"Foreigners in Their Own Land" (Takaki Chp. 7)

1.) The Mexicans were in the U.S. first (i.e. California) where they were continually being invaded by illegal American immigrants. The Americans thought it was their "manifest destiny" to conquer all of America and expand westward into the land that rightfully belonged to the Mexicans, forcing them out of their homeland.

2.) The significance of the title of this chapter is that the Mexicans gradually became native to their homeland in America due to the Americans forcing them out and overpowering them. As Takaki states on page 177, "Suddenly, they were 'thrown among those who were strangers to their language, customs, laws, and habits."

3.) The Mexicans, before becoming overpowered by the Americans, were made of classes based on whether they were of "pure Spanish blood" (the upper class) follwed by the laboring class, going down the class system by shades of skin, with the darkest on the bottom (mainly Indians). Once Americans took over, it was still based on skin color and race but anyone not American was lower than the Americans. They were treated unfairly and looked at as unequal.

4.) The Mexians resisted discrimination and racialization by "creating a community of the dispossessed" and fighting for the rights that they believe they were entitled. THey went on many strikes to defy the racism that Americans presented in jobs, land, taxes, etc. One example of such is in 1903 when the Clifton-Morenci mines were strucky by some "3,500 miners, 80 percent of them Mexican. The strikers demanded an eight-hour day, free hospitalization, paid life insurance, fair prices at the company stores, and the abolition of the dual wage system."

5.)One example in the chapter of race is when Mexican diplomat Manuel Crescion Rejon states that "Our race, our unfortunate people will have to wander in seach of hospitality in a strange land, only to be rejected later." An example of ethnicity is how the Mexicans gained a sense of pride in their ethnic background of being Mexican and united because of this, resisting the American power. THe difference between the two as they are discussed here is that race pertains more to the color of one's skin and how they are treated because of this characteristic, while ethnicity had more to do with one's ethnic background and where they are from (as well as the customs associated with this aspect).

Frank Wu Quotation

A time when I have felt pointed out as Frank Wu explains is when I went to a African American friend's home when I was in high school. It was her birthday party for her family and she invited me to come. However, I was the only white girl there, and I felt very uncomfortable. I don't know if they actually had something wrong with white people or not, but it was as if I was being stared at the whole time. I'd like to think it was just because I am of a different race and not that I did something wrong or they had something against me. When I asked my friend about it, she explained to me that they just aren't used to having close white friends as I was to her, and were almost intrigued by it. This related to what Wu is saying in that he was being either stared at or looked through, not just a normal part of society.

Comic Book Covers

The reason that these comic book covers are so important is because of the fact that they are created under prejudiced circumstances, making the Japanese look like horrible, savage people out to kill all Americans, both women and children.

The comic book cover I chose to analyze and relate to the class is one of The Fighting Yank series of comic books. This cover involves a few Japanese men attacking Americans and particularly holding the children hostage. The children are all tied up and look scared to death as the Japanese surround them with guns and knives and threaten to kill them. One Japanese soldier is even about to put snakes into the pit that holds the children. However, the “Fighting Yank” comes to the rescue and strangles one of the Japanese soldiers and then saves the children. This is depicting that America defeated the Japanese and that they were stronger than the Japanese army. The fighting yank represents America as a whole, not just a single fighter. The author uses him to represent the fact that America is much stronger and can force the Japanese out of the country and stop them from their horrible acts of killing women and children. The author also depicts the Japanese to be a savage and extremely ugly kind of people with evil looks on their faces to show that they are out to kill.

This image can be related to class material in many ways. First, it is depicting the Japanese as many often depicted the Irish, Native Americans, and African Americans. They are shown to be savage and barbaric as the Indians were in “The Tempest.” Also in relation to the “The Tempest,” the Japanese are shown to kill women and children and so awful as to torture them in unthinkable ways, just as the Native Americans supposedly did in the past. This comic book cover can also be related to another article we read for class, “Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination” in a different way, that shows how whites made this social category to separate them from other races, such as the Japanese. They developed the idea of whiteness and a sense of being higher in status than those of other races (like the Japanese) to justify the oppression of these groups. Like explained in Takaki’s “Pacific Crossings,” the Japanese were a strong group of people that fought for their rights and good pay, and were therefore put under more control by the whites, which lead to even more racism and oppression brought on by fear of them becoming too powerful.

I do not agree with how the Japanese were depicted in this comic book cover. While American was and still is a strong nation, I don’t think it was their idea to just kill off all of the Japanese because of the thought that they were barbaric and an evil kind. The Japanese are depicted to look ugly and cruel, which is the opposite of their beauty and good intentions. While there are some aspects of the Japanese that one may not fully agree with, it is not right to depict them in such a horrible way as to show that they kill children and women for no reason. This is just another example of the racist thought of many whites at a time of oppression of other racial groups and their belief that they were on top.

"Pacific Crossings"

Takaki’s "Pacific Crossings" explains the movement of the Japanese to America and how it was different from that of the Chinese and other immigrants.

The writing explains how the Japanese movement into America especially between the years of 1885 and 1924 was increasingly common and a major dream of many still in Japan. They could make much more money in the U.S., even up to as much as their own governors made. As most immigrants were initially men, more women began to emigrate to America, as Japan wanted to uphold their national honor and avoid any occurrences of prostitution, gambling, or drunkenness in America (like that of the Chinese) to their best effort. In addition, the receiving countries also played a role in the number of women that were allowed to come into America, especially for means of working alongside their husbands to improve production as well as to be helpful in the labor field. The employers in America who did take these immigrants of both sexes were “systematically developing an ethnically diverse labor force in order to create divisions among their workers and reinforce management control” and avoid any action of strikes or upheaval. Over a period of time there were a large variety of different nationalities involved in the labor force in order to “straighten out the Japs” and ensure that they would be on good behavior, as well as not complain about wages or treatment. Despite the belief that the Japanese were compliant and just kept quiet, they had their share of revolt and protest to the harsh conditions that their employers bestowed on them.

One part of this reading that I do not understand is why the employers of these various nationalities found it necessary to cause problems between the foreigners in the first place. If they were doing their work and producing enough to meet their needs plus some, then why was there a need for tantalizing the Japanese workers and turning other nationalities against them. If anything, one would think that this would spite the workers to work at a less productive pace and maybe even move back to Japan. I believe that there could be other means of pursuing cooperation than violence and attempts to avoid any nationalities forming a bond. This was clearly to show their sense of power, which is admitted in “Pacific Crossings,” that, “To strengthen their authority over their ethnically diverse work force, planters stratified occupations according to race.”

I like this article in that normally one doesn’t really hear a lot about Japanese expansion into the U.S. and how this became such a powerful movement. I was not aware of the oppression the Japanese received soon after they were considered a threat to the employers and whites. I find it hard to believe that they were not allowed to form bonds with other nationalities or have any sense of control over their work or production. I also find it interesting how women of Japanese origin were encouraged to come to America, as one would think that, if anything, they would be discouraged.

"How Jews Became White Folks"

The thesis of “How Jews Became White Folks,” is the question of whether Jews became white because they became middle-class (by money), or did being incorporated into an expanded version of whiteness make them more able to be of middle-class status?

The author of this article, Karen Brodkin, explains how she grew up as a Jewish girl and went through many changes of status, like her parents have to even a greater extent. Jews were looked at as part of the Euro-ethnic group and were looked down upon until they slowly established themselves as a middle class. It is common for Jews to find a sense of pride in this feat as they became more successful and a smart group of people. She explains that, “Instead of dirty and dangerous races that would destroy American democracy, immigrants became ethnic groups whose children had successfully assimilated into the mainstream and risen to the middle class.” It wasn’t until after World War II that anti-Semitism began to be pushed aside and the “old white and the newly white masses became middle class.” It was also urban renewal that was the other side of the process by which Jewish and other working-class Euro-immigrants became middle class, as they were more able to live in these areas than those of African-American descent who were still being oppressed.

I agree with Brodkin when she argues that not only did the Jewish people “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps,” but they also became of a higher standard because of the federal governments never-ending attempt to oppress African Americans. Since the Jews were white, they slowly became accepted, or at least of a higher class than those who were black. Unlike blacks, Jews could attend college at an easier expense, get the training they needed to hold good jobs, and move into houses in suburban areas that were forbidden to African Americans. Therefore, not only did the determination of the Jews to become middle class get them to that point, but also the help of the government in their attempt to oppress blacks.

I thought this was a commendable article in that it offered a different standpoint on racism and oppression. The author explained how growing up as a Jewish girl affected the person she is and the changes that it made to her everyday life. Instead of explaining the oppressed ways that Jewish people lived throughout the whole piece, she explained how the Jews grew from what they once were perceived as and used their knowledge and well-being to rise to middle class standards, as well as the help of the government. It was a story of success instead of defeat and how, despite the improvements, “Racial inequality seems to maintain itself ‘naturally,’ even after legal segregation ended.”

Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom

In “Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom,” Zinn’s thesis is that the only way that slavery would be abolished in the Americas is if it was done under conditions controlled by whites, if it could even be done at all.

This article is about how despite the many attempts to break from slavery, it still remained persistent for many years in America. Zinn explains how most slaves that wanted to escape would do so by running away, while others did so by revolting. He talks of a few famous revolts by slaves, including those involving Nat Turner, John Brown, and the Underground Railroad of Harriet Tubman. Although there were not many instances, at one point poor whites were trying to help free slaves by running away, which was then stopped when they were paid to watch over slaves (a tactic to for these whites to produce buffers for black hatred). In addition religion was used for control of these slaves by plantation owners. Zinn explains these instances of slavery and attempts to abandon it to show how none of them really worked, not even very well by those up North including many abolitionists. The main reason for the failure of so many revolts and plans to end slavery is because the national government would not allow there to be an end to such a practice. The national government encouraged slavery and reinforced it, and would only really end it under conditions controlled by the whites, until the actions of Abraham Lincoln. Zinn explains how “Lincoln could skillfully blend the interests of the very rich and the interests of the black at a moment in history when these interests met” and how he could “Argue with lucidity and passion against slavery on moral grounds, while acting cautiously in practical politics.” However, at first Lincoln merely opposed slavery, but did not see blacks as equals. Zinn explains how it was not until,” The war grew more bitter, the casualties mounted, desperation to win heightened, and the criticism of the abolitionists threatened to unravel the tattered coalition behind Lincoln that he began to act against slavery.”


Zinn has a good point when he explains that the government would not abolish slavery or to anything to end it for that matter unless it was under the terms and conditions that they created. Clearly this was a dispute over power that the white government did not want to give up or lessen their hold on whatsoever. It took the intellectual thinking of Lincoln to start the long process, by starting out slow and gradually strengthening his argument opposing the practice of slavery and treatment of blacks period. For prior to Lincoln, even those abolitionists in the free North were often punished for standing up for their beliefs of ending slavery and attempting to help those slaves who were still being oppressed. Instead of whites looking upon what was just and humane, they chose to practice slavery to merely keep the power that they were “destined” to have.

I like this article because it gives detail of the many attempts of slaves as well as abolitionists to end slavery and how they ended up failing due to the rule of the white government. Zinn explains why whites were reluctant to compromise anything on the basis of slavery and why they refused to just end the practice. It explains how greed and wealth overpowered the rights of a human being, from the torture of blacks to the many laws passed to further oppress them. While racism may never end, hopefully it continues to gradually disappear one step at a time, as it has from the past beginning at the very roots of slavery.

The "Giddy Multitude"

In the Takaki reading, The “Giddy Multitude,” the author’s thesis is that blacks and whites were once both able to be slaves and often joined together as one force to fight against such a practice.

This piece of writing explains how the Tempest’s Caliban was reconsidered to be a black man instead of a Native American. He was dark in complexion, brutish, belonged to a vile race, and a beast…just as Africans were described at the time. He was also known as a slave and a monster, and appeared at a time when there began to be associations between apes and Africans. However, although many people are unaware, white people were also considered servants when slavery was first introduced in the Americas. This equal treatment of slaves did not last long and soon white servants were not treated as harshly as those that were black. If they would runaway, their punishment would not be as severe as that of a black servant that did the same. Those Africans that did runaway often received punishment of being named a slave for life, having to labor for the rest of their natural life. Whites, on the other hand, were merely sentenced to one more year of enslavement or some punishment of the sort. Many unhappy white and black slaves, as well as those who were unsatisfied with the open promises of the New World, ended up joining together, known as the ‘giddy multitude,’ that ended up even organizing a revolt against such treatment. While blacks were punished for the revolt, whites ended up being excused from this treatment. After this unsuccessful rebellion, organized by landowner Nathaniel Bacon, slavery took a turn for the worse.

One question I have about the piece is why how those like Thomas Jefferson could be so hypocritical in what their motives were. He was a slave-owner himself and continued to profit off his land and production. However, he also admitted to wanting to abolish slavery sometime in his life, promising that as soon as his debts were paid off (by way of the work of slaves), he would work on freeing his slaves and returning to a sense of justice for everyone. While he practiced such means, he also claimed to believe that slavery deprived black of their liberty and should be abolished. It is hard to understand how someone practicing slavery and treating his own slaves with extreme cruelty, could at the same time convince people that slavery needed to end.

While quite lengthy for the information it presented, I enjoyed this reading. I particularly liked how Takaki explained the occurrences of whites in slavery when the practice first began. I was never aware that whites were once treated the same while they were servants and how abruptly the idea was turned around to be focused more on blacks.

"Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance"

In “Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance,” Allan Johnson’s thesis is that we as a society are in denial that we have anything to do with any past or present problems that are affecting our world, especially in relation to the treatment of certain social classes.

Johnson explains that with this denial, people of privileged groups often make themselves seem as if they are worse off than thos of other subordinate groups. While they hardly know what they are talking about in the first place because they don’t know what it is like to be part of the other class, they are once again using their privilege to get themselves off of the hook. Another way that people of privileged groups attempt to get themselves off the hook is by blaming the victim. A popular assumption is that if the other group was more like themselves, then they wouldn’t be in the position that they are in today. In addition, it is common for this privileged group to think that the other group would prefer the situation the way it is, that they want to be segregated so that they are with their own kind or prefer the way they are treated because it is all they know. We also tend to make up excuses for ourselves, making it seem as if we “didn’t mean something” we say if it offends someone of another group or class. Or we use the excuse that we won’t want to worry about it or, as Johnson explains, “If we use an individualistic model of the world, the answer is that people are callous or uncaring or prejudiced or too busy to bother with paying attention to their actions.” According to the article, these are just a few of the ways that people in privileged, more fortunate groups are trying to not take the blame for actions of their kind that they may very well have had an influence on, either by their actions or lack of action.

I think that Johnson is a little strong in his opinions in this article. It seems as if he is blaming everyone for trying to hide the fact that they have anything to do with prejudices or poor treatment of others. He says that “we don’t know what we are talking about” and that we cannot judge how much of a role we play in the lives of the oppressed because we have never lived as them. However, not everyone know enough to do something about such problems or has the resources to do so. In addition, not everyone will deny the fact that they are part of the problem because of their lack of participation in fixing the problem. We therefore cannot judge those of the privileged groups even more just because they are part of that group.

This article was an interesting one in that it explained the various ways people try and get off the hook for the actions of themselves or of the group that they belong to in their society. However, some of Johnson’s opinions were a little too strong and he did not seem open-minded to how individuals of a group might feel. He made it seem as if we all should feel horrible for how groups opposite or lower than us are treated since we aren’t treated the same way and have to go through the same things. While he has a good point to an extent, he shouldn’t judge each person based on the actions of the group.

"What it All Has to Do with Us"

In “What it All Has to Do with Us,” Allan Johnson’s thesis is that individualistic thinking causes a lot of problems that lead to the trouble surrounding privilege, power, and difference.

Accoding to this reading many people are often even afraid to talk about problems involving racism and unfair treatment because they dread the blame and anger that often come with these topics. For instance, a white person may feel uncomfortable talking to a black person about slavery due to there being an underlying blame from occurrences of slavery that the white person had absolutely nothing to do with many years ago. Since “We live in a society that encourages us to think that the social world begins and ends with individuals,” we are also bound to be blind to the mere existence of privilege, because it has nothing to do with individuals, but with the social categories we end up in. Contrary to this belief, social life occurs only as we participate in social systems, by learning to participate in social life from families, schools, religion, etc. that make up our personal identity as well as by participating in these systems to make them occur in the first place. Also discussed is the idea that we choose to take paths of least resistance in our everyday lives to avoid being looked at as abnormal by the rest of society. For example, when standing in an elevator, a person would not normally stand with their back facing the door because this would be a path of greater resistance and he or she may be afraid of what would happen if they did. “What we experience as social life happens through ha complex dynamic between systems…and the choices people make as they participate in them and helpt make them happen.”

I agree with Johnson in that we often think of ourselves in an individualistic way, instead of the social causes of the problems in the world today. For example, women often think that since men have a name for themselves as being “sexist pigs,” then all men must be this way. This is the same with aspects of slavery as well as racism and religions. Just because of a few bad decisions by people of a certain group does not mean that everyone else in that particular group behave or think the same way. This individualistic way of thinking splits the world up into different kinds of people (good and bad) and, in effect, allows us to categorize people unfairly.

This article was a commendable one in that it pointed out many important concepts regarding the individualistic thinking of people in our society. People are afraid to be different than the rest of society because of the treatment they may experience if they go out of their normal boundaries. Instead, we choose to take the “path of least resistance” when it comes to making decisions and stay in the realms of what society deems to be normal. I think Johnson states it perfectly when he says that the “trouble around privilege and oppression is so pervasive, so long-standing, so huge in its consequences for so many millions of people that it can’t be written off as the misguided doings of a small percentage of people with personality problems.” Instead of blaming the few people who have caused such misleading stereotypes, we choose to blame the group as a whole.

Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination

In “Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination,” Allan Johnson’s thesis is that the economy and capitalism have much to do with white racism and the repercussions of such a concept.

Johnson explains that white racism appeared along with the expansion of capitalism as an economic system, playing a major role in white privilege. The main goal of capitalism has always been to turn money into more money. Many are willing to do whatever it takes to reach this goal, including anything from causing pollution, increases of tobacco and alcohol usage, or using slavery. Since capitalists today have to pay their workers for their time and production, they often look to hire those in minority groups. Those who are in these minority groups or of a lower class end up having to work for such capitalists because they have no other choice. The fact is that they work for low pay and earn as much of a living as they can or just do not work at all. Capitalists have no problem with this, as they aim to have a higher production without paying as much. In addition, another new strategy to improve production is to move it to outside countries in which people are willing to work for less. With 10% of the American population holding more than two-thirds of the wealth, these “patterns of inequality result from and perpetuate a class system based on widening gaps in income, wealth, and power between those on top and everyone below them.” This fact causes a form of racism (and sexism) that is hard to ignore when it’s all around us in our economy, both in the past and in the present.

I agree with Johnson in that whites seem to have “developed the idea of whiteness to define a privileged social category elevated above everyone who wasn’t included in it” in order to justify their oppression of lower classes. We feel as though we are superior to other classes and that we will prosper above them in the working world. This is evident in the world today as well as everyday life. Although it is not allowable to hire based on race, we see such occurrences all the time. Not only are whites more commonly hired for higher positioned jobs, but lower classes are hired for jobs that come with less pay. As Johnson states, “The oppressed condition of blacks and other racial minorities encourages them to work for wages that are lower than what most whites will accept.” We think that just because we are white means that we are above the rest in standards, no matter our income.

I think this article was a reputable one in that it explains what many of us are afraid to admit. We don’t see the reality that we are able to acquire better jobs and lifestyles merely because of the fact that our skin is white. This has been embedded in our heads from past generations and seems to be all we know. And since this racism had much to do with other means of oppression, it may never be erased. As Johnson ends his piece, “We won’t get rid of racism, in other words, without doing something about sexism and classism, because the system that produces the one also produces the others and connects them.”

Privilege, Oppression, and Difference

In “Privilege, Oppression, and Difference,” Allan G. Johnson’s thesis is that the “trouble that surrounds difference is really about privilege and power.

This reading explains how we are so focused on difference as being the problem of the existence of unfair treatment of certain groups in our world today. The author explains that the problem is not of difference, but of privilege and the power that comes along with that privilege. There is a natural assumption that people are afraid of what they do not know or understand about a group of people while, in reality, we are afraid of only what we think we know about that particular group. In addition, we characterize others by their outer characteristics, most of the time ones they cannot change. Examples of such are their ethnicity, race, age, and gender. The social reality is that we are organized in ways to encourage people to use differences as a way to include and exclude, or reward or punish. These perceptions are so difficult to control because it is what we are taught and therefore form quick impressions of one’s status. For instance, in our culture, if a baby is born with a mixture of gender characteristics, they are surgically altered to fit in with the notion of male or female. In contrast, Native Americans in such a situation would just place the baby in another category, called nadle, or would be able to pick their gender. Also, the author reinforces the fact that the idea of people being black and white is falsified, that there is really no such thing. For instance, in Africa, a man or woman would not think of themselves as black, but African. They do not understand the meaning of being black and everything that comes with it until they are placed in an environment like America where we use these labels. The treatment people receive based on such labels is a great example of how some are more privileged than others.

I agree with the author when he states that “When people heard that they belong to a privileged group or benefit from something like ‘white privilege’ or ‘male privilege,’ they don’t get it, or they feel angry and defensive about what they do get.” It is true that we have a bad habit of being ignorant to the fact that we are more privileged than others due mainly to those characteristics of ourselves that are unearned. We are still blind to the fact that being white is looked at as being pure and that we have privileges that come along with such a title. As Johnson says, “white privilege gives whites little reason to pay attention to African Americans or how white privilege affects them.” The same is true with being male and female and any other social categories—that we are born with differences and automatically accept the stereotypes that come with them.

I think that this article had a lot of good points in it, especially with the idea of people being blind to the realization of how privileged they really are and for what reasons. It makes sense that “The ease of not being aware of privilege is an aspect of privilege itself, what some call ‘the luxury of obliviousness.’” We gain advantage over others for unfair reasons and are often not even thankful for this privilege. People need to be more accepting of the many differences we hold and not place judgment on those who are in fact different than themselves.

"Race: The Power of an Illusion: The Difference Between Us

In the video screening, “Race: The Power of an Illusion: The House We Live In,” the creator’s thesis is that race is not based on one’s physical appearance and characteristics, but on the laws and practices that affect their life based on the differences between themselves and people of other backgrounds.

The producer of this screening explains the notion that people think that race is based on one’s physical features and these characteristics are what differentiates them from other people. The average person thinks that by looking at a person’s outside appearance, they are also able to understand more about that person. However, according to the video, “Race is not a level of biological division that we find in anatomically modern humans.” It is not something you see for the fact that there are no subspecies of human beings. People of other races, different from what we categorize as whites, are looked at as inferior, such as those who are Mexican, African, or of Chinese descent. People of such backgrounds are those who often hold the worst jobs with the lowest pay. This is not because they can not handle a better job, but because sometimes they are not offered or able to get a job that is of higher standards due to their race. Those immigrants who enter America, in the past and to this date, were thought of as different because of biology, that it was a destiny for them to be of lower class. Even white people who practiced uncommon or frowned-upon religions were thought of as “in-between” people, that they weren’t quite the same as whites. These thoughts, while not as profound as in the past, are still common today and seen in our society in many ways.

One question to think about when it comes to the argument of there still being prejudices revolving around race today as in the past is, will these thoughts and inequalities ever disappear? Sadly, I do not think that they will. As the screening discusses how unfair life has been in the past for races of inferiority, this will probably be the case in the future as well. Although these thoughts have somewhat improved over the years, I don’t think it is possible that they may altogether be erased. The unfair categorization of people of different races is in our ancestry and has been past down from generation to generation, and will continue to do so to generations in the future.

I think this was a great screening in that it provided a good look of how people have been treated in America for years past. It did not only give details of one race or group of people, but of many. It was beneficial how the producer explained the unfair conditions for people of inferior races or different religions and the gradual, yet not significant, improvements over the years. I also enjoyed the way the producer included the idea of the melting pot and how, according to sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, people of different races “could be used as wood to start the fire to heat the pot, but could not be used as material to be melted into the pot,” due to their inferior status.

Howard Zinn’s thesis in “Drawing the Color Line” is that the practice of slavery in the Americas and elsewhere was not of nature, as he states, “The point is that the elements of this web are historical, not “natural.”

Zinn explains the historical facts of how slavery began in America. While the slavetrade was first dominated by the Dutch, it was followed by the English domination and by 1800 almost fifteen million blacks had been brought to the Americas as slaves. He explains that it became almost impossible for the new settlers in America to use the Indians as slaves due to them being on their own land, they were hard to capture, and they outnumbered the English at first. Many settlers in the New World then turned to blacks for slavery because they needed labor and, since Indians and whites were too difficult to manage, blacks would be easiest. Also, the Africans were torn from their land and culture and forced into a place that was totally different then their own. While this slavery was also practiced in Africa, it was far less cruel than that of Americans due to their [the Americans] desire of limitless profit from the faster production of agriculture and the fact that the slaves were reduced to a status less than human by the notion that whites were better than blacks.

While I believe Zinn’s point that slavery was not “natural,” it is hard not to say that a lot of it had to do with the mere fact that blacks were of a different race. Was it really just a historical occurrence and one not based on the nature of one’s being? I understand that the whites, both the higher class and servants, were punished as well if they assisted in freeing any slaves or having any close ties to the blacks; however, it is clear that they did not receive the same cruel treatment as did the Africans. A sign of this was when Virginia’s ruling class offered white servants numerous benefits once their indentured time was up, including land and money, just to reiterate the fact that blacks were inferior to whites. The reason of enslaving blacks because they were easy to capture and that whites needed laborers turned into the mistreatment of the Africans merely due to their color and them being “inferior” to whites.

I found Zinn’s article interesting because it gave a unique perspective of slavery from a view that seemed to be unbiased. Zinn explained some reasons why the English eventually brought over slaves as well as how they were treated. He included the treatment of whites as well, based on their class as well as their wrongdoings. He made it seem as if the English did not know any better after some time, that it just became habit for them to be cruel to anyone not like them.

The "Tempest" in the Wilderness

In Ronald Takaki’s piece, “The ‘Tempest’ in the Wilderness,” his thesis is that the expansion of the English into the Americas was one of overpowering the Indians for the sake of God and “What emerged to justify dispossessing them was the racialization of Indian ‘savagery.’”

Takaki tells the story of the arrival and colonization of the Americas through the eyes of the settlers by relating to the play the “Tempest,” which was performed after the English invasion of Ireland but prior to the colonization of New England. A character, Caliban, was used to depict the Indians while Prospero was used to depict the English settlers. As in the Zinn reading, Caliban was portrayed as a “savage,” just as the Irish were by the English. While it was believed that Caliban could be acculturated through “consent,” the audience also got the impression that much of the depiction of Caliban was due to his racial features, such as his “long shaggy hair” and “freckled skin.” Indians were soon thought of being lazy and incapable of civilization, and therefore were dehumanized and extinction was sought. As Takaki states, “The social construction of race occurred within the economic context of competition over land,” and, since the Indians were viewed as incapable of great production of the land, the English thought they had a right to take it over for themselves. According to Takaki, the treatment of the Indians, like that of the Irish which was at first thought to be related to culture, soon turned completely to that of race, which could therefore never be changed. This was the same in the “Tempest,” as the point was that the Indians could be acculturated and one day civilized; however, many in the audience were beginning to see that it was more than culture—that it was largely due to race. With that, as Jefferson, like many other leaders of the New World, assured the Indians they had rights and that they should be treated fairly, did actually the opposite, as he too encouraged their extinction.

If the settlers were so religious and thought at one point that the Indians could become acculturated, how is it that they began to believe that the removal of the Indians was wanted by God and racialized every characteristic of the Indians? The thought that every Indian was barbaric, savage, lazy, and cruel was set forth only because of the fact that they were different from the English. It is hard to believe that the English were as holy and civilized as they were portrayed to be when they ruthlessly killed off as many Indians as they did in this time. They thought of the Indians as inhuman and as though they were sent from the devil, which gave them an excuse to drive the Indians to extinction. It was clear that the motives against the Indians began to turn into that of a racial issue, as they were not the same as the “civilized” settlers taking over their land.

I felt that the reading presented a good argument, as it is sometimes hard to decipher if the treatment of the Indians was strictly culture-based or more so based on their race that could obviously not be altered. It is sickening to think that so much bloodshed occurred over the desire of as much land as possible, and all to be “civilized” like the English, in both cases of the Irish and the Indians. The “Tempest” also served as a good tool to present the dispute of culture over race, and in time people began to see this in the play.

About Me

Hi! I'm Megan and I'm a Sophomore here at BG. I'm a physical therapy major and don't know a whole lot about ethnic studies, so hopefully this class will help! My home is in central Pennsylvania, came here to compete on BG's gymnastics team, and miss home a lot! Anything else, just ask!

Zinn-Columbus

The author’s thesis is that the portrayal of history is offset by the distinct side of the person recalling the events. He believes that it is not fair to assume which side is right or wrong, nor to decide which side is weaker.

Howard Zinn finds it hard to believe the history we know today due to it being recollected from the overpowering governments and leaders that overruled those thought to be weaker. Such as in the case of Columbus, who was made to look like a hero by many, while his disgusting acts of killing off many well-meaning Indians are often ignored. The deceit and ignorance of heroes like Columbus are also often pushed aside, as no one wants to believe that their accomplishments were not really so great. Telling the stories from the side of those who have been oppressed will enable us to get a clearer look on how successful the movement actually was and what steps were taken to achieve it.

While Zinn has a valid point in that history should not only be told by those who were on top, but by the weaker side in the situation, would this not still be a one-sided lesson of history? Zinn is ignoring the fact that if the story were to be told from the recollections of the weaker side (as in this circumstance, the Indians or Arawaks), the roles would be flipped and the story would be just as one-sided as it was in being told by the triumphant party. If the Indians told the story of Columbus’s venture throughout the Americas, we would be told only of the massacre and negative actions of Columbus. While he did not bring many positive aspects to the country, he is still part of the reason the Americas are as they are today. He was a very accomplished navigator and explorer and should therefore receive credit for these feats. In conclusion, whether the story is told from the weaker or stronger side of the ordeal in history, it is going to be biased in some way, not only if it is told by the oppressors.

I felt as though the horror stories involving the treatment of the Indians that are sometimes pushed aside are completely believable considering the circumstances at the time. I think it should be more common for students to learn both sides of the story when discussing the accomplishments of Columbus (or any other historical hero). It is too often that the details of suffering and events that had to occur to accomplish a common goal are ignored. In the same way, the successes of many oppressors are also exaggerated and they are made to look like deserving heroes. More should be focused on unveiling the truth of history, not only the great accomplishments made.