Takaki "No More Peck 'O Corn" Responses 11/24

1.       What was Frederick Douglass’ theory for how to break a slave?

Douglass' theory claimed that slaves would need to be completely submissive to their master's will in order to psychologically "break down". After his experiences with Edward Covey, Douglass quoted, "To make a contented slave, you must make a thoughtless one...he must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery" (124). Douglass, unaccustomed to the life of a slave, was essentially brainwashed into thinking that he was mentally inferior to that of whites. He was incapable of escaping from his new lifestyle, regardless of the attempts he made to rationalize with his former caretaker, Mr. Auld, as he had become a victim of the stereotypes developed by whites towards blacks. Because the discrimination towards blacks from whites was consistent throughout the south and the north, Douglass was incapable of truly being a "free man". His eventual rebellion against his master is just one of the many examples of racial violence that continually took place between whites and blacks. 

2.       Why do you think Dr. Morton was agreed with in his “white supremacy logic” even though he gave no scientific evidence?

During the early 19th century, blacks were continually victims of discrimination, segregation, and violence, subject to social degradation among whites in society; their inability to retain their entitled rights was attributed to the stereotypes that whites had developed of them : they were considered to be "immature", "lazy", "childlike", and intellectually inferior. In Philadelphia, Dr. Samuel Morton compared the craniums of both white and black people, further contributing to the stereotypes developed among black people, "Finding that those of whites were larger, Dr. Morton concluded that whites were more intelligent...this presumably "scientific evidence" of black mental inferiority, however, was used to support the notion of black supremacy and to justify racial segregation" (108).  Although Dr. Morton's "white supremacy logic" was presumably justified by scientific evidence, his theory was largely agreed upon within white society as it supported the notion that whites were, in fact, more superior to their black peers. Also, white americans were completely dependent upon the labor of blacks for agricultural purposes, and generally believed that if their workers were mentally inferior, they would have every right to exert more power and control upon them. 

5.       What is the difference between how southern and northern blacks were treated?

In contrast to southern blacks, northern blacks were considered "free men"; however, they were given menial jobs, and faced discrimination from their white peers. In a plea to the general public, a black from the north quoted "...if a colored man comes to the door of our institutions of learning, with desires ever so strong, the lords of these institutions rise up and shut the door; and then you say we have not the desire nor the ability to acquire education...thus, while the white youths enjoy all these advantages, we are excluded and shut out, and must remain ignorant" (107). While blacks from the north were allowed to pursue their own career and life paths, they were subjected to discrimination and social degradation from their white peers. They were incapable of using the same transit systems as whites, unable to attend the same schools, and in some states, prohibited from voting. These different aspects most likely contributed the amount of violence that had taken place between both whites and blacks. Furthermore, in the south, blacks were completely controlled by white landowners, incapable of being "free men" unless they somehow escaped to the north. For example, a black slave described the typical day, living on white plantations, "The hands are required to be in the cotton field as soon as it is light in the morning...each one must attend to his respective chores...one feeds the mules, another the swine..." (111). Many white slave masters considered their slaves to be "childlike", "irresponsible", "lazy", and mentally incompetent; therefore, they believed that they were entitled to keep them mentally and social inferior to themselves. They essentially claimed that their actions were justifiable as they were "keeping their slaves from going astray"; that their slaves  would be incapable of living by themselves. 

Assimilation vs. Resistance Responses 10/09

1. Choose the policy  (Assimilation or Resistance) towards the United States & white Americans that is the most beneficial for the Tribes to pursue.  Describe one political, one social and one economic reason that this policy is the most beneficial for the Tribes. Explain your answer

     The practice of assimilation in the United States has continually been reinforced among immigrants from foreign countries, collectively integrating individuals regardless of race, religion, culture, or ethnicity. Essentially, the succession rate of assimilation in the present-day United States (immigrants obtaining U.S. citizenship or residence, adopting the English language, establishing homes and jobs, etc.) is evident of the Cherokee's choice to assimilate into European society. Regardless of the resistance eventually posed by other opposing tribes to assimilate, the practice proved to be essential in social interactions between the indians and the new European colonists. In 1820,  John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, examined the progress that the indians were making towards becoming civilized, "While many of the Indian tribes have acquired only the vices with which a savage people usually become tainted, by their intercourse with those who are civilized, others appear to be making gradual advances in civilization and industry. The Cherokee exhibit a more favorable appearance than any other tribe of Indians...the boys are taught agriculture & the ordinary mechanical arts; and the girls sewing, knitting and weaving". The interdependence of the natives and new colonists in order to establish better  economies  had become a profound motivator in their development of social interactions. By assimilating to the colonists' european "way of life", the indians had learned to become more civilized (converted to Christianity, received educations, learned new agricultural methods, languages, etc.) without theoretically "giving up" their own identities; the customs and traditions of both the colonists and the natives had been combined as they started to learn from each other. Furthermore, in 1791, Henry Knox, Secretary of War explained the advantages of imposing their European customs and traditions onto the native indians, "That the Cherokee Nation may be led to a greater degree of civilization, and to become herdsmen and cultivators, instead of remaining in a state of hunters, the United States will from time to time furnish gratuitously the said nation with useful implements of husbandry". Economically speaking, the natives had viewed the new colonists as their ultimate source of trade and information; the natives and new colonists desired new agricultural methods on improving their crops (both native and invasive), developing mutualistic relationships between the two groups in order to establish a stable economy. While the new colonists had arrived in the new world to receive profits off of the "vacant" land, the natives who had chosen to assimilate, became wealthy farmers and landowners with their newfound knowledge of producing sustainable crops. For this reason, in 1829, General Andrew Jackson questioned the motives of the Indians in creating a separate government, "A portion, however, of the Southern tribes, having mingled much with the whites and made some progress in the arts of a civilized life, have lately attempted to erect an independent government within the limits of Georgia & Alabama". In political terms, essentially, some tribes had chosen to resist against the will of the U.S. government; however, those that did assimilate temporarily prevented further tensions between themselves and the colonists, willingly signing away the rights to their homelands, and accepting new European settlements; the establishment of one mutually agreed upon government would help prevent future struggles.  

2. Choose the policy towards the United States & white America that is the least beneficial for the Tribes to pursue.  Describe one political, one social and one economic reason that this policy is the least beneficial for the Tribes. Explain your answer

     The practice of resistance in the United States has continually been proven to have had adverse effects on the political, social, and economical standpoints of many americans. Essentially, individuals who resist against the U.S. government, or have views that oppose those of their peers, face the repercussions of their actions (isolation from their communities, potential jail time, conflicts among peers, bias, etc.) For this reason, resistance proves to be the least beneficial policy for any of the tribes to practice or establish in developing interactions with the new colonists, or furthering their own economies. In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson presented the problems with communicating with the natives, "The Indian Tribes have for a considerable time been growing more and more uneasy at the constant diminution of the territory they occupy, although effected by their own voluntary sales, and the policy has long been gaining strength with them of refusing absolutely all further sale on any conditions". Because some tribes resisted against giving up their native lands, or even the allowance for the colonization of the new European settlers, they were unable to trade with them to obtain valuable resources and information, severing social interactions between the settlers and the indians. Upon meeting the natives, the new European settlers had developed unfavorable opinions of their new "neighbors", and attempted to create a social hierarchy with indians at the bottom, thus revealing the disadvantages of resistance (only some tribes had resisted against the white colonists' control); no equality was established between the two groups. Furthermore, in 1802, The U.S. Congress initiated The Intercourse Act, placing restrictions on both natives and colonists due to the natives' resistance, "Be it enacted, that if any such citizen or other person, shall go into any country which is allotted or secured by treaty to any of the Indian tribes south of the river Ohio, without a passport, that person shall forfeit a sum not exceeding fifty dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding three months". Economically speaking, resistance posed by the indians towards control by the U.S. government resulted in the new colonists being unable to settle on natives' lands by law (enacted when U.S. realized that relationships between indians and colonists were fragile). As a result, the indians were forced to rely on themselves to gain resources instead of relying on interdependence, which would have enabled them to gain profits out of their "vacant" lands; the colonists had more connections in the trade routes around the world which would have given the indians desirable profits. Additionally, President Andrew Jackson explained the natives' resistance and reactions to control by the U.S. Government, "....I informed the Indians inhabiting parts of Georgia and Alabama that their attempt to establish an independent government would not be countenanced by the Executive of the United States, and advised them to emigrate beyond the Mississippi, or submit to the laws of those states". In political terms, the natives eventually resisted against Jacksons' new policy, and tensions between opposing groups or "governments" had risen due to there not being any mutual agreements on rights. While some indian tribes were more open to assimilating with the U.S. government, some were also bent upon resistance; maintaining their own native lands.    

Tempest in the Wilderness Responses 9/18

5. What was Columbus's first impression of the natives? How did this contribute to the image of the natives?

Columbus believed that the natives had a gentle nature, whereas the Europeans believed that the natives were not brutish by nature, and could become "civilized" through consent. When Columbus returned to Spain, he brought 6 natives back; he was then sent on another voyage to capture more natives. In fact, 550 more natives were caught, and they were put onto "display", a business that became very profitable. Columbus's first impression of the natives led Europeans to believe that they could help the natives to become more "civilized" over time; they believed that it was their "god-given" responsibility to do so. For example, when the English heard of how profitable of a business natives were (as slaves), they tried to convert Indian children to Christianity, and to raise them with European values. Originally, the natives had become the epitome of "savagery", and were viewed as sadists by the Europeans; the Europeans (particularly the Spanish), upon developing an image of the natives, began to believe that those who were "uncivilized" were "born slaves". 

11. Why were the English killing the Irish? How does it relate to native experience?

Due to religious suppression in England, English settlers began to colonize areas of Ireland; however, the native Irish were discriminated against by the English: they had unequal rights and were forbidden to share the same customs as the English. As a result, the English resorted to violence in order to obtain land from the Irish by killing many of them and then occupying their "vacant" lands. The English also viewed the Irish as "uncivilized" and "savages", and believed that it was their duty to God to make them civilized. Similarly, the English, upon arrival in the new world, believed the natives to be "savages" and "uncivilized" as well; the English believed that they could make the natives civilized by converting them to Christianity (particularly the younger indians). In order to obtain land from the natives, the English engaged in frequent clashes with them (often violent and deadly) in order to make way for new settlements, and grow tobacco, which had become a very profitable business.

18. Why did the relationship between the English and the natives change over time?

The relationship between the English and the natives changed over time due to tensions between the English and natives over resources. For example, when the English first arrived in the new world, the Powhatans gave resources to the English, although only 38 had survived out of the 120 original settlers. However, due to these clashes, the English resorted to Cannabalism as a source of food; the English had made their true intentions clear: to invade. In order to obtain land from the natives, the english resorted to violence, as there was a boom in the tobacco industry. By 1622, the natives tried to run the colonists out of their territories, but the English retaliated by spoiling the natives' resources and poisoning the indians.