Samuel Adams-Father of the American Revolution
by Mark Puls
Much was expected of Adams as he came to age. His parents wanted him to follow in the footsteps of his father, and become involved in the church. Adams didn’t want to go into the field of religion, and ended up floating around to many various occupations. Adams soon found his way into politics after he finished his education at Harvard. Even then Adams was thinking about “breaking with the British Empire”, in his commencement speech Adams’ thesis was along the lines of ‘would it be right to resist the British Magistrate’. Even in college there were hints that Samuel Adams would be a large impact on the United States.
Samuel Adams was a positive impact on America. His ideas were beyond creative. According to Mark Puls, Samuel Adams introduced a strategy that was yet to be thought of, “His idea for the tactic was so new that a word for it did not exist”. The method that Samuel Adams suggested was later called “boycott”, after Charles C. Boycott. This plan of Adams, of refusing to buy goods from a particular location, in this case Great Britain, has influenced the ability of all in America to protest without harm. For example, if a mother feels that chickens being in cages is wrong, she can boycott products where the chicken are kept in cages, and only purchase cage free goods. Adams idea for a boycott greatly effected many to come, by giving the idea, which can be used by anyone with the will to protect what they believe in.
From the time British Military occupation began in Boston (1768), no one was very pleased, and protests filled the streets of Boston. Many minor fights broke out between soldiers and townspeople. Yet, all previous spats were small, and no one got hurt, until March 5th when the Boston Massacre occurred. In the end, there were a total of five deaths. This was the last straw for Adams and many other townspeople, the soldiers must go. Adams met with Governor Thomas Hutchinson, Hutchinson claimed “he had no power to remove the troops”. Hutchinson offered to remove one regiment, but Adams true to his word wanted both removed. Samuel Adams wore Hutchinson down to the point where he gave up. Troops were ordered out of Boston, and were out after 2 weeks. Adams proved to the people or Boston and America that nothing would stand in his way. This effected many by raising the spirits, and boosting the confidence of the townspeople, Samuel Adams firm approach to the British, influenced all who were for freedom, Americans now knew that they would soon be free from Britain's rule.
Adams had begun public writing in 1748. He wrote many editorials about his opinions of freedom, and leaving the British Empire. Through most of his career Samuel Adams continued to write in local newspapers, pamphlets, and even to high government officials. Yet, never thought that all these pieces would soon go to such good use. This time came when the Declaration of Independence was published to the public. Samuel Adams writings had meant that the “colonists were already grounded in the ideas in the Declaration”. Adams writings had prepared the colonists, in a way that would have taken years without him. Adams had warmed the water before he lets America step in. Samuel Adams was impacting the lives of Americans before anyone even knew.
In conclusion Samuel Adams was a large impact on the United States, and Americans from the time when he was alive to long after he had died. Adams will forever be known for his determination to lead America into freedom. Samuel Adams always put America before himself. He could express his beliefs both through his words, and through his writing, both which were exceptional. Samuel Adams had an effect on people like no other, he had the ability to convert people’s ideas through words. He always believed in “a new kind of government, free of crowns and coronets, without titles or hereditary privileges”. Adams believed in working hard, and using your own skills to make it somewhere in life. From the time Samuel Adams died on October 2nd 1803, he would forever be known as ‘ The Father of the American Revolution’, ‘A Founding Father’ and an influential figure in American History
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Part A #1
The American Revolution started in 1775 with the Battle of Lexington, and continued for 8 years into 1783 when it ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. The Revolution which was between a newly colonized America, and the mature British empire, was sure to leave America altered. For better or for worse America would come out of the Revolution transformed from their previous state. America did win the American Revolution, and departed with all features of their society changed, after the war political, social and economic aspects of American life were changed.
Previous to the American Revolution American politics were often interfered with by the British, even though the British were across the ocean they still had control over many government officials. In Document B from the Pennsylvania Packet in 1779 the Patriot Americans wanted the Loyalists gone,because having them in America was almost the same as being under British rule. However, even though many Patriot Americans disliked Loyalists who supported Britain, they still wanted to make a alliance with the Chickasaw Indians who had also supported the British during the revolution, as stated in Document C. Americans didn’t follow through with their the friendship between the Chickasaw Indians. In the Treaty of Paris, Chickasaw wasn’t included, as declared in Document E, Speech at the Confederate Council in 1786. Since the break from Britain’s rule America had to learn that they were in charge, and that any mistakes would be their fault, not Britain’s, the only people they could blame were themselves. The political aspect of America has been changed because once Americans began ruling themselves they had to learn quickly that not everyone would always be happy like the Chickasaw Indians when they weren’t included in the Treaty of Paris. As touched upon in Document I The Federalist , a working government must have the power to control its people, but also itself. To become a great government their must be punishment for both the governed and the government, and everyone must learn from their mistakes.
The social aspect of America was considerably changed when the American Revolution began. Since most of the Revolution took place right in America many colonists were directly affected by the war. Even the most unprepared had to produce the ability to fight. As depicted in Document A Woodcut of a Patriot women, the picture displays a women with a rifle in hand and a power horn, which carried gun powder. The picture suggests that women and others who were unlikely to be part of a war were, as the Revolution came everyone prepared, not just the men. After the war the advancement of women’s rights began, once women realized they could do the many of the same things men could, as they had proved during the war they began fighting for rights. Such as schooling, Document J a valedictory address by Molly Wallace argues for the right for all women to be schooled. After the war Americans begin to realize they to can make a difference, and fight for what is right just as America did against Britain. Americans after the war continued to fight for what they thought was just, Document D Statutes at Large of Virginia, a movement towards all men having the freedom to practice any religion they please. In 1791 the hard work paid off, and as set in the First amendment of the Bill of Rights, there would be freedom of religion to all. The America Revolution changed social America by providing drive to propel colonists into a new light, where they had the power to change anything they put their minds to.
Before the American Revolution had even begun the economics of American colonists were not too great. Boycotts of British goods put many merchants who sold products coming from Great Britain out of business. When the Revolution began many shops and homes were destroyed by British soldiers leaving many families poor and/or homeless. After the war to raise America’s economy, proposals for the advancement of farming began. Document F Medal of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, the picture reveals a man plowing the field with a woman behind him holding the fruits of his labor in her hands. The purpose of the Promotion of Agriculture was to urge families into farming to progress America’s economy after the war. However, the taxes and debt that farmers were forced to pay didn’t help build the economy. Shay’s Rebellion was starting up, groups of farmers were rebelling in Massachusetts. America had just started out ruling itself, and there were clearly going to be some bumps along the way. As visible in Document G Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, there were some problems getting the economy of the ground after the American Revolution. Two main solutions that had been thrown around were paper currency and an equal distribution of property, but these two practical resolutions weren’t agreed on by all. The American Revolution had given freedom to American, but forced colonists to start over in a sense, by having to restart their economy, and get it running smoothly again.
In conclusion the American Revolution substantially changed all aspects of American life. Politics in America were on their own now, the government would have to fight its own wars with out the safety of falling back on Britain. The social feature of American life was changed throughout the war, causing everyone who was able to fight against the British. Economics in America were partially destroyed during the war, unaided by Britain Americans had to form ideas to rebuild the economy. The Revolution was a great success because America finally became free. Even so, it was almost as though America had climbed four steps for freedom, but got pushed down three for the aftermath.
Previous to the American Revolution American politics were often interfered with by the British, even though the British were across the ocean they still had control over many government officials. In Document B from the Pennsylvania Packet in 1779 the Patriot Americans wanted the Loyalists gone,because having them in America was almost the same as being under British rule. However, even though many Patriot Americans disliked Loyalists who supported Britain, they still wanted to make a alliance with the Chickasaw Indians who had also supported the British during the revolution, as stated in Document C. Americans didn’t follow through with their the friendship between the Chickasaw Indians. In the Treaty of Paris, Chickasaw wasn’t included, as declared in Document E, Speech at the Confederate Council in 1786. Since the break from Britain’s rule America had to learn that they were in charge, and that any mistakes would be their fault, not Britain’s, the only people they could blame were themselves. The political aspect of America has been changed because once Americans began ruling themselves they had to learn quickly that not everyone would always be happy like the Chickasaw Indians when they weren’t included in the Treaty of Paris. As touched upon in Document I The Federalist , a working government must have the power to control its people, but also itself. To become a great government their must be punishment for both the governed and the government, and everyone must learn from their mistakes.
The social aspect of America was considerably changed when the American Revolution began. Since most of the Revolution took place right in America many colonists were directly affected by the war. Even the most unprepared had to produce the ability to fight. As depicted in Document A Woodcut of a Patriot women, the picture displays a women with a rifle in hand and a power horn, which carried gun powder. The picture suggests that women and others who were unlikely to be part of a war were, as the Revolution came everyone prepared, not just the men. After the war the advancement of women’s rights began, once women realized they could do the many of the same things men could, as they had proved during the war they began fighting for rights. Such as schooling, Document J a valedictory address by Molly Wallace argues for the right for all women to be schooled. After the war Americans begin to realize they to can make a difference, and fight for what is right just as America did against Britain. Americans after the war continued to fight for what they thought was just, Document D Statutes at Large of Virginia, a movement towards all men having the freedom to practice any religion they please. In 1791 the hard work paid off, and as set in the First amendment of the Bill of Rights, there would be freedom of religion to all. The America Revolution changed social America by providing drive to propel colonists into a new light, where they had the power to change anything they put their minds to.
Before the American Revolution had even begun the economics of American colonists were not too great. Boycotts of British goods put many merchants who sold products coming from Great Britain out of business. When the Revolution began many shops and homes were destroyed by British soldiers leaving many families poor and/or homeless. After the war to raise America’s economy, proposals for the advancement of farming began. Document F Medal of the Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, the picture reveals a man plowing the field with a woman behind him holding the fruits of his labor in her hands. The purpose of the Promotion of Agriculture was to urge families into farming to progress America’s economy after the war. However, the taxes and debt that farmers were forced to pay didn’t help build the economy. Shay’s Rebellion was starting up, groups of farmers were rebelling in Massachusetts. America had just started out ruling itself, and there were clearly going to be some bumps along the way. As visible in Document G Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, there were some problems getting the economy of the ground after the American Revolution. Two main solutions that had been thrown around were paper currency and an equal distribution of property, but these two practical resolutions weren’t agreed on by all. The American Revolution had given freedom to American, but forced colonists to start over in a sense, by having to restart their economy, and get it running smoothly again.
In conclusion the American Revolution substantially changed all aspects of American life. Politics in America were on their own now, the government would have to fight its own wars with out the safety of falling back on Britain. The social feature of American life was changed throughout the war, causing everyone who was able to fight against the British. Economics in America were partially destroyed during the war, unaided by Britain Americans had to form ideas to rebuild the economy. The Revolution was a great success because America finally became free. Even so, it was almost as though America had climbed four steps for freedom, but got pushed down three for the aftermath.
Part B #2
In the time period of 1607 to 1750 Massachusetts and Virginia were two of the most powerful political colonies in America. Massachusetts has a stronger developing economy which pushed politics ahead faster than Virginia. Massachusetts had more products coming from them, than Virginia. However, Virgina used slaves in their fields to harvest, which saved money, which helped their economy. Massachusetts colonists did have slaves, but they were used more in Virginia
In Massachusetts there were many sources of income for the colony; fishing, shipbuilding, lumbering and fur trade. Virginia, however, had an income coming only from their tobacco. The tobacco was used as a cash crop, meaning farmers could grow lots of the tobacco and sell it for money, rather than keeping it for their own use. Both of the colonies used the concept behind cash crops, but Massachusetts didn’t exactly have many crops for commercial use. The concept was mercantilism, colonists would trade their products with others with for products they needed or money.
Virginia did have fewer economic developments than Massachusetts, which is understandable why they also had fewer political advancements. Virgina was known in the economic world mostly for their slaves, plantations and tobacco. They made less money than Massachusetts which was a given, since they had less economic developments, which meant less funding, and less power. Massachusetts, however, had more economic developments such as joint stock companies, which was a company which the goods were owned by both shareholders, triangular trade and the many products which they produced. This heavy income lead to a higher ability to gain power in the political world.
Since most of the colonies were self-governed, Massachusetts and Virginia had two different methods of controlling their colonies. In Virginia there was a small group of leaders directing the colony, Massachusetts, which at the time was mostly made up of Puritans, used a theocratic system, meaning priests ruled. For unexpected troubles Virginia used the House of Burgesses, while in Massachusetts used a court of law.
In conclusion economic development affects the politics by deciding how much money each government has to run their people, without running into a wall. If there is no economic development it also means there most likely wouldn’t be much development in the political sense either. In Virginia there wasn’t much economic development, and the political aspect of their colony didn’t change much over 140 years or so. However, in Massachusetts there was a strong developing economy which was also reflected in their political system, which improved steadily through the years.
In Massachusetts there were many sources of income for the colony; fishing, shipbuilding, lumbering and fur trade. Virginia, however, had an income coming only from their tobacco. The tobacco was used as a cash crop, meaning farmers could grow lots of the tobacco and sell it for money, rather than keeping it for their own use. Both of the colonies used the concept behind cash crops, but Massachusetts didn’t exactly have many crops for commercial use. The concept was mercantilism, colonists would trade their products with others with for products they needed or money.
Virginia did have fewer economic developments than Massachusetts, which is understandable why they also had fewer political advancements. Virgina was known in the economic world mostly for their slaves, plantations and tobacco. They made less money than Massachusetts which was a given, since they had less economic developments, which meant less funding, and less power. Massachusetts, however, had more economic developments such as joint stock companies, which was a company which the goods were owned by both shareholders, triangular trade and the many products which they produced. This heavy income lead to a higher ability to gain power in the political world.
Since most of the colonies were self-governed, Massachusetts and Virginia had two different methods of controlling their colonies. In Virginia there was a small group of leaders directing the colony, Massachusetts, which at the time was mostly made up of Puritans, used a theocratic system, meaning priests ruled. For unexpected troubles Virginia used the House of Burgesses, while in Massachusetts used a court of law.
In conclusion economic development affects the politics by deciding how much money each government has to run their people, without running into a wall. If there is no economic development it also means there most likely wouldn’t be much development in the political sense either. In Virginia there wasn’t much economic development, and the political aspect of their colony didn’t change much over 140 years or so. However, in Massachusetts there was a strong developing economy which was also reflected in their political system, which improved steadily through the years.
Part C #5
During the years of 1960 through 1970 many movements or groups of people working together to move their ideas forward transformed American society. Two of the most altering were The Civil Rights Movement and The Antiwar Movement. These two movements transformed American people by showing what can be done with will and determination
The Civil Rights Movement was movement to receive civil rights for all people regardless of race. In the United States before 1964 blacks and whites were separated by color, and didn’t get equal treatment. Many people would protest on the streets to get civil rights for all Americans. One popular type of protest was ‘sit-ins’ blacks would sit-in at lunch counters that were meant for whites, as a silent protest for their rights. When congress passed The Civil Rights Act in 1964, not all the segregation problems were solved, racism still existed between blacks and whites. The act, however, did transform American society for the better, it outlawed segregation in schools and public places, also it made Jim Crow Laws illegal for anyone to follow making social status of blacks and white equal.
The Antiwar Movement which protested The Vietnam War transformed American Society by proving that the use of free speech can get any point across. Protesters from many college campuses protested, and demanded that soldiers be withdrawn from Vietnam. The protest caused support for Presidents Nixon and Johnson to decrease, which helped their cause by urging government officials to pull the troops out of Vietnam. The Antiwar Movement, however, was violent, many college students were shot when the protest got out of hand.Even with the continuing violence protesters stayed strong still fighting for what they believed in. American society was transformed by the Antiwar Movement, it showed Americans that if they fought for the causes they believed in they could do anything.
Both The Civil Rights Movement and The Antiwar Movement transformed American Society in the 1960’s 1970’s. The movements showed Americans what people were capable of through protests, and that they didn’t have to be wealthy or have a lot of power they just had to be determined, and know what they wanted to accomplish. The two acts both succeeded in achieving their goals. The Civil Rights Movement gave blacks the same rights as whites, and destroyed the Jim Crow Laws, and The Antiwar Movement succeeded in getting the troops out of Vietnam. During the 1960’s and 1970’s America was transformed for the better thanks to the brave people who fought for what they believed in.
The Civil Rights Movement was movement to receive civil rights for all people regardless of race. In the United States before 1964 blacks and whites were separated by color, and didn’t get equal treatment. Many people would protest on the streets to get civil rights for all Americans. One popular type of protest was ‘sit-ins’ blacks would sit-in at lunch counters that were meant for whites, as a silent protest for their rights. When congress passed The Civil Rights Act in 1964, not all the segregation problems were solved, racism still existed between blacks and whites. The act, however, did transform American society for the better, it outlawed segregation in schools and public places, also it made Jim Crow Laws illegal for anyone to follow making social status of blacks and white equal.
The Antiwar Movement which protested The Vietnam War transformed American Society by proving that the use of free speech can get any point across. Protesters from many college campuses protested, and demanded that soldiers be withdrawn from Vietnam. The protest caused support for Presidents Nixon and Johnson to decrease, which helped their cause by urging government officials to pull the troops out of Vietnam. The Antiwar Movement, however, was violent, many college students were shot when the protest got out of hand.Even with the continuing violence protesters stayed strong still fighting for what they believed in. American society was transformed by the Antiwar Movement, it showed Americans that if they fought for the causes they believed in they could do anything.
Both The Civil Rights Movement and The Antiwar Movement transformed American Society in the 1960’s 1970’s. The movements showed Americans what people were capable of through protests, and that they didn’t have to be wealthy or have a lot of power they just had to be determined, and know what they wanted to accomplish. The two acts both succeeded in achieving their goals. The Civil Rights Movement gave blacks the same rights as whites, and destroyed the Jim Crow Laws, and The Antiwar Movement succeeded in getting the troops out of Vietnam. During the 1960’s and 1970’s America was transformed for the better thanks to the brave people who fought for what they believed in.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
GAY-PUSH HOMEWORK #3
3)
CHAPTER ONE
1. Before reading chapter 1 I didn't know much about Columbus and his accomplishments other that what little information i had gathered through the years when classes briefly described his achievements around thanksgiving time. By reading this chapter I can honestly say my opinions of Columbus and his men have changed in a negative way. I knew Columbus’ quest for gold, but not what he would 6 it talks about how the Indians had to get a certain amount of gold in a certain amount of time, and if couldn't complete this they “had their hands cut off and bled to death.” In previous years of school we were always taught that Columbus was a influential explorer. They must have left out the bits about him being a cruel man. The top of page 5 speaks about a sailor named Rodrigo who saw land first ( the man who spotted land first would get a yearly ten thousand maravedis pension for the rest of his life)...”but, Rodrigo never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a light the evening before.” Before reading this I had thought Columbus was a great explorer. but after reading this chapter I now understand he was just hungry for gold and money which he would do anything to get.
2.If communities were a group of people who share the same interests, I don’t think Columbus and Las Casas would be in the same one. It could make sense that at one point they were in the same community ( when they were both in the Caribbean in search of gold, and when Las Casas owned the plantation). However, Once Las Casas realized how cruel the Spaniards were, he changed communities. Las Casas didn’t believe in being cruel to Indians like Columbus did. Las Casas had many of the same interests as Arawaks. After awhile Las Casas began admiring that they “put no value in gold and other precious things.” Las Casa's common interests with the Arawaks are much greater than the interests common to Columbus. He may have in the past been similar to Columbus, but realized the mistakes and changed his views to be more like the views of the Arawaks. Las Casas clearly didn’t believe in cruel, brutal acts against many Indians as the Arawaks obviously also wouldn’t. These similar beliefs put both Las Casas and the Arawaks in the same community.
CHAPTER TWO
1. In traditional American history texts the topic of slavery was covered after the English began colonizing in America. Zinn's version, however, starts the topic of slavery "50 years before Columbus". Zinn says that when "the Portuguese took ten African blacks to Lisbon: was the start of the regular trade in slaves". Zinn changes the placement of the topic of slavery so that it is understood that the people of Jamestown didn't think they were receiving a "steadfast source of labor", but actually they were fully aware that they were receiving free labor or slaves. The purpose in traditional texts is to show that the settlers were not completely aware that they were buying into slavery, but actually thought that this new concept meant fixed workers for their own use.
2. Zinn argues that racism is not natural because "there is evidence that where whites and blacks found themselves with common problems, common work, common enemy in their master, they behaved toward one another as equals." If racism were indeed natural than there wouldn't be cases of whites and black working together. If racism were natural it would be as uncommon for whites and black living in harmony as lions and rabbits. Zinn believes that the economy was in part of creating racism. Racism existed so that whites and blacks wouldn't sympathize one another, which would cause whites to not want blacks being slaves which would soon cause an end to slavery, which many thought would hurt the economy. The choices that needed to be made to end slavery were so simply it was difficult. The solution of course was to have whites and black treat each other as equal, but if it were that easy slavery would have ended a long while ago. The trouble is not everyone likes to agree on the same idea, so to end slavery it was a given it would take much longer to end than it took to begin. Today we have almost conquered slavery, but it was a forceful puzzle which took many years to complete, and still today there are many pieces missing, which the racist few still hold on to.
4)
The article "Discovering Columbus" is almost the opposite of what is said in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is saying others have stretched the truth, and that Columbus was a great explorer. In Hart's article the people who Columbus conquered and killed were left out, and only his discoveries noted. In Zinn's book, The destruction Columbus caused was detailed, and his discoveries slightly mentioned. Most of the article expresses Columbus' achievements that Zinn's book had un-glorified. History is fact to some distance. Anyone who passes it along can bent the facts. Choosing the ones to keep, and leaving out the facts that won't help towards showing an opinion, which is hidden in the facts.
5)
I agree that Howard Zinn twists events in American history to seem negative. He changes things subtly so that it isn't completly noticable. For example on page 12, "What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortés did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots." he leaves out what exactly happened in each situation . Obviously, the same happenings didn't occur in all situations, but Zinn makes it sound so. What happened to the se people he mentioned may not have been as bad as what Columbus did to the Indians, but Zinn of course wouldn't care to add that. I believe as do many historians and politicians, that Howard Zinn twisted aspects of American History in a negative way.
CHAPTER ONE
1. Before reading chapter 1 I didn't know much about Columbus and his accomplishments other that what little information i had gathered through the years when classes briefly described his achievements around thanksgiving time. By reading this chapter I can honestly say my opinions of Columbus and his men have changed in a negative way. I knew Columbus’ quest for gold, but not what he would 6 it talks about how the Indians had to get a certain amount of gold in a certain amount of time, and if couldn't complete this they “had their hands cut off and bled to death.” In previous years of school we were always taught that Columbus was a influential explorer. They must have left out the bits about him being a cruel man. The top of page 5 speaks about a sailor named Rodrigo who saw land first ( the man who spotted land first would get a yearly ten thousand maravedis pension for the rest of his life)...”but, Rodrigo never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a light the evening before.” Before reading this I had thought Columbus was a great explorer. but after reading this chapter I now understand he was just hungry for gold and money which he would do anything to get.
2.If communities were a group of people who share the same interests, I don’t think Columbus and Las Casas would be in the same one. It could make sense that at one point they were in the same community ( when they were both in the Caribbean in search of gold, and when Las Casas owned the plantation). However, Once Las Casas realized how cruel the Spaniards were, he changed communities. Las Casas didn’t believe in being cruel to Indians like Columbus did. Las Casas had many of the same interests as Arawaks. After awhile Las Casas began admiring that they “put no value in gold and other precious things.” Las Casa's common interests with the Arawaks are much greater than the interests common to Columbus. He may have in the past been similar to Columbus, but realized the mistakes and changed his views to be more like the views of the Arawaks. Las Casas clearly didn’t believe in cruel, brutal acts against many Indians as the Arawaks obviously also wouldn’t. These similar beliefs put both Las Casas and the Arawaks in the same community.
CHAPTER TWO
1. In traditional American history texts the topic of slavery was covered after the English began colonizing in America. Zinn's version, however, starts the topic of slavery "50 years before Columbus". Zinn says that when "the Portuguese took ten African blacks to Lisbon: was the start of the regular trade in slaves". Zinn changes the placement of the topic of slavery so that it is understood that the people of Jamestown didn't think they were receiving a "steadfast source of labor", but actually they were fully aware that they were receiving free labor or slaves. The purpose in traditional texts is to show that the settlers were not completely aware that they were buying into slavery, but actually thought that this new concept meant fixed workers for their own use.
2. Zinn argues that racism is not natural because "there is evidence that where whites and blacks found themselves with common problems, common work, common enemy in their master, they behaved toward one another as equals." If racism were indeed natural than there wouldn't be cases of whites and black working together. If racism were natural it would be as uncommon for whites and black living in harmony as lions and rabbits. Zinn believes that the economy was in part of creating racism. Racism existed so that whites and blacks wouldn't sympathize one another, which would cause whites to not want blacks being slaves which would soon cause an end to slavery, which many thought would hurt the economy. The choices that needed to be made to end slavery were so simply it was difficult. The solution of course was to have whites and black treat each other as equal, but if it were that easy slavery would have ended a long while ago. The trouble is not everyone likes to agree on the same idea, so to end slavery it was a given it would take much longer to end than it took to begin. Today we have almost conquered slavery, but it was a forceful puzzle which took many years to complete, and still today there are many pieces missing, which the racist few still hold on to.
4)
The article "Discovering Columbus" is almost the opposite of what is said in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. It is saying others have stretched the truth, and that Columbus was a great explorer. In Hart's article the people who Columbus conquered and killed were left out, and only his discoveries noted. In Zinn's book, The destruction Columbus caused was detailed, and his discoveries slightly mentioned. Most of the article expresses Columbus' achievements that Zinn's book had un-glorified. History is fact to some distance. Anyone who passes it along can bent the facts. Choosing the ones to keep, and leaving out the facts that won't help towards showing an opinion, which is hidden in the facts.
5)
I agree that Howard Zinn twists events in American history to seem negative. He changes things subtly so that it isn't completly noticable. For example on page 12, "What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortés did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots." he leaves out what exactly happened in each situation . Obviously, the same happenings didn't occur in all situations, but Zinn makes it sound so. What happened to the se people he mentioned may not have been as bad as what Columbus did to the Indians, but Zinn of course wouldn't care to add that. I believe as do many historians and politicians, that Howard Zinn twisted aspects of American History in a negative way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)