Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Quiz #6

I chose to look on the website, the Heritage Preservation Association website. The general purpose of this website is “a national nonprofit organization utilizing educational resources along with legal and political action to protect and preserve the symbols, culture and heritage of the American South” (HPA). This whole site is dedicated to preserving the “history” of the American South.

This websites gives a rather thorough description of the American South, from a Caucasian point of view. Also, there is hardly any mention, if any, of the existence of African Americans in the south, where clearly they did exist during that point in history, as slaves. The website describes in detail that those in the South should be proud of their heritage, and gives many examples from a historic point of view. For example in the introductory paragraphs in the section “Ashamed to be Southern”, the website asks the reader to make believe he or she traveled back in time, to roughly around 10 BC in Israel. Someone who’s native to that area would come up to the reader and say that he is a proud Jew, and lists off the many reasons why his county is so great and cares about the people. The same event occurs when the reader is act to make believe he or she is in London, talking to a native born citizen. Now, when “fast forwarding” to the Virginian times here, the author of this website believe that the common response to someone who lived in the South would be as such: “I am a proud Southerner. My people have lived here for centuries, but the Union victory over the South has brought wonderful things to my people. They have brought equality among the men of the community. They have brought all of the modern conveniences of their industrial prowess. But, most importantly, they have brought the peace and security that their massive military power provides” (HPA).

This website continues to describe how honorable the American South was in the past. It even goes as far as to state that “In short, the Union showed respect and honor for those who so tenaciously fought for independence and magnanimously accepted the arbiter of war. Nowhere was there any protesting of Southern symbols nor was there any attempt to censor Southern culture” (HPA). This is a blatant contradiction to history, because clearly the censorship throughout this website is the existence of African Americans within the American South. This site focuses strictly on the White Americans and what they went through during history with various events and how their own culture was like. If one was to read the website to learn about history, they would walk away believing that the American South was populated with only White American, with various descents coming from various parts of Europe.

Overall, I found this website to be very interesting. It demonstrates that it does want to preserve the history of the American South in a good point of view, but in order to achieve this viewpoint, they had to basically eliminate the fact that African Americans existed in the south as slaves and after the emancipation of the slaves, they still were not mentioned in the website. This reason was probably because African Americans were still not viewed as equal during that time in history, and those lifestyles of the White Americans would better produce a more “glorious” image in contributing to the history of the American South. In conclusion, I believe this site shows just how elitist some people in the world could truly be; willing to erase the existence of a race in order to “preserve” the historical image and pride of the American South.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Why I hate Abercrombie & Fitch

The author’s thesis in this article would be “Abercrombie has worked hard to produce a brand strongly associated with a young, white, upper-class, leisure lifestyle” (p.66). That this means is that the target group of people Abercrombie and Fitch is focused on the upper class white American of society, which they believe is the best suited lifestyle for an American. Wearing Abercrombie and Fitch’s articles of clothing meant that one was a part of that “cult” and therefore accepted in the typical American society.

The article thoroughly dissected the company that is Abercrombie and Fitch, and exposed it’s clearly racial viewpoints in which they are so deeply proud of. Abercrombie and Fitch first started out as an outdoor equipment/clothing store, first created by David T. Abercrombie in 1892. He was later joined up by Ezra Fitch, who was a lawyer who “sought adventure hiking in the Adirondacks and fishing in the Catskills” (p.62). Fast forwarding, Abercrombie ended up leaving the company in 1907. The store’s inventory expanded to also include sports clothing, and this business was still directed to those who belonged to the upper class. Even presidents and other well known people harbored this brand name. Abercrombie’s reputation “was so well established by this point that it was known as the outfitter of the rich, famous, and powerful” (p.63). Roughly around the 1960s, their business slowly declined, and had to file for bankruptcy in 1977. Though soon after, Limited, Inc., adopted Abercrombie and Fitch, and tried to “position the brand as a men’s clothing line and later added a preppy women’s line under the label as well” (p.65). In the pictures that are plastered everywhere in Abercrombie and Fitch stores, mainly white “attractive” males and females were shown, sporting the Abercrombie and Fitch label. Again, this showed that this company solely wished to focus on those people, between ages eighteen and twenty two, who were white and belonged to the upper and middle class. As for the workers, they were very racist in deciding who to hire. The company would only higher good looking white Americans. They had to look like they were on the football team, or belonged to a fraternity or sorority. The preppy look was the Abercrombie and Fitch look, and was “required” to have to be able to work at such a store. Abercrombie also describes their image as the “natural, classic, American” (p.68).

McBride’s argument throughout this article, besides giving very valid reasons of why he hates Abercrombie and Fitch, is that Abercrombie and Fitch is a very racial company, caring only to please and serve those of the “privileged race”, meaning upper and middle class white Americans. I completely agree with his argument. Throughout the article he gives various accurate examples of what goes on behind the scenes of Abercrombie and Fitch. An example would be how the GM’s would grade one’s staff as being ugly, and each employee was given a letter grade based on how he or she looked. If a worker who was not of the Caucasian race was found to be working in Abercrombie, and not working in the back with the other African Americans and various minorities, the manager of that store was ordered to fire said associate. They were either flat out fired by the managers or GM’s, or they were given the “zero-hour” treatment, where they would just stop receiving hours until they got the picture that they were not wanted, and eventually fired.

Overall, I thought this article was a very good read, despite its length. I think that this article is very informational about what is wrong about Abercrombie and Fitch, and questions why they should even stay in business due to their very racial tendencies. Even though that a good handful of the population in the United States would probably fit this stereotype, that doesn’t mean that the store should exist only to fit their needs, and disregard anyone else who is different from the “privileged” group of people. I personally dislike Abercrombie and Fitch due to the fact that I think their clothes are way too expensive, and way to obnoxious for my tastes. Then again, I don’t really fit the “white American upper/middle class” group of people the store targets, but that shouldn’t really matter…possibly. In conclusion, I thoroughly enjoyed this read, and found many of the points that expose Abercrombie and Fitch’s racism quite intriguing.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Takaki Ch. 7: Foreigners in their native land: Manifest Destiny in the Southwest

1. This group of Mexicans came to be part of the United States when the land was ceded to the United States. They did not really have a choice of the takeover by the United States. Though they were given a choice to stay and become Americans or move to live in Mexico. Though not many people wanted to move because it was too much work, so most stayed where they were already living at.

2. Their own land became part of the United States, and because of this the land started to be governed and controlled by the standards of the United States. These people were foreigners to those of the United States, and even they were living in their own land, which was originally theirs, they began to be treated as foreigners.

3. Social Construction: The social status system was based on the colors of the citizens skins. Those superior were the whites, then those with a slightly darker skin tone have a little less privilege, but more than those on the bottom, who were the African Americans.

4. The different groups in the chapter united and started strikes to receive better pay and equal treatment. They were fighting to be considered to be on the same level as the Caucasians in the United States. Various organizations also came into play which supported the strikers going against the United States racism.

5. Race- "Our race, our unfortunate people will have to wander in search of hospitality in a strange land, only to be ejected later" -p.177

Ethnicity- "In the copper industry, companies listed their Mexican employees on their payrolls under the special heading of "Mexican labor" paying them at lower rates than Anglo laborers for the same job classifications" -p.187.

Race pertains to the physical traits of a person, categorizing them to be part of a certain group of people who have the same various physical features as them. Ethnicity pertains certain cultural aspects, and categorizes them in a much wider group, such as Asians, which can contain Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, etc.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Yellow - By Frank Wu: Response Post

What this quote is saying is that despite the fact that both being stared at and being looked though may both be subtle, and contradictory, they still point out the fact that he is different than the supposed norm of a citizen, therefore receiving more or less attention (stared at vs stared through) than the same person would give to another passerby who was a white american. If an Asian American, or another type of minority, were to walk around a town which is mainly populated by white americans, they will be noticed as a person who stands out, and will probably receive subtle changes in receiving attention, ergo the being stared at or being stared through.

I don't really take any notice about any of these things, even though I am also Asian American. Probably because half of my family is Philippean and the other half is Caucasian/Americans, the lines between the two are quite blurred to me, therefore I believe I am part of both kinds of races.

Comic Book Cover

I chose this comic book cover because it represents a few of the stereotypes that America has within its society. The stereotypes represented here are the white man being the strong hero to the helpless but attractive white female, or “damsel in distress”. The white man is also fighting of an “evil” being that seems to be represented as either a black or Asian minority.

This item relates to the class material because we have been studying various stereotypes throughout the growth of America. It always appears that the Caucasian males are always superior to everybody else within the country, and are the ideal people to want to be. Caucasian females still are higher than the minorities, but have a stereotype to be viewed as helpless, and need to be protected by males. From what the comic book cover is representing, the minority male seems to have captured the Caucasian female, and tied her up keeping her captive for some reason. The person that comes to the rescue is the Caucasian male, and proceeds to fight off the minority males, because he represents evil within the situation provided on the cover. Many of the articles we have read which had to deal with the stereotypes of African Americans versus White Americans pretty much show the exact same thing. In the movie Ethnic Notions, there was a silent film that was produced, which showed an African American chasing a helpless Caucasian female, showing that the African Americans were evil within society, and search to cause harm to Caucasian females. In an article called The Ethics of Living Jim Crow was about how African Americans still received unequal treatment even though the laws of equality were already in effect. For example from that article, if an African American bellboy in a hotel was to look upon a Caucasian female with her supposed partner in the room, he risked the chance of either being yelled at or beaten. This shows that the Caucasian males were protective of their female counterpart, and supposedly believe the minority groups as not being allowed to even look at the Caucasian female. Another example was with what happened to Emmett Till. Emmett had just said a greeting to a Caucasian female in a store, and the result of that was him being brutally murdered by a group of Caucasian males. These stereotypes were real, and the comic book cover is a vague representation of these situations.

I think that this cover gives a very accurate representation of how stereotypes were during that time period. Though it is quite unfortunate that these stereotypes actually existed, and the minority groups were always posed as being on the bottom ranking, and either deemed not worthy for anything, or as a threat to the Caucasian society.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America

The thesis of this article, by Karen Brodkin, is “The late nineteenth century and early decades of the twentieth saw a steady stream of warnings by scientists, policymakers, and the popular press that “mongrelization” of the Nordic or Anglo-Saxon race- the real Americans- by inferior European races (as well as by inferior non-European ones) was destroying the fabric of the nation” (p.38). This statement basically states that America clearly had anti-Semitism and also believed Jews to be an inferior race, which throughout history showed that their racism and elitist tendencies had put the nation in a worse position than it could have been.

Throughout the article, the author talks about how racist America was against almost every race or religion that was not protestant or was Nordics from northwestern Europe. One of the popular beliefs was that “Jews are members of an inferior race. But Jews were hardly alone…as well as against Asian immigrants, not to mention African Americans, Native Americans, and Mexicans” (p.39). It is believed that the United States have gotten these views of superior versus inferiority standards from Europe, because they discriminated against the Irish, even though their complexion was white, just like those from northwestern Europe. Also, Europe seemed to have different ranks within their continent. There were the superior Nordics of northwestern Europe to the inferior southern and eastern races of the Alpines, Mediterraneans, and Jews (p.40). But before all of this, in America, all of the white European immigrants were considered to be included in the white population. After the 1900s was when the racial divide between all of these different races and groups became clearly apparent in society, and included discrimination against women as well. One of the main events that occurred was the Red Scare of 1919. This event “linked anti-immigrant with anti-working-class sentiment- to the extent that the Seattle general strike by largely native-born workers was blamed on foreign agitators” (p.40). By the 1920s America tried using scientific racism to categorize who the “real Americans” were, also known as finding those who came from northwestern Europe. This racism was apparent from any type of job occupation, the military, and even in the education department. Anyone who was not a northwestern European male would most likely be treated unfairly in society, such as being forced to give up his or her job position for a lower ranking one, just because someone who fit the “real American” description needed to take that place, especially those who have just come back from the war and needed to find a job to support themselves and their own family.

Brodkin argues in this article that America’s anti-Semitism and racist views were directly related to believing Nordics of northwestern Europe were the superior race, and that people were born divided into separate classes and cultures that needed to be given different privileges. I agree with the author’s point of view, because the history of America is not exactly a perfect one. America started out as always having racist views against the Native Americans and the African Americans, because the new settlers strongly believed that they were the superior beings in this new country. As the population of the Native Americans decreased, and African Americans were being shipped over to America, they became the inferior race because of slavery. Once slavery was abolished, there were many white people already living in America. Now the government saw that they should divide superiority between those with white skin. Ideally, they believed the northwestern Europeans were superior, because that was their position over in Europe as being the highest in rank. Therefore, divisions between race, class, gender, and even sexuality became part of the privilege process.

Overall, I found this article to be quite bland. The article describes the Euro-ethnics within America, and continuously relates the racism against Jews to her personal life, and how she inherited much from her parents who grew up during this time period. She also made it quite clear about how America was racists through all these different aspects, and what America believed to be the superior race. Though the article was quite informative, I had a very hard time trying to keep focus on the article. Either it was the content, or the way the article was just delivered, I do not believe that this was a good read.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Extra Credit: The Ethics of Living Jim Crow: An Autobiographicall Sketch by Richard Wright

The thesis of Wright’s article is that African Americans received extremely unfair treatment, even after the emancipation of slavery, particularly when involved in the work force run by white managers, and having to work with white co-workers. This also proves how ineffective the Jim Crow laws were in the south, because even though they were “separate but equal”, it was obvious that African American’s were treated as inferior to the whites.

This article was an autobiographical sketch written by Robert Wright, describing his various experiences being an African American living in the south and having to deal with racism from the whites during the time period after the emancipation of slavery. The first incident in which he realized it was wrong of him to think that it was the whites fault he got hurt was when he was just a boy. Him and some of his other African American friends would play cinder against the white kids who lived across the railroad. This time, instead of having cinders like they are supposed to, the white kids had used broken bottles as a replacement. One of the white boys ended up throwing a broken bottle, which ended up hitting Wright on the back of the head, causing an injury that needed stitches. After he told his mom about the injury, he expected comfort, but instead received a beating. He was “taught” to believe “I was never to fight any more wars. I was never, never, under any conditions, to fight white folks again. And they were absolutely right in clouting me with the broken milk bottle…I ought to be thankful to God as long as I lived that they didn’t kill me” (p.23). After moving and growing up in a black populated area, when he was of age to take on a job and support himself, he ended up having to work with white folks in an optical company. His other jobs included portering in a clothing store, being a bell-boy in a hotel, and another optical company. Throughout all of those jobs, the inferiority of African Americans to whites was distinctly obvious. It was believed to be dangerous for African Americans to be out past sunset, because they would be suspected by the police of doing something against the law. Also, while being a bell-boy in a hotel where the majority of the customers were prostitutes, they had to react to them being nude as though they were looking upon a rug or a lamp. In the elevators one must take their hat off, and were hit for saying “thank you” if a white man took of the black man’s hat for him if he was carrying too much stuff. Even though the Jim Crow laws existed, they were barely enforced. It was apparent that the African Americans had to “know their place” if they were to avoid being injured in any way, shape or form.

The argument in this article would be that the Jim Crow laws were very loosely upheld, especially within the southern states. I agree with Wright on this, because in every situation that was presented in this autobiography, it is clear that even the white policemen couldn’t care less about equal treatment between the blacks and the whites. In the various examples, the blacks were unfairly treated because if a white man were to do the same “mistake” a black man would, the whites would most likely get off with nothing, whereas a black man would be considered “lucky” to walk away with a beating. An example from the reading was when a black man was caught in bed with one of the prostitutes. For a white man, that would be considered normal, but this black man got castrated and run out of the town. The other bell boys were warned and saying they got off “lucky”, and the next person who were caught doing that would probably be in danger of their life.

Overall I thought that the article was a good read. This autobiography kept my attention throughout the entire article. I found the various examples of how African Americans had to “adjust” to the Jim Crow laws very unjust. The way African Americans were treated in the past was very poor, and it is sad that the south saw this treatment as being the right thing to do in society. All of these scenarios were realistic, and unfortunately it was pretty easy to picture these events happening in history, given what we have learned about such treatment through other readings. Overall, I thought that this was a very well written article.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Zinn Chapter 9- Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom

Zinn’s thesis in this article is “It would take either a full-scale slave rebellion or a full-scale war to end such a deeply entrenched system. If a rebellion, it might get out of hand, and turn its ferocity beyond slavery to the most successful system of capitalist enrichment in the world. If a war, those who made the war would organize its consequences” (p.129). This statement means that in order for society to completely change its way into becoming a country without slavery, something extreme had to occur, and either way it would not be a smooth process.

Zinn’s article talks about the slow and tedious events in history that had to deal with the emancipation of slavery in the United States. Around the early 1800s, slave rebellions started happening more often than before, and the slaves were slowly becoming more educated. The slave owners were silently becoming terrified of these rebellions, and tried to keep as much control over the slaves as possible to make sure they would not run away or try to revolt. Most of this occurred in the south, where slavery was still very common. In the north, African Americans were able to live free and go to school and have jobs as writers, store owners, and other occupations. It is because of the free blacks in the north that the inspiration to become free people in the south became more popular, and leads to the increase of rebellions and runaways. For example, David Walker was a son of a slave, but born free in North Carolina, who sold clothes in Boston. He wrote and printed a pamphlet entitled Walker’s Appeal, which became very popular. This pamphlet spoke about who blacks must fight for their freedom (p.134). This infuriated the southern slaveholders, and “Georgia offered a reward of $10,000 to anyone who would deliver Walker alive, and $1,000 to anyone who would kill him” (p.134). Then over the summer in 1830, David Walker was found dead near the doorway of his shop in Boston (p.134). Throughout the 1800s the government started getting involved with the emancipation of slavery, or so they lead the public to believe. There were new laws in place that stated the slave era was over, and that slavery has become illegal. But the rights that the African Americans had in comparison to whites were quite unfair, especially because those in the south wished to still hold on to their white supremacy. White supreme groups like the Klu Klux Clan came to be, who went around basically hunting African American men, women, and children, and lynched and murdered them. The government did very little to try and control the situation, and various amendments kept switching back and forth between having African Americans as equals, then having unfair treatment between the two races still occur. The emancipation of slavery was a long and drawn out battle, and it was very difficult for the government to keep either side content. The sides of this inner war were the whites, African Americans, and the Northern and Southern states.

An argument Zinn proposes in this article is that the road to emancipation of the slaves would not be as easy as simply banning it by law. I agree with Zinn on this argument. As history shows as Zinn’s proof for this argument, even the government had a difficult time keeping the situation with slavery under control. Basically, no matter that the government did, the African Americans were still in a position that was inferior to the whites. The more “privileges” the African Americans gained, the angrier whites in the south would get. Then to try and keep the white supreme people happy, they set in a different set of laws that would again limit some of the supposed privileges the African Americans had, or find a way to keep them under control. Then the African Americans would start complaining, and the cycle would start all over again. The situation just got worse as time went on, which led to the civil war between the states.

Overall, I thought Zinn’s article was very informative about the struggle dealing with the emancipation of slavery during the 1800s. I learned a lot more about what happened during this time period through this read, and found some points of the article quite interesting. Though unfortunately I had a hard time trying to keep my attention towards the article, and sometimes found myself having to reread a couple sections because I just did not understand what was going on through some of the passages. Even though I believe this article has very strong points about the information along with having a lot of facts integrated, I just couldn’t keep my focus on the article throughout the read.

Monday, October 8, 2007


The main topic of Kindred revolves around Dana, who is an African American woman sent back into time upon numerous occasions during the slave era to ensure that her ancestor, Rufus Weylin, does not die a preemptive death.

The book Kindred, by Octavia E. Butler, is about an African American woman named Dana from the 1970s that gets sent back in time on the numerous events that Rufus, one of her slave-holder ancestors, is involved in a life threatening situation. The only way for Dana to return to her present time is if she is scared for her life. Then she just disappears from the scene and gets sent back to where she was last back in her own time period, in Kevin and hers house. Time seems to go on much longer in the past than it does in the present. For example, a trip back in time that may have felt like a few days in the past was only actually a few mere minutes in the present. On one of these trips, Kevin, Dana’s white husband, gets brought along by simply being in contact with Dana. After Dana once again saves Rufus from a life threatening situation, they all go back to the Weylin household, where Dana pretends to be Kevin’s slave, because for them to actually be married during the slave era is unheard of, and even sounds ridiculous to the public. Unfortunately for Kevin’s first time being brought back to the past with Dana, he gets left behind when Dana was being whipped by Tom Weylin, and sent back to her own time period. What seemed as only a few days to Dana of her being back at home before returning to the past, five years have passed for Kevin, trying to make a living and waiting for Dana to return and bring them both back to their own time period. Dana again resumes playing the part of a slave, no matter how demeaning she feels it to be, and she realizes that her present life is simple compared to what African Americans had to endure during the slave era. Dana and Rufus get along for a while, both depending on each other for kindness, support, and protection. Rufus then falls in love with another slave, Alice, who is also Dana’s ancestor. Though Alice is not interested in Rufus, and only wishes to return to her husband, who was sent to the south with his ears cut off after Alice and her husband’s failed attempt at running away. Once Dana returns and Kevin comes back after five years to see Dana for the first time, Rufus becomes angry about Dana leave, and refuses to let her go back. In the end, Dana is forced to kill Rufus on the account of self-defense because of his attempt at raping Dana.

Kindred does a very good job portraying how different the two lifestyles are in the present and the past for African Americans, and shows how hard the slaves had to work, and how poorly they were treated back then. Compared to the slave era, living in today’s society is like a walk in the park for African Americans. This book does very well at describing the two different time periods, and what would happen if an African American from this time period were to be extracted and placed into the situation of the slave era, and how different of a world they would have to endure. With Kevin going back in time as well, it is obvious that he had a much easier time fitting into the slave era situation than Dana did, mainly because he was a white American. This shows that no matter that the time period was in America, white Americans always had some privilege over the other races.

Overall, I think Kindred was a very good read. I found it very intriguing to read how Dana had to adjust herself to be able to fit into the slave era, and how much more work she had to endure, and to not even receive any pay. Being treated as something less than a human being after being used to the current time era would be a rather drastic change in the environment. This book kept my interest throughout the entire read, and I believe that it was very well written. This book gives a very good example of how it would be like throughout the slave era, especially for an African American from a recent time period.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Takaki, Chapter 3: The "Giddy Multitude"

Takaki’s thesis in this chapter is “In 1611, when Shakespeare’s play was first performed, there were no African Calibans in Virginia. Indeed, the introduction of Africans was something that had not even been considered at the time. As it turned out, the presence of Africans in America did become a reality” (p.52). This statement is saying that Caliban from The Tempest closely reflects what happens in America, and the arrival of Africans as becoming the oppressed slaves within the country.

This chapter in Takaki’s book deeply describes that the representation of Caliban could very well be coincidentally linked with the representation of the Africans within America. The English view the Africans as a vile race, and people who would come off as brutish. Also, the English believed that they were all cannibals, and were “a people of beastly living, without a God, law, religion. Their color allegedly made them Devils incarnate” (p.52). Basically all of the degrading traits that a “monster” would have, Caliban had, and in retrospect, the Africans represented as well. The Africans, like Caliban, were also branded with the words “savage” and “deformed slave”. Though not all of the slave labor in the new settlement was black, but there were also English whites who were forced to enslavement as well. The whites who were gathered to be slaves in America were known as “surplus inhabitants” of England. Within this titled included convicts, “rogues, vagabonds, whores, cheats, and rabble of all descriptions, raked from the gutter, decoyed, deceived, seduced, inveigled, or forcibly kidnapped and carried as servants to the plantations” (p.54). Even though these English slaves were white, they were still shoved in the same class that the black Africans were: slave laborers, whose status dropped to them becoming treated as property. The white slaves typically got a lesser penalty than the black slaves whenever they tried to run away, even though both still receive pretty harsh punishments. Usually black slaves were forced into life of enslavement, while whites typically only had to work a few more extra years for the colony and the slave’s master. Another part of the play that became apparent in the new settlement was the combined rebellion force of the black and white slaves, known as “The Giddy Multitude”. This rebellion was defined as “a discontented class of indentured servants, slaves, and landless freemen, both white and black, the Stephanos and Trinculos as well as the Calibans of Virginia” (p.63). All of them ended up grabbing a hold of armory in order to stand their ground. Unfortunately, the rebellion did not last as long as the members have hoped. By force and deceit, “the rebels of the “giddy multitude” had been defeated, but they had fought in what historian Edmund Morgan called “the largest rebellion known in any American colony before the American Revolution”” (p.65). After this revolt was put down, the white slaves were lifted of their punishments, but the black slaves did not receive this luxury. By this time the government system decided that black slaves were the best way to go for slave labor, and their plan was to deliberately pit the white and black slaves against each other (p.67). In the end, Jefferson abolished slavery because of the chaos it caused within the population. Though even though the blacks were now freed, they were still treated quite differently, so much as they would have to be removed from American society (p.70).

Takaki’s argument in this chapter would be that Caliban once again had foreseen all of these events regarding race differences, slaves and oppression within the new settlement. With all the given evidence and links from both this chapter and the previous chapter, I would have to agree with his argument. In Shakespeare’s play, Caliban was seen as the monster out of the society, someone different from everyone else, someone who looked and seemed to act like any other brutish figure would, and lastly, someone that could be forced into slavery and be made to obey a master’s command. Just because Caliban was different than the rest, he was seen as a threat that needed to be controlled. If the name “Caliban” was removed from all of the above statements, and replaced with “Africans”, or even “Native Americans”, would still be accurate to how those groups of people were viewed in the American society during that time period.

Overall, I thought the chapter was a pretty decent read. I was not aware of the Giddy Multitude during this time period, and I found the combined rebellion of both the blacks and the whites very interesting. I also thought that how differently the white slaves and the black slaves were punished, even though they did the exact same crime and were supposedly viewed as “equal slave laborers” was quite appalling, even though I have read about events similar to this before. I still think the other articles we read in class are more attention keeping than Takaki’s chapters though, but otherwise it was a good read, and very informative about continuing the story of Caliban, and the relation to slavery and oppression within America during that time period.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Getting Off the Hook: Denial and Resistance

Johnson’s thesis for this article is “but the truth is that my silence, my inaction, and especially my passive acceptance of the everyday privilege that goes along with group membership are all it takes to make me just as much a part of the problem as any member or the Klan” (118).

This article describes how racism and sexism are still happening within our culture, though much less obvious than in the past. For example, every time someone says a racist joke, but ends it with an “I didn’t mean it”, they think that saying they did not mean it means that they didn’t say it at all, they’re not being racist, and that the person who was supposedly offended by the statement shouldn’t feel hurt at all. People in today’s society view their privileges as if that’s the normal way of life. There seems to be nothing wrong if someone acts in a sexist way, it was the fault of the one being discriminated against, as if they were asking for it. This lets the person who is being sexist become “off the hook” because it “wasn’t their fault” to begin with. There are different states that Johnson mentions that show how people get away with showing signs of being racist, sexist, or discriminatory in any way. These ways are to deny and minimize, blame the victim, call it something else, “it’s better this way”, it doesn’t count if you don’t mean it, “I’m one of the good ones”, being sick and tired of situations, and getting off the hook by getting on. Also, throughout the article it shows how these different discriminatory signs between the sexes and races have been dulled down in society and coming off as subtle and shouldn’t cause anyone any harm. One example that he uses is the documentary “True Colors”, which shows how two men who are the same in every single way, minus the fact that one is black and one is white, are treated differently in today’s society. They recorded what happened between the men in different situations, such as applying for a job, accidentally locking oneself out of the car, trying to rent an apartment, shopping for shoes, buying a car, and so on (p.119). The example that was featured in the article showed that when the white man entered a shoe store, he was instantly greeted by the white sales clerk, and was helped. Though after he left, and the black man entered just a few minutes later, he received no such greeting, or was not helped in any sort of way while browsing the store. This shows that even though those of the “privileged” part of society won’t say they’re racist, these subtle actions show that some parts of them are, otherwise they wouldn’t act in this sort of way.

In the article, Johnson states that “In effect, ‘I didn’t mean it’ often comes close to ‘I didn’t say it’ or ‘I didn’t do it,’ which of course isn’t true” (p.116). I agree with Johnson on this viewpoint, because it is very common to hear a joke or a phrase followed by an “I didn’t mean it” in the case that someone shows they were offended by the statement. With people saying “I didn’t mean it”, they automatically think that they didn’t say it, and they are off the hook from being discriminatory. This argument is valid because it is true in almost any situation that even has a hint of racism or sexism.

Overall I thought this article was interesting. The part I found that was most amusing was the section of the article where the men and women were arguing over the action of men opening doors for women. I personally just think that men opening doors for a woman is an act of chivalry, which is kind of rare to find nowadays. Women shouldn’t take it as an offense, and should just accept it. If anything women can do the same thing for men every now and then, and open some doors for them as an act of kindness. I don’t understand why people would be offended by that, and in relation to some argumentative statements that were included, women could always ask men for help in the home nowadays. Other than this, I thought how Johnson pointed out the different subtleness of discriminatory statements in today’s society was very interesting, and surprising enough, it’s true and apparent without even having to look for it.

What It All Has To Do With Us

Johnson’s thesis in this article is “To do something about the trouble surrounding privilege, power, and difference, we have to talk about it, but most of the time we don’t because it feels too risky. This is true for just about everyone, but especially for people with privilege” (p.76).

This article is about Individual and Social Systems, and how they change people’s behaviors according to the given situation. According to Johnson, “individualistic thinking also makes us blind to the very existence of privilege, because privilege, by definition, has nothing to do with individuals, only with the social categories we wind up in” (p.77). Basically, Johnson is saying that people who are in the privileged group tend to make generalizations about others, such as racism, sexism, and ableism. Those in that group who don’t agree with the others will not speak out, because the consequence of them following the “more resistant” path may attract attention to themselves and may in turn be ridiculed for thinking differently. Therefore, the “good people” who think against the popular belief within their own privileged group as opposed to others would rather smile, nod, and keep silent rather than speak up. This is taken in as an agreement by others in the privileged group. The individuals and the systems or groups they belong in are mutually linked. Given this, the personality or actions that a person is perceived in each situation may be different, even though that they are in fact the same person. Johnson’s example in the article about how he acquires a rather greedy personality while playing a Monopoly game verses his actual laid-back personality reflects this. Not only is this link visible in a simple Monopoly game, but it actually present within the social world. What we experience “as social life happens through a complex dynamic between systems- families, schools, workplaces, communities, entire societies- and the choices people make as they participate in them and help make them happen. How we experience the world and ourselves, our sense of other people, and the ongoing reality of the systems themselves all arise, take shape, and happen through this dynamic” (p.84).

Johnson states that “we are always participating in something larger than ourselves- what sociologist call social systems- and systems are not collections of people” (p.78). I agree with Johnson on this statement. Sociologically speaking, both the individual and the social system they are part of both have a direct affect on each other. Johnson presents an excellent example to explain this. “A university is a social system, and people participate in it. But the people aren’t the university, and the university isn’t the people. This means that to understand what happens in it, we have to look at both the university and how individual people participate in it” (p.78). Basically, the students and faculty are part of the university social system. Outside of the university, they are their own different individuals, with no specific role to follow. Though, when these types of people are gathered in a university setting, they begin to act in response to one another as a student would to a professor, and vice versa. These multiple roles people take are the same for any social system.

I think that this article was very informative in the sociological views of showing how some privileged thinking is related with the social systems, and that not everybody of a certain privileged group thinks alike. There are dominant thoughts that most people in that group would agree too, and others just follow along in order to avoid being targeted as going against the “normal” beliefs of a certain group. I also liked the monopoly example in order to relate different personality changes and how it is directly related to the circumstantial environment or setting. Overall, I thought that the article was interesting in explaining the individuals and systems, and how they are intertwined and affect each other depending on the situation.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Capitalism, Class, and the Matrix of Domination

Johnson’s thesis of this article is “capitalism played a major role in the development of white privilege and still plays a major role in its perpetuation” (p.41). Also, “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” (p.53).

The argument in this article pertains to capitalism, and how it had a direct influence on the system in regards to privileges within the Americas, which are based on not only race, but social class and even sexual orientation. The economy is a major part of deciding how much wealth a person or company can bring in. Because economic systems “are the source of wealth, they are also the basis for every social institution, since the state and the church and universities and the like cannot survive without an economic base” (p.42). The purpose capitalism serves is to make a big profit on top of the cost of production of any goods and services. The ending result is acquiring more money than what the company started with. They way capitalism was run was that people work under their terms or the person has no job at all. Capitalism’s “direct connection to white racism has also operated in the acquisition of land and raw materials, which, like cheap labor, play a key role in the rapid growth of industry and wealth. To justify such direct forms of imperialism and oppression, whites developed the idea of whiteness to define a privileged social category elevated above everyone who wasn’t included in it” (p.46). Capitalist wanted to keep the wages they paid their workers low, and to keep the productivity high so they could receive a greater profit. In order to keep the whites from revolting in wanted a raise; they used those of other races who will work for the same rate, causing hostility and competition between the races. The result of this is that “white racism actually hurts white workers by strengthening the position of capitalists at white workers’ expense” (p.48). Another part of capitalist influence is the matrix of domination. The matrix shows that the different factors of privilege and unprivileged people directly correlate to one another. For example, a white male may have precedence over a black male, yet a white male who is homosexual would be less privileged than a heterosexual white male. So in one category being white has advantages, but having another characteristic that is oppressed would lower ones standing in society in regards to privilege.

I agree with Johnson’s argument that capitalism has a direct link to the causing racism in the Americas, but it is not the only source. Because of the constant need for workers willing to work low wages for capitalist companies to prosper and bring in a huge profit, using race to keep the lower class white workers from revolting against the low wages was a smart move for that time period. Also, the creation of the “matrix domination” showed how different people due to class, race, and sexual orientation were ranked in society. Those who were a white female and homosexual would probably be in the same ranking as a black male who was heterosexual. The living standards due to these different privileges and unprivileged classifications were influenced by capitalism, along with the race, class, and sexist standings.

I thought that this article proved an interesting connection between capitalism and the social standings within the Americas. Before this article I don’t think I would have been able to make the connection, given that history is not exactly my strong point. Johnson does a very thorough job at explaining his argument, and had many valid points about the tie between the two. I also found the explanation of the matrix of domination very interesting. Though overall, this article did not really hold my attention as well as the previous articles we have read.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Privilege, Oppression, and Difference

Allan G. Johnson’s thesis of this article is that the real illusion connected to difference is the popular assumption that people are naturally afraid of what they don’t know or understand. This supposedly makes it inevitable that you’ll fear and distrust people who aren’t like you and, in spite of your good intentions; you’ll find it all but impossible to get along with them (p.13).

Johnson’s article states that it is the perception of how people view one another that causes the difference in privileges between people, not the races. If we feel afraid, it isn’t what we don’t know that frightens us, it’s what we think we do know (p.13). Though this is not always the case, i.e., when the Native Americans when the first settlers came upon American soil. People who are not part of one’s own group are viewed as different, partially because they are afraid of those different than themselves. The idea that “everyone is naturally frightened by difference is a cultural myth that, more than anything, justifies keeping outsiders on the outside and treating them badly if they happen to get in” (p.13). The Native Americans first welcomed the New England settlers with open arms. But in return the New Englanders became dominant over the Native Americans, because the purely “think” that they are more superior to these people, and should be treated as such, despite their generous hospitalities. Also, people are made up of various different qualities that may be more or less easy to judge just by a first glance. The diversity wheel is made up of six social characteristics: age, race, ethnicity, gender, physical ability and qualities (left/right-handedness, height, and so on), and sexual orientation. Around the outer ring are others, including religion, marital and parental status, and social-class indicators such as education, occupation, and income (p.14). These qualities are not easy to decipher when just glancing at a person walking out on the street. Sure, one can define some characteristics such as gender and race easily, but to completely define someone requires actually getting to know the person. Johnson also says that if one wakes up one day and suddenly changed gender, race, or anything within the inner part of the diversity wheel, the way others perceive that person is most likely to change. For most people “shifting only a few parts of the diversity wheel would be enough to change their lives dramatically” (p.15). The specs outside of the wheel don’t dramatically alter the perception from others as much as the ones on the inner wheel, because unlike the outer portion of the wheel, the inner portion consists of characteristics that, one way or another, we must learn to live with regardless of how we choose to reveal ourselves to others (p.16).

Johnson states in his article that a late African American novelist James Baldwin believes that there is no such thing as whiteness or, for that matter, blackness or, more generally, race. “No one is white before he/she came to America. It took generations, and a vast amount of coercion, before this became a white country” (Baldwin). I agree with this statement, that it seems that America is one of the only places that set labels to people based on their skin color and race. For example, in Africa, and African female would be considered an African, and a woman. Though in America, she would gain the title of “black”, so she would be considered a black woman, and be perceived and how a black woman would be in America. Overall, labeling someone “black” or “white” should not count when identifying someone due to certain specs of one self. These colors are not on the diversity wheel Johnson offers as well, so therefore color classification should not exist. Unfortunately, since the time of the New England settlers, these colors have been integrated in the America’s culture with respect to classifying people based on their outside looks.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this article. I thought that the diversity wheel and the different spec about people and the various characteristics that can define a person’s unique structure. I also found it interesting about the different privileges he listed that some people have over others just because they are a certain type in the inner section of the diversity wheel, such as being a heterosexual, and a male. Johnson also does a very good job explaining about the cultural creation of how we perceive others and the social construction within our society. I found this article very informative about the diversity factors within our country.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Race: The Power of the Illusion: The Difference Between Us

Because of our history of moving, mating, and mixing most human variation, especially of older complex traits, can be found within any population, most of it from a common source in Africa.

The video’s argument was about race is not biological. Over all of the research that scientists have made about each of the different races, there is absolutely no evidence that shows a certain race contains something different than any other race biologically on the inside. The only differences between races are what can be seen on the outside. For example, the physique of a Caucasian or an African American’s facial features would have slight differences in comparison to someone of Indian or Asian descent. Though the differences are very subtle and there is no certain characteristic that is unique to any race’s facial features, along with any other parts of the human body. Genetically, there are no differences that are exclusive to any type of race. Every single human of every race has a genetic makeup unique to only themselves, and being genetically similar to anyone of the same race is just a mere coincidence. People of a particular race could have a closer DNA gene to a person of a separate race as opposed to one of their own. There is no way to tell what race a person is solely based on their genetics. This was proven in the classroom example which was shown periodically throughout the video.

What are the consequences of the conclusion that the only way the word race can be used is to tell the difference between outward appearances? Well, even though that this statement is true; unfortunately there is still slight racism throughout the world. Certain races are looked down upon by others because they may feel “superior”, or think that a different race is “inferior” to them because they appear to be the weaker group of humans. This discovery also points out how entirely wrong the early settlers in the Americas were when classifying the different races as being better or worse than the other. Externally, yes there are differences, though not enough to say that different races are superior or inferior to one another. Melanin is the reason for the color differences, and depending on where one originated from, the melanin in people’s skin adjusts accordingly in order to protect one from being harmed by the sunlight. Since melanin really one of the only subtle features that can tell people of different races apart, once again there really is no difference between one human from the next in ranks or skill level. Every human is built biologically the same way.

Overall, I found the video very informative, and I learned quite a few new things as well. Proving that the genetics within a person is as random within a particular race as it is with anyone else in the entire world. There is no specific gene or anything biological that can set races apart. I also thought the author of the video displayed his argument very well, along with very strong proofs and examples. The classroom example with having each person guess who else they are probably more similar to, and showing the ending results was very creative. This evidence also proves that any racism against others dealing with certain superior versus inferior complexes are null and void of ever being correct, because in the end there are no real differences that state who is within the better race. Though unfortunately at the fault of the settlers, we today are still paying for what they started with racism in the past. Even though the amount of racism has significantly decreased within the past few hundred years, there are some views and phrases that are still around that come off as becoming racist.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Drawing the Color Line

Zinn’s thesis is that the elements of racism and slavery are historical, not “natural”. This unequal treatment, this developing combination of contempt and oppression, feeling and action, which we call “racism” –was this the result of a “natural” antipathy of white against black? If racism can’t be shown to be natural, then it is the result of certain conditions, and we are impelled to eliminate those conditions (p.27).

The argument the author presents consists of how the settler’s racist ways played a major role in determining who they made to become slaves and the treatment towards them as opposed to people of the settler’s own kind. The reason the settler’s made the blacks slaves were because of two reasons. The first one being the Indians in the mainland had a big advantage over the settlers, mainly because they know the territory much better than the settlers do, and they are much more resourceful on living off the land, unlike them. “There may have been a kind of frustrated rage at their own ineptitude, at the Indian superiority at taking care of themselves, that the Virginians especially ready to become the master of slaves” (p.24). So because of this, the settlers turned to Africa in search for the labor needed to take care of the crops and other jobs in the new world. The reason the African’s were much easier to force into slave work was because they were foreigners in the new world, torn apart from their homeland. They were basically like helpless animals confused and forced into slavery towards the settlers. As Zinn says, “The blacks had been torn from their land and culture, forced into a situation where the heritage of language, dress, custom, and family relations was bit by bit obliterated except for the remnants that blacks could hold on to by sheer, extraordinary persistence” (p. 25). Also, even before the New England’s discovery of the Americas, African blacks had already been used in other parts of the world as a source of slaves. The racism the settlers had against the Indians also existed against the blacks. Whites were the masters, and the blacks were slaves to the whites. The blacks also received harsher punishments than the whites did, even if they committed the same crime. So violence was a big part of keeping the slaves in control, and just increased when they tried to rebel various ways.

Zinn applied his argument very well in discussing the fact that the settlers were racist against the slaves, and “proving” that the Americans were the superior races through violence; even though the Africans and the Indians were better developed then the settlers was in the new land. I agree with Zinn’s argument about his views on the racism within the settlers throughout this time period. There is evidence to show that the American’s way of slavery were quite harsh in comparison to any other kind of slavery throughout history. The settler’s greed for “limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave” (p.25). Because of that drive, they didn’t care how much they hurt the blacks. The settlers treated them basically like cattle, herding them onto their ships from Africa and porting them back to the mainland to sell like items in a trade market.

I thought this article was very interesting as well. I learned that the Indians were actually too hard to keep control of and catch them as slaves for the settlers, and that is one of the main reasons why they went overseas to find those who are foreign to the landscape, and are more helpless than the Indians. The Indians can take care of themselves and defend quite strongly as they did to avoid capture from the settlers. With this happening during the same time period the settlers needed more laborers for the work needed, it caused the settlers to look elsewhere for slaves. Showing history from the opposite point of view from which we were taught has grabbed my attention more than the subject of history has in the past. I think that Zinn does a wonderful job with exposing the darker side of what happened in the new world, and how the Africans came to be a strong source of slavery for the America’s. I also found it very interesting how Zinn puts into perspective, when comparing the New England settlers, the Indians, and the Africans, it is actually the settlers that are inferior in the ways of taking care of themselves and running a settlement. Yet it is the New Englanders who look down upon the Indians and Africans because they are different, and become very racist against these groups. The only way that the settlers showed they were superior were through violence and forcing their ways upon the “inferior” groups. Overall, I found this to be another pretty good read by Zinn.

Monday, August 27, 2007

The Tempest in the Wilderness

The Tempest, the London audience knew, was not about Ireland but about the New World, for the reference to the “Bermoothes” (Bermuda) revealed the location of the Island. What was happening onstage was a metaphor for English expansion into America. (p.29).

The author’s argument throughout this piece revolves around the fact that Shakespeare’s play, The Temptest, represents a prelude to what happened with the Indians from America and the European “invasion” that occurred around the discovery of the Americas and so forth. Also, due to the Tempest, when the Europeans did start conquering the Americas, the perceived the Indians as how Caliban in the play was perceived; as a devil. The Europeans view of the Indians slowly progresses to those of demon-like features, such as their darker skin. Also, they’re ways of living and hunting were perceived as “lazy” in the Europeans eyes, and therefore they thought it was right that they should take over the land and have them farm the correct way. Another part of the argument included the treatment the New Englander’s treated and invaded the Irishmen. Apparently the way that the New Englanders viewed the Irish people were relatively similar to how they viewed the Indians in the Americas. Basically, to the New Englanders during that time period, any way of life that was different from their own was wrong, and in order for lifestyles to be successful and productive, they need to follow the ways of the New Englanders.

Takaki’s argument relies heavily on the Tempest being a direct relation to the creation of England’s new society in America. Although there distinctively is some kind of connection between the play and the views of the Indians being that of the devil, the Tempest cannot be though to completely represent the events that occurred over in the Americas. I agree with him that there is a connection, but there are a few questionable differences. First off, it seems that throughout the time period their portrayals of the Indians slowly changed into that of Caliban in the Tempest. The settlers started off viewing them as though they could use them for labor work and help in the fields. But as time continued on, and the puritan priests started to preach that they are nothing but savage beasts that need to be tamed, that portrayal changed and started treated the Indians as they would bears in the wild. Eventually the full standpoint of the Indians became that they were either “domesticated” into the ways of the New England settlers, or they were hunted and killed. The Indians were given no other choice in the matter. So it is true that the Tempest’s Caliban became how the Indians were portrayed in the new world, but that portrayal was slow and progressively became as it was, and not instant like in Shakespeare’s play.

I thought this reading was very intriguing. I liked how Takaki exposed the correlation between the conquering of the Irish and the Indians, and also giving many valid points of how The Tempest could be seen as an early prediction to what occurred in the new world and the Indians. My point of view towards the New Englanders and how they treated both the Irish and the Indians while “conquering” their homeland still stays the same; their actions are quite appalling and unorthodox on many different levels. I also believe that when the Puritans started preaching that the Indians are devils, and that that when the European diseases greatly diminished their numbers was a sign of God saying that the settlers had a “right” to take over the new land, was complete and utter bogus. I personally think that how they viewed themselves and the way they acted was beyond selfish, and really is an embarrassment to today’s society. Also, now I’m curious about The Tempest, and am now interested in reading the play to see what actually happens. Overall, this article was very interesting, and very informative.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Intro Blog

Hi I'm Maria Simmons and I'm a sophomore at BGSU. I'm majoring in Computer Science. I enjoy rock climbing, deck tennis and volleyball. I also play a lot of video games and love tinkering with computers.

Chapter 1: Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress.

The author's thesis in this article is about how the Americas came to be through the harsh genocide of the various
Indians that were first settled here before Columbus' discovery.

The argument that Howard Zimm presented was that the way America was taken over by the Europeans were harsh
and inhumane on many different levels. The Indians are a simple group of people, depending on natural resources for food and shelter. When the Europeans came to their land, they were not hostile and offered anything they owned to
the newcomers to their land. One example of how the Arawaks were treated by Columbus and the rest of the settler's consisted of when Columbus needed to bring back to England more gold those who invested in this expedition, and he
forced any Indians age fourteen or older to go hunting for gold every three months. If they brought back a good share, they were given a copper pendant to wear, which ensured their safety for the time being. During this time, Indians that
were found and not wearing a copper necklace had their hands cut off and left to bleed to death. Between Columbus and the Arawaks, Cortes and the Aztecs, Pizarro and the Incas, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots, the way they were treated and conquered were relatively the same.

The author states in the article that "I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves…" (Zimm 11). In this case, I agree with the author and how he wishes to write about the history of America from the opposite view than the "executioners". Though it is important to have an accurate viewpoint of history from whence we originated from, it is also equally important to know and understand the
opposing side of the battle, in this case, the Indians that were quite literally wiped out due to the conquest of North America. This argument would be applied to anything that would be against how the textbooks in middle and high school perceive history through solely the eyes of the conquerors. What the textbooks and history class in grade school lead people to believe is that Columbus is a hero, and he discovered the Americas which in turn opened up a vast amount of opportunities for trade and natural resources, let alone developing an entirely new settlement which expanded to what is now the United
States. All of the above may be true, but the textbooks describe the hostile nature the expeditionary had towards the Indians to be very subtle and obsolete in comparison to this discovery. For history to be more accurate, I believe that both sides of the story must be represented equally in order for the entire truth to be exposed.

I found the article to be very interesting and informative. Some of the events during the expedition of America that were explained in the article I had not known about beforehand, and found it intriguing. I also completely agree on the author's beliefs that history should be taught with both sides of the fight explained in equal detail, because in the long run the truth about the history of America will be much more accurate as opposed to just having one side of the fight revealed. Even though discovering the America's and developing a whole new settlement was a spectacular event in history, I believe that the means of which it was acquired were inhumane. Because of the practical genocide of what happened during that time period, we lost and experiencing living with those Indian tribes, and learning/sharing cultures with each other. I think that things
could have been handled differently and in a more peaceful manner between the Indians and the other discoverer, and in turn we would still have a relatively decent amount of those Indians still around today.