Since this week got off to a slow start for me, you need only make one comment for this past week. I will leave this as an open thread, which means I won't ask specific questions for you to answer. Instead, you can get your participation points this week simply by remarking about something you found interesting in the reading for the week. Did anything surprise you? Challenge ideas you had about Native Americans and the period of conquest? A brief comment (a few sentences, no more than a paragraph) will suffice for this week.
I hope everyone enjoys their Memorial Day weekend!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
One thing I learned from the reading was that Europeans believed that Indians were innately white. If the Indians were innately white and the Europeans were white, why then were all the negative comments written about the Indians? Was this a way to justify Christianizing the Indians?
While doing the readings, I was fascinated by all the new information that I had learned. There were two major points in the first two chapters that I found most intriguing. The first was that the American Indians were portrayed but alot of the earlier settlers as evil people who were cannibalistic and did not adhere to a religion (in the English sense), but at the same time were protrayed as good because they did not show guile and were friendly and willing to share.
The second was when Vaughan stated on page 35 of his book, ". . . the focus here is on five models that flourished at various times during the two centuries and that embodied England's groping efforts to comprehend the people's of the new world. . ." The five models were completely new to me and I learned alot in the chapter about them.
There is a lot of information in this book that is new to me and it makes me think of what I was taught in my past history courses and how it corresponds with what I am reading.
I think it is interesting that Vaughan references the Native Americans being called Red, or Redskin, when they are on the warpath; otherwise, they are described as Tawney.
One thing that I found interesting as I was reading the Vaughan chapters is the contrast between the settlers of New England and the settlers in Virginia. The settlers in New England were a lot more successful in converting the Native Americans to Christianity. Part of the reason I think is that they were ore willing to learn about them as was mentioned some of the settlers chose to live a Native American life style which I found was interesting.
I thought it was interesting in the Vaughan readings that early Europeans labeled Native Americans based on their culture and not as much on their skin color. I also thought it was interesting the way Native Americans and Africans were compared and that Native Americans were seen as having more potential to basically become Englishmen whereas Africans were seen as so fundamentally different that they were only good for slaves.
The reading has really opened my eyes to the parallels of the similiar fate of Native Americans and Native Africans (I just took a South Africa class). Both of these groups were existing in their own lands, minding their own business, when the British decided they were going to settle in these lands and "save" these uncivilized people. Both of these cultures were willing to coexist with the Brisish, as long as they were allowed to stay on their land. The British, in both cases, were intent on taking over. I'm not sure if I think this was ultimately a good thing or a bad thing - yet.
Also, I did think it was puzzling that the reading mentioned that Indian babies were white when born, but then an ointment is rubbed on them to alter their skin color. Is this possible?
I found the chapters on American Natives quite informative. However, I would have like to have seen more emphasis on the Indian’s part as active participants in a chess game played with the English. A course taught by Dr. Scully focused on the Virginia Powhatans. I understand from reading for that class that Powhatan leaders were indeed not naïve innocents in 1607. They had been dealing with Europeans for some time, successfully driving out the Spanish in the late sixteenth century. Wahunsenacaw, (alias Powhatan), was a shrewd politician who saw the English arrival as an opportunity to expand and consolidate his power with his own people and with other tribes through English alliances and trade. Both the Powhatans and the English used the carrot and the stick approach to obtain what they wanted.
What I found interesting about the readings was the word choice that many Europeans used to describe a persons skin. For example the Africans were prodominately called black or negro, which in many other languages that meant dirty, gloomy, wicked, and wretched. And that these words stuck as permanent labels on this race for years and even today.
Before going into the readings I assumed that there had always existed a prejudice on the English part against Native Americans. I thought the different paradigms Vaughn presents on chapter two were very insightful. There were two that stood at the most because I had actually never heard of them. The first argument believed was that Indians were born white but because of their lifestyle turned a more reddish color. And the second one was the argument that Indians were members of the ten lost tribes. I think these two the most positive arguments because they do not speak negatively of Native American ancestry. Also it sheds some light that not all initial immigrants to the new world were prejudice against Native Americans.
One thing I learned in the readings is that white Americans hostility towards the Indians had something to do with their rejection of Christianity and their own adoption of racial theories.
One thing I learned in the reading was that the white Americans were frustrated with the Indians because they denounced Christianity and civility. The white Americans also adopted their own racial theories about the Indians that fed their hostility towards the natives.
It surprised me at how much animosity the English held for the Natives even though the Natives were mostly responsible for the success of early colonies. Even after the Indians gave them food of all things, the English did not seem to change their outlook of the natives. It did not surprise me, however, to know that the Indians knew the intentions of the English. As they (the English) even said, these people were only inferior in religion and civilization.
To be honest, I had never thought about the ways that the Native American Indians were viewed compared to black Africans. I don't even think I've had this specific area studied in any class that I have taken. I find it fascinating how the English first remarked on the Indians and how alike they were. Also, I did not know that the English overall saw the natives as white and not colored. We know that is not the case when Africans first came onto the scene later on. Also, the effort put into Christianizing the Indians compared to Africans also surprised me a little bit. Now I understand why that was the case and how the English used this policy to justify enslaving blacks.
Post a Comment