Takaki, Ch. 2

Ronald Takaki makes several important points about savagery verses civilization in Chapter 2 of “A Different Mirror”. It is first important to understand that he is making an account of the impact of William Shakespeare’s Tempest. Takaki explains how this work by Shakespeare in the early 1600’s shows a great representation for the English mentality on savagery in the New World. Shakespeare’s main characters were Caliban, the savage, and Prospero, the civilized man. The name “Caliban” was derived from the term cannibal or cannibalism. When the Europeans first settled in the New World they regarded the inhabitants as savage cannibals. Although we usually think of savages as the Indians who fought the new settlers, there is a vast history behind the settlers’ justification for destroying a whole group of people. Takaki concludes that the Indians of the New World were not the first to see the rather of the English. In Ireland during the same time that the Americas were being settled, the Irish tribes were being taken over by the English. The British believed that the Irish were lazy brutes who occupied the land. The English said that through the divinity of God it was their job get rid of these lazy savages and make use of the land. The Irish were killed and their heads placed on display at the English camps. However, this scene is not what was being portrayed in Shakespeare’s Tempest. When the settler’s first arrived on the shores of the Americas they were greeted by a new people, what we recognizes as the Indians or Native Americans. The English believed that the Indians lacked everything that they considered civilized. For example they did not identify themselves as Christians. They wore little amount of clothing. They did not have swords or other weapons. The Indians also lived in small huts and hunted like animals. The English thought about trying to civilize the Indians just as Prospero had taught Caliban the English language. Shakespeare made it clear that Caliban could not be civilized due to his inherent nature. This seemed true for the Indians in the New World. Because the Indians were so inferior and uncivilized the Europeans felt that they were perfect for enslavement. After all in their eyes it was justified through God. When reading Takaki’s account of the how the English treated the Indians I wonder, was it really the Indians who were the uncivilized ones. When I look at the lives of the Indians before the invaders came, I see a people who had their own religious beliefs, who raised families and provided food and shelter for those families. The Indians had no desire for personal possessions and had a great respect for the land on which they lived. If you take a look at the settlers when they first arrived most of them were not even able to survive their first year here. When John Smith traveled with a band of men to the Americas all but a few died within the first year. It is easy to assume that eventually they would have all died if it had not been for the Indians who brought them corn and other crops to feed their starving bodies. This brings up another point. The English settlers claimed that the Indians were savages because they thought them to be cannibals. Yet in Takaki’s account of the first few years of the settlers he tells how the settlers where dying from starvation so some went to the lengths of eating their fallen comrades. He tells a tale of a man who kills his pregnant wife, disposes of the baby and then eats here flesh. So I wonder to myself how these Indian, these savages would tell their side of the story if they were here today. The English would send word back to London of these disgusting, Devil like people who would kill at first glance. Where they really talking about the Indians?

"The Meaning of Difference"

“The Meaning of Difference” by Karen Rosenblum and Toni-Michelle Travis deals with how people are divided into categories of difference. There main points are that people are generally grouped into different master statuses. For example this could include but is not limited to race, sex, social class, sexual orientation, and ability/disability. (pg. 2) In the first section of the writing the authors conclude that differences in people can be looked at from two different perspectives, essentialism and constructionism. (pg. 2) The authors prove that there is more than one way to look at the categories that we place people into. They argue that most people use the essentialism perspective. This is a way of looking at differences and people and seeing that they are there for whatever reason and don’t develop for any particular reason. This is generally how most people think when looking at differences between people. However the authors of the book argue the other perspective, the constructionism perspective. The authors explain that the purpose of using the constructionism perspective is to discover why there are differences among people. The author informs the reader that by using the constructionist perspective they are able to “examine how we have arrived at our race, sex, sexual orientation, and social class categories”. The authors explain how difference can easily be shown through the naming of certain groups. For example we my call a dark skinned person Black, or we may call that same person an African American. Which is correct and how do we determine what places that person in that particular category. Is it based solely on their skin color or are their other attributes? The authors make the point that by naming this is another way of separating people into specific categories. In my mind the question becomes, are the authors trying to celebrate diversity or simple come up with an explanation for it? It seems to me that the authors are simply stating that there are different categories of people and they want to discover the science behind what makes people different. In my mind I believe that it is important to understand our differences and understand them. Yet it seems that in this day in age it is becoming more important to celebrate our differences rather than to study and try and understand them. I can be categorized as White, Female, Heterosexual, and Middle Class. I understand the fact that I am very different from an Asian male or a female Homosexual. I do not try and understand where these differences came from because I do not know. I believe that perhaps it is not as important to understand why we are different but how. It seems more important to me to see how we as categories of people are different from each other so that perhaps we can learn to experience differences in a positive light rather than a negative one. The authors, from the constructionist perspective make the point that they want to understand how we arrived at these differences that we categorize ourselves into. I believe that this important but personally I take the perspective of the essentialist. I believe that we are all different for whatever reason and should be considerate of that throughout our lives when dealing with all of the different people in the world around us.

Intro and Zinn blog

Hi! I am Megan Baker (Meg) and a sophomore at Bowling Green State University. This is currently my first year at BG. I transferred from Dayton, Ohio where I am originally from. My major is education with a concentration in integrated Social Studies. I am a member of Partners in Community and Context (PCC) a learning community here on campus for those who are going into urban education. My goal is to one day to teach high school government class to at risk kids in inner city schools. Some people think that I am crazy for having this ambition. However I believe that because of the importance of education in our society that inner city schools need good teachers. In high school I participated in a lot of activities including being co-captain of my high school dance team and being a member of the honor choir. Some interesting facts about me include the fact that I am 4 feet 10 inches tall. For those who may be reading this and thinking that I am a “little person” or a “midget” I’m not. I just happen to be a small girl and that is something that I like about myself because it makes me unique. I have never had a blog before and feel a little strange about lots of people being able to read what I post, however I think that comments and feedback are a great learning tool. I am looking forward to this semester in Ethnic Studies and hope to learn a lot.

In Howard Zinn’s Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress the author makes several conclusions. Zinn offers a deeper analysis that just that of the voyages of Christopher Columbus. He goes on to make conclusions about history itself. First in regards to Christopher Columbus Zinn makes the conclusion that Columbus is not the hero that we as Americans think of on Columbus Day. In reality there is a much deeper history of greed, violence, and murder that occurred during his several expeditions to the Americas. In regards to history in general, Zinn concludes in his writing that the history taught in classrooms reflects that of people in power. For example the mass murder and enslavement of the Arawak Indians is rarely studied because it is a bad reflection on those in power. Instead we teach about the voyages of a hero who was responsible for discovering the new world. The author gives evidence throughout the piece to support his conclusion. His writing on Columbus and the Arawaks is an example in itself. In history lessons about the discovery of the new world the Arawaks are hardly mentioned. If they are mentioned it is only to acknowledge that they greeted Columbus and his crew to offer gifts upon their arrival. Not until reading the piece by Zinn did I realize that there was such a dark side to the voyages of Christopher Columbus. I don’t remember being taught how the Indians were enslaved and told to find gold or else their hands would be cut off so that they would bleed to death (pg. 6-8). Zinn gives another example when he tells how Las Casas wrote of two “Christian” men who behead two Indian boys for no particular reason. Zinn goes on to explain that Columbus and his crews did more than just enslave the Arawaks. Samuel Eliot Morison called it “genocide” in his book Christopher Columbus, Mariner. Zinn gives many other examples to support the fact that history is most often written to favor those in power. He states that we as Americans don’t learn history from any other perspective than our own. For example he explains how we don’t see things from the viewpoint of the Cubans in the Spanish American War or that of the socialists in the Second World War (pg. 11). The question that came to mind when reading Zinn’s conclusion about history is, why are some parts of history considered important while other parts are rarely looked at? I believe the answer is one that applies to those in power. After reading this article I have to agree with Zinn’s argument that history is generally only looked at from only one perspective. It is hard to apply this concept to all history yet it is easy to determine that some of Zinn’s assumptions about history are true. This is evident through the example that Zinn gives of Columbus and the Arawak Indians. Overall the passage by Zinn was extremely eye opening. From previous examples I have come to the realization that history is not always about facts but mainly about the interpretation of those facts. I did not realize the devastation that took place on Columbus’s voyages and it helped me to realize that history is not always as pretty or simple as what is written in the history books. I have concluded that there are two sides to every story and it is important to look at things with and open mind.