Bacon and his men fought the Indians themselves.
ReplyDelete1. Zinn describes the writing of history as being bias on only the victor's side of the story. Glorifying the victor and not really looking at all the fine details such as Columbus’s massacre of the Indians. They are termed necessary sacrifices for the greater cause, and in turn are overlooked. Zinn tries to write history from the views of bystanders and not the victor, so as not to have a bias view point and to tell the utmost truth about what really happened.
ReplyDelete2. The historical forces that caused white plantation owners to choose black slaves instead of other races is mainly their durability and were easily obtained. At that time black slaves didn’t catch diseases as easily as to others so they were more liable to work longer than a native American indians who were killed by small pox and other kinds of diseases easily, and at the time their immune systems were prone to newly introduced European diseases. There was also an abundance of African in remote villages that they could easily swipe off, and since they didn’t have any long term settlements in Africa, they wouldn’t have a risk of being attacked as they were in the Americas, where the native americans outnumbered the settlers. Regional kings in Africa, would catch black people and sell them off as slaves to make profits. As quoted in the book, they could make over $200 a year off 1 black slave, when they only had to invest a few dollars in them. As mentioned, they could make large profits for small investments, the Englishmen were not forced to do it but were willing to do it for the potential profits they could obtain. Personally I don’t know if the Powhatans would have accepted wages to labor in the fields of plantation owners, but if I would have to guess I would say they would have said no. It was their land in the first place, and they knew it. They were just kind enough to share it with the new colonists, and the only thing keeping them from massacreing these colonists is a treaty. If someone stole my plant and told me to water it for a small profit, while they make the most profit, I would have set fire to the plant.
3. Besides economic deprivation or hardship that might have caused colonists to resent their local government is home security against native American attacks, or the views of govenors which may have caused the colonists to feel more independent and not totally attached to their government. Such as Governor Berkeley who favored the native americans as friends, and didn’t provide sufficient protection against their attacks. He wanted to keep a friendly relationship with the native americans, but in turn resulted in government instability when colonists protested to his sympathetic views.
1. Zinn's perspective on the writing of history is that it is told from the view point of the conquerors and not the conquered. He wants to expose all sides of the events, to avoid bias and convey truthful information. Zinn speaks of another author, Samuel Eliot Morison, who Zinn says “mentions the truth quickly and goes on to other things more important to him.” He believes that the author cannot steer clear of stressing some facts more than others, but he believes historians to often distort history, or at least their writing about it, to fit their own ideologies.
ReplyDelete2. White plantation owners chose black slaves as their labor source, because of a few reasons. The first push towards slave labor was the hunger. They couldn’t work the land like the Native Americans could, plus the crops they wanted to grow for subsistence and profit, corn and tobacco, needed a large labor force. The issue with using Native American slaves was that they were extremely susceptible to the new diseases brought over by the English settlers. Also they would fight and escape. This was the Native Americans home turf so they had the advantage. There weren’t enough indentured servants to work properly, they cost too much to be fed and treated decently, and they only had to work for a few years to gain their freedom. Africa slaves however were very different from both of these. They had stronger resistance to the European diseases, they had nowhere to run to because they were in a strange land and culture, there time of work never expired, and because of the racism against black they didn’t need to be treated with humanity. They hunger was a strong push for slavery, but they weren’t forced to resort to slavery. The plantation owners wanted to not have to pay the workers and gain more wealth for themselves. The Powhatans would not have accepted wages to labor in the fields of the plantation owners. They had an extremely successful farming system of their own and a separate culture that didn’t have wages for their work.
3. Besides economic deprivation and hardship colonists resented their local and state governments because of their corruption and bias towards helping aristocrats. In Virginia the frontiersmen, who had been pushed west by the aristocratic government into Native American territory, were angry at the government for using them as a buffer zone to keep peaceful relations with the Native Americans while the frontiersmen were fighting with them. Even when the government acknowledged their suffering from the conflicts with the Native Americans the government didn’t declared total war on them, but instead exempt the Native Americans who cooperated. The colonists felt unrepresented under this aristocratic ruling.
1.) Howard Zinn definitely takes a different approach to history. Instead of writing from the widely common--and almost always favorable--victor's point of view, he exposes the cruel side of the "hero" and what consequences others had to bear because of the hero's accomplishments.
ReplyDelete2.) The settlers desperately needed a work force, and because they were unable to force the Indians to work for them, and white servants had not been brought over in sufficient quantity--black slaves were their best option. Although this decision allowed them to make a profit, the settlers were somewhat forced to make it simply due to lack of resources.
3.) Colonists resented their governments for several reasons; oppression was one of them. The colonists desired freedom from England, independence, but also wanted protection from outside threats like the Indians. The fact that the government did not want fight off the Indians angered the frontierspeople; they were unable to declare war because of high taxes, and they had no help from the aristocratic leaders. This created a clash between the government and the governed—thus causing the colonists’ resentment.