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.