All life is but a growth of the self and all writing is but the growth of the mind. Writer's reform themselves and transform their styles as life progresses, and each thought evolves a tad more than from the last. I am welcoming you to show my own growth in this short, fall quarter, by exemplifying my ideas towards writing and the strengths and areas where improvement was needed in the essays I have included in this portfolio. As my writing philosophy adapted, it has revealed both the strengths and shortcomings in my writing, allowing me to grow.
For me, in correlation to essays, this philosophy has been general and consistent throughout the years. I simply believe that writing can often communicate what speaking and standing cannot: thought. It gives equal standing to each individual's thoughts and each individual's beliefs. So, in approaching academic papers, I had always begun by using the Jane Schaeffer format. While filling in this template, I usually just place the words that happen to come out first, believing they might be able to work the best or flow nicely in regards to my initial brainstorming.Upon the concluding a draft, it would then be revised and edited until it seemed adequately prepared to turn it in. Over this time, I felt the need to ensure perfection, or near perfection, in my essays. In this manner, I attempt to suitably prepare my thoughts for anyone to view. Thus, my attitude towards writing was uncomplicated in the beginning.
One essay written in my Writing 101 course, "Racism in Bacon's Rebellion," was written using this philosophy. It was not until after I had given the paper to my teacher did I realize how poorly I had done on it. Resulting from this I began looking these over to find what had gone wrong. Soon, I realized how overwhelmed my argument was by the vast amount of information that had been supposed to support it, even to the point where evidence and commentary could not be separated. As I rewrote the essay, I avoided the outline that had been required in the original version. So, I began with using a slight variation of the Jane Schaeffer method. After the draft, I know the paper was presentable. The thesis hat become not only strong, but focused, and the argument accompanying it playing off of the evidence provided instead of the other way around. Such as the detail "in the region of the Chesapeake colonies, where Bacon?s Rebellion took place, there were there races involved" paired with "polarization of hate was then made easier by the small number of diversity within the warring parties." Yet, in general, it was still as wordy as the first document. The first of my essays was well written only after I made a change in my approach.
"Federalists in New Hampshire" would be the second essay presented in this portfolio. While working with three other people, I was forced to adapt my approach to writing the paper. We brainstormed and pieced together the argument, and eventually procured the final document. Through editing and revising, I was able to elicit a stronger voice throughout the paper and an overall better flow for the entire piece. Unfortunately, ultimately ran out of time for the duration of these procedures, leaving the conclusion and introduction untouched, and eliciting a choppy feel from the work in both organization and much verbosity. In recent revising, it's format has changed little. The organization and transitioning flow at a much smoother pace than the original, such as "it was the Anti-federalists who were most against slavery but since New Hampshire was a northern state, the Federalists were against it as well, though not to such an extent" to "Yet, although the northern federalists were widely against slavery, as eight states had finally ratified the constitution, this political party became desperate for the ninth - and passing - vote. Thus, they were willing to commit almost any act." In this essay, the argument maintains a steady position, but is weak against the informative wall is was supposed to be built on. Also, it is, unfortunately, as wordy as the original version, saying "It was hard to ignore the ethics of slavery, though. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification" instead of merely slavery being a large issue in the ratification; but, this has been due to my attempts to be poetic in my academic papers. Yet, this paper was able to allow me to accept new challenges and adapt my writing philosophies yo meet the needs of my group members as well as my own.
My writing 101 final is also included in this portfolio. While writing this paper, I misunderstood the prompt and deviated from my normal approach in writing by doing only a quick brainstorm and mentally calculating the information I used in the Jane Schaeffer format. I can happily announce, though, that my voice was continuous throughout the paper and clearly pointed out my bias with select, somewhat defiant phrases, one phrase is "to the question... I have but one response." Also, I can say the transitions between paragraphs were smooth and kept the paper moving, such as from paragraphs three, "Simply put, the past is life, the present is living, and the future is based on the life lived" to four "As I began to apply this concept to American history..." where one idea nicely fit into another. Unfortunately, I had more than a few major shortcomings in this paper. The first of which was the thesis in regards to the argument. While it was indeed focused, the paper did not follow through on building the thesis, rather gently touching on how " using my outlook on history... [helped] me understand the present with more depth" by making general assumptions and connections from the past to present instead of specifics relating to myself. Even this paper, I noticed, held the common traits of wordiness and my traditional long sentences. Moreover, the third paragraph incorporates two different themes together but, the introductory and concluding sentences mention only a generality of the two, showing my shortcomings in its organization. In short, my final paper does not show the improvement I have exemplified throughout the quarter.
While my philosophies and approaches digressed and evolved, I have matured as a writer over this quarter. From originally defining my philosophies to writing essays, I can tell the change. My ability to attribute the strengths and shortcomings of my papers has improved as I continue to use my philosophy. As I continue to grow in my works, it will be proof that I am still alive.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Portfolio: Racism in Bacon's Rebellion
Deceit, corruption, and hatred - these have been the passions boiling beneath revolts. Not exempt from these standards would be Bacon’s Rebellion. Based heavily on discrimination and racism, this rebellion was a prime example of the influence ethnicity had on war. Encompassing a mere three ethnic groups, this rebellion was justified by First American activity in the region. Africans partook in the rebellion and the servant labor system that had been in place before them soon degraded into the racially defined hierarchy of the slave labor system. Even today, racism lives on in America, albeit on a slightly more personal scale. Interracial conflict has been perpetuated by the fear of losing dominance in society.
In the region of the Chesapeake colonies, where Bacon’s Rebellion took place, there were there races involved. The first of these was made up of three distinct First American tribes, the Susquehannocks, Doegs, and Pamunkeys. Iroquaian Susquehannocks - settled along the northern Chesapeake region, their territory stretched far east and west - were foreign to the colony, as were Doeg Natives - whom lived upstream of Chesapeake Bay’s Potomac River - but the Pamunkeys were a peaceful tribe with close ties to the settlement (1, 2). Along with the aborigines were approximately twenty Africans who were, as many historians infer, slavers (2, 3). The imported persons were useful, and prevalent, to the colonist's due to the labor-intensive cash crop - tobacco - harvested by the colonists. European settlers of the region were English. Colonists, themselves, were divided only by the class statuses of indentured servants (those repaying immigration debt through labor), freemen (those with their own land with no debts), and the elite (wealthy planters whom controlled the government) (2). Considering the aspects of warfare, Bacon's Rebellion was crafted from a minutely diverse variety of races.
Polarization of hate was then made easier by the small number of diversity within the warring parties. With but two other peoples to lay blame on, it became easier for one to draw conclusion and point fingers. It became that logic was outweighed by bias, and the blame soon shifted from natural causes to the other ethnic groups. Such as, instead of the settlers blaming the dry season for their wilting crops, they would probably accuse the slaves of their inability to adequately work the land. Thus, each race would become an aphorism to which all accusations of the other races would be on. There was no greater power to differentiate them as much as their culture and skin.
As with these cultures and skins, English settlers thought themselves superior to the other inhabitants of the region. Upon first encounter with the natives, their view of them was peaceable, even honorable. The red-tinted skin of the aborigines was referred to as the "sun's livery," (2) and even certain aspects, such as their "calm dignity and poise... tender lover... for family... and their simply, independent way of life..."(2) were granted adoration from the colonists. Despite the European's praise, though, the First American's culture and beliefs led the colonists to believe them as lesser, to the point of the English indulging themselves in the belief of superiority. As one English man cruelly described, the natives had "little humanite but shape" being "wild and unmanly," "ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt" (2). With these drastically "un-English" manners, the native's were christened as "savages" (2). Africans, too, were the subjects of the colonist's discrimination. Yet, it was not so much their "[un-English] ways...[that] struck the colonists most forcefully, but their un-English skin color" (2). Dubbed as "black", in accordance with the Africans dark skin, in the European mindset, they were the personification of all objects lesser than humanity. In the era, most definitions of black were generally worded the about this phrase, "deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul" and, for all intents and purposes, evil (2). Moreover, when compared to the "purity" and "beauty" Europeans attributed to their own peach-tinted skin, those defined as black were easily ascribed as the focal point for all blame and hatred (2). Thus, English settlers thought themselves as grander, more civilized, and all-around exceptional in comparison to the Chesapeake and their slaves from Africa.
Each races wants to be able to attribute superiority to themselves. Throughout history, the European’s views have been the strongest and most pronounced of all these, allowing more inference and dominance in modern minds, as theirs remain the only written word of the era. Distinctions by culture have been prevalent during all of Europe’s history, exemplified by the Christians and Jews. Thus, it was not uncommon to completely disregard all admiration for a people at the barest hint of a relatively obscure culture. Clearly, this shows the misconceptions and insecurities of the English society. They believed the native’s lesser because those peoples had stronger willpower, bonds of kinship, and deeper faith in the both physical and spiritual than the Europeans. Essentially, the settlers were envious of the traits creating a race stronger than they were. They grew angry at the power the foreign culture wielded within themselves, and their jealousy turned the colonists greed into sheer hatred and loathing. Moreover, the First American’s culture was simply too foreign and complex for the Europeans to understand, and the peoples were written off as “savages” purely because of their alien nature, their threat to the colony’s society. In regards to the Africans, the Europeans saw simply a shroud of darkness, the embodiment of sin. Misguided religious beliefs, ultimately God’s word, led to discrimination against this race. Those of modern ages can simply advocate that good and evil, such well-worn paths, could not – and cannot – be so easily dubbed as “black” and “white.” Yet, those of the 1670s, and centuries after, were too religious to look past the color of individual’s skins. It was such the English’s fear of the Devil, sin, and Hell threatened society, life, and preservation. They believed the Africans were the quintessence of that which would overthrow their civilization in the new world, and needed the to subject the daemonic powers to those of goodness and light. Sensibly, then, these peoples were enslaved and under the control of whites. Sensibly, it can be known that each race saw threats of dominance from the others, and found ways to label them in ways so as to make them subservient to one’s “natural” supremacy.
As with this feeling of supremacy, colonists’ final incentive to revolt was brought by First American’s activities. In early 1670s, Susquehannock and Doeg raiding parties appeared on the Virginia frontier. Both frightened at these native's arrival and angered at the government’s minimalistic efforts of protecting settlers, Bacon rallied fellow frontiersmen against the raiding parties, claiming the "unauthorized campaign against the encroaching Indians... would provide] release for the colonists' frustrations" while Governor William Berkley feared the peaceful Pamunkeys's reaction to the violence against their kin. Moreover, the government had just recently settled into a tenuous amity with that same near-by tribe, allowing the native’s all lands on the frontier except that which had already been settled by colonists (1, 2). Twenty years prior of this demand, on another campaign for the settlement, the Queen of the Pamunkeys lost both her husband and over a third of her tribesmen, and in negotiations pertaining to the aborigine's contribution of defense, Queen Pamunkey, obstinate at first, was worn down by the Englishmen's pleas, eventually giving a small number of her men to the settlement’s defense (1). Bacon, though, saw these efforts of the government as both worthless and traitorous, accusing the elite in alliance with the First Americans against the poorer classes, which lead to an attack on the peaceful Pamunkeys, despite the obvious facts that the tribe had "never at any time betraye'd of injuryed the English," nor even raised weapons in defense as they were killed and pillaged, the natives became a target for the colonists" hate (1). Even though the trends of a revolt were brewing beneath the surface of the Chesapeake colony, it was only when the native's raiding parties arrived was there true basis behind their complaint.
This complaint was liable only because of the "lesser breed" of human that the natives themselves were known as. Take the Pamunkeys, friendly and peaceful even after sacrificing their kinsmen and leader to the wills of the colonist's. These settlers, true to their stature as "superior," let their perpetuating loathing and anger of all First Americans disregard the immense sacrifice granted the tribe had made for the colony. They went so far as to claim the minor numbers of aid given to the colony were insignificant when compared to the threat of the foreign native’s on the frontier, when the tribe was still slowly recovering from its losses. Anger was heightened by the presence of the raiding parties, added to the already tense atmosphere of land strains, the settlers soon equally blamed all tribes. In the mind of the English, all those of a similar, inferior ethnicity were a sort of gestalt, a being that came together in uniform to plot against them, turning whites against one another in perverse ways. Accusations of treason by the elite’s were probably compelled by beliefs of bribery and blackmail, forcing the whites to give in, to be deluded by the aborigine’s desires. Aphorisms Europeans placed upon the First Americans resulted in the natives’ quickened destruction in wars of prejudice.
Despite discrimination placed upon African, far different from those of First Americans, a small number of them actually participated in the revolt. Their contribution “demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause” (3). In response, the elite planter class feared that, combined, the poor whites and poor black would be able to overthrow the rich in government and quickly “hastened the transition into racial slavery” (3). These factions of poor joined together against a common enemy in order to reclaim a sort of dominance in their society, actively showing that the contempt the two races had for each other could be temporarily veiled in order to rid themselves of such a threat. The rich wanted continued dominion over the government; and, they feared the freemen, with the added strength of Africans, would conquer them and thus needed a way to keep the blacks under total control. Though their numbers were indeed few, Africans were active contributors of the rebellion.
Their participation was a major factor leading to the reliance of racial hierarchy in the slave labor system – rather than the temporary services of indentured servants – after the rebellion. Discrimination against Africans grew more common in the English colonies as more were imported, experiencing a drastic increase from the once small slave population present in the Chesapeake region (2, 4). Enslavement of these peoples was made vastly easier by the intense contrast of cultures and the shock of removal from their homes as individuals were abducted and imported across the world (4). Rather than working toward freedom and having political power upon attaining freedom, as would indentured servants, slaves’ lifelong labor provided many planter’s with immense wealth and the presence of slaves lessened the tensions between the freemen and elite, allowing them a feeling of white supremacy (2). Yet, this self-denoted preeminence cold not keep slave-owners from fearing a revolt, going so far as to place and enforces rules to limit their slaves’ interaction (and thus knowledge) with each other (2). African labor, racial discrimination, and the slave labor system replaced the servant labor system and eased tension it had brought on.
With this practice now in place, dominance was clear. The wealth imposed their supremacy by way of their wealth. Their riches were able to purchase people who would serve them until decided otherwise, treating Africans as less than human and more in the manner of objects, possessions that did not deserve the same treatment as white men. In this smothering of African’s culture through forcing them into colonial society, it practically assured the white’s supremacy in the colony over all other races. Yet, the insecurities of whether or not their white dominance over the settlement would be tenuous were obvious in the several restrictions the slave-owners put on their purchased humans. They broke contact between slave families and friends, assuring no information, no matter its insignificance, to permeate their relations and unity, keeping them oscillated from the truth. Race now defined dominance in the Chesapeake colony, no longer wealth or position.
As now, though attempted to be lessened, racism still assures dominance and strife in the American society today. The most prominent example of this would be the government. True, on every level a multitude of ethnic groups participate, but think of the executive position. Never, in all the time of the United States, was there a president who was not a white man. It must be, thus, that as a nation the people assume that other races cannot run the country as well as white men. Perhaps they believe what those of colonial days though – that only a certain race had a sense well enough to run the government and people. Thus, the belief is born from the roots of Europe and has been a unifying factor in the dominant race of America – the whites. Even now, as it was then, numerous whites fear their weakening grasp on the federal government will finally come to and end. New challenges face this generation and racial hierarchy must be disputed amongst them.
Yet, even if that system was defeated on the federal level, it will not be able to permeate domestic beliefs of dominance. Take the “sting” operation at Todd Beamer High School in 2007, focused solely on drugs on campus. Undercover police focused their attentions on those of colored skin, instead of the whites whom clearly committed crimes including drugs on campus. These two officers, both fairer skinned, viewed the drug world with bias instead of logic. Rather than looking beyond their preconceptions, the officers clung to them and them as a guide. They plainly showed the view of many whites, believing countless of those in their race would be exempt from doing drugs. In a sense, they viewed whites as above the influence and those of every other ethnic group lesser enough to be susceptible and idiotic enough to perform the duties in a federally funded establishment. Thus, domestic views of racial hierarchy would be nigh unbreakable.
The horror of being inferior and lesser to another race drives the discriminatory conflict between ethnicities. Bacon’s Rebellion remains a prime example of this, though it encompassed only First Americans, Africans, and Englishmen. European’s in the region of the revolt thought themselves better than the other races, and went so far as to declare the First Americans as the cause of their riot. Africans participation in the revolt garnered the elite’s fear of losing dominance in society and caused the imposition of a racially hierarchal slave labor system to replace the servant labor system. In even modern times, people still claim white superiority both politically and domestically. After all these generations, humanity should have been able to overcome this fear.
Puglisi, Micheal J.
1:
"Whether They Be Friends or Foes: the Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." International Social Science Review 70 (1995): 76-87. Academic Search Complete. Highline, Federal Way. 24 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Bacon's Rebellion and race.
The site itself is credible due to the course of its use as a scholarly search engine that provides a multitude of links and results that are, conclusively, legitimate. The author, Michael J. Puglisi, is associate dean at Marian College and has written a few books, one of which was focused on the Virginia frontier. His point is to show how little diversity was accepted in the colonial period and prejudice was strong against African Americans and Native Americans. The article itself speaks of the Native American tribe that lived in peace with the colonists and the foreign tribes that raided the Virginia frontier, which then resulted in the abuse of the friendly tribes by Nathaniel Bacon and the forced coercion of the same tribe to aid the colonial government to rid the colonists of the raiding parties.
2:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general backgrounds of the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University,the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion, during, and after.
3:
"Bacon's Rebellion." PBS. 24 Oct. 2007
Pbs.org is the site of the public broadcasting system and has valid links to their current works and their further concentrated links (such as for teachers and children). Found in the teacher's section of the site, the article is a short, concise summary of Bacon's rebellion and reveals certain aspects that most other articles fail to mention.
4:
Zinn, Howard. "Drawing the Color Line." Drawing the Color Line. 24 Oct. 2007.
Historyisaweapon.org is a credible sight due to the various links to documents that are historical, written by contemporary authors, and can allow for motivation of the peoples to action. The author, Howard Zinn, has written many controversial philosophical books and is an anti-war activist. In itself, the article gives history and in-depth fact of the slavery of African Americans, giving information regarding the causes for the truckle of Africans to Europeans and select conditions throughout hundreds of years that was the African slavery.
In the region of the Chesapeake colonies, where Bacon’s Rebellion took place, there were there races involved. The first of these was made up of three distinct First American tribes, the Susquehannocks, Doegs, and Pamunkeys. Iroquaian Susquehannocks - settled along the northern Chesapeake region, their territory stretched far east and west - were foreign to the colony, as were Doeg Natives - whom lived upstream of Chesapeake Bay’s Potomac River - but the Pamunkeys were a peaceful tribe with close ties to the settlement (1, 2). Along with the aborigines were approximately twenty Africans who were, as many historians infer, slavers (2, 3). The imported persons were useful, and prevalent, to the colonist's due to the labor-intensive cash crop - tobacco - harvested by the colonists. European settlers of the region were English. Colonists, themselves, were divided only by the class statuses of indentured servants (those repaying immigration debt through labor), freemen (those with their own land with no debts), and the elite (wealthy planters whom controlled the government) (2). Considering the aspects of warfare, Bacon's Rebellion was crafted from a minutely diverse variety of races.
Polarization of hate was then made easier by the small number of diversity within the warring parties. With but two other peoples to lay blame on, it became easier for one to draw conclusion and point fingers. It became that logic was outweighed by bias, and the blame soon shifted from natural causes to the other ethnic groups. Such as, instead of the settlers blaming the dry season for their wilting crops, they would probably accuse the slaves of their inability to adequately work the land. Thus, each race would become an aphorism to which all accusations of the other races would be on. There was no greater power to differentiate them as much as their culture and skin.
As with these cultures and skins, English settlers thought themselves superior to the other inhabitants of the region. Upon first encounter with the natives, their view of them was peaceable, even honorable. The red-tinted skin of the aborigines was referred to as the "sun's livery," (2) and even certain aspects, such as their "calm dignity and poise... tender lover... for family... and their simply, independent way of life..."(2) were granted adoration from the colonists. Despite the European's praise, though, the First American's culture and beliefs led the colonists to believe them as lesser, to the point of the English indulging themselves in the belief of superiority. As one English man cruelly described, the natives had "little humanite but shape" being "wild and unmanly," "ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt" (2). With these drastically "un-English" manners, the native's were christened as "savages" (2). Africans, too, were the subjects of the colonist's discrimination. Yet, it was not so much their "[un-English] ways...[that] struck the colonists most forcefully, but their un-English skin color" (2). Dubbed as "black", in accordance with the Africans dark skin, in the European mindset, they were the personification of all objects lesser than humanity. In the era, most definitions of black were generally worded the about this phrase, "deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul" and, for all intents and purposes, evil (2). Moreover, when compared to the "purity" and "beauty" Europeans attributed to their own peach-tinted skin, those defined as black were easily ascribed as the focal point for all blame and hatred (2). Thus, English settlers thought themselves as grander, more civilized, and all-around exceptional in comparison to the Chesapeake and their slaves from Africa.
Each races wants to be able to attribute superiority to themselves. Throughout history, the European’s views have been the strongest and most pronounced of all these, allowing more inference and dominance in modern minds, as theirs remain the only written word of the era. Distinctions by culture have been prevalent during all of Europe’s history, exemplified by the Christians and Jews. Thus, it was not uncommon to completely disregard all admiration for a people at the barest hint of a relatively obscure culture. Clearly, this shows the misconceptions and insecurities of the English society. They believed the native’s lesser because those peoples had stronger willpower, bonds of kinship, and deeper faith in the both physical and spiritual than the Europeans. Essentially, the settlers were envious of the traits creating a race stronger than they were. They grew angry at the power the foreign culture wielded within themselves, and their jealousy turned the colonists greed into sheer hatred and loathing. Moreover, the First American’s culture was simply too foreign and complex for the Europeans to understand, and the peoples were written off as “savages” purely because of their alien nature, their threat to the colony’s society. In regards to the Africans, the Europeans saw simply a shroud of darkness, the embodiment of sin. Misguided religious beliefs, ultimately God’s word, led to discrimination against this race. Those of modern ages can simply advocate that good and evil, such well-worn paths, could not – and cannot – be so easily dubbed as “black” and “white.” Yet, those of the 1670s, and centuries after, were too religious to look past the color of individual’s skins. It was such the English’s fear of the Devil, sin, and Hell threatened society, life, and preservation. They believed the Africans were the quintessence of that which would overthrow their civilization in the new world, and needed the to subject the daemonic powers to those of goodness and light. Sensibly, then, these peoples were enslaved and under the control of whites. Sensibly, it can be known that each race saw threats of dominance from the others, and found ways to label them in ways so as to make them subservient to one’s “natural” supremacy.
As with this feeling of supremacy, colonists’ final incentive to revolt was brought by First American’s activities. In early 1670s, Susquehannock and Doeg raiding parties appeared on the Virginia frontier. Both frightened at these native's arrival and angered at the government’s minimalistic efforts of protecting settlers, Bacon rallied fellow frontiersmen against the raiding parties, claiming the "unauthorized campaign against the encroaching Indians... would provide] release for the colonists' frustrations" while Governor William Berkley feared the peaceful Pamunkeys's reaction to the violence against their kin. Moreover, the government had just recently settled into a tenuous amity with that same near-by tribe, allowing the native’s all lands on the frontier except that which had already been settled by colonists (1, 2). Twenty years prior of this demand, on another campaign for the settlement, the Queen of the Pamunkeys lost both her husband and over a third of her tribesmen, and in negotiations pertaining to the aborigine's contribution of defense, Queen Pamunkey, obstinate at first, was worn down by the Englishmen's pleas, eventually giving a small number of her men to the settlement’s defense (1). Bacon, though, saw these efforts of the government as both worthless and traitorous, accusing the elite in alliance with the First Americans against the poorer classes, which lead to an attack on the peaceful Pamunkeys, despite the obvious facts that the tribe had "never at any time betraye'd of injuryed the English," nor even raised weapons in defense as they were killed and pillaged, the natives became a target for the colonists" hate (1). Even though the trends of a revolt were brewing beneath the surface of the Chesapeake colony, it was only when the native's raiding parties arrived was there true basis behind their complaint.
This complaint was liable only because of the "lesser breed" of human that the natives themselves were known as. Take the Pamunkeys, friendly and peaceful even after sacrificing their kinsmen and leader to the wills of the colonist's. These settlers, true to their stature as "superior," let their perpetuating loathing and anger of all First Americans disregard the immense sacrifice granted the tribe had made for the colony. They went so far as to claim the minor numbers of aid given to the colony were insignificant when compared to the threat of the foreign native’s on the frontier, when the tribe was still slowly recovering from its losses. Anger was heightened by the presence of the raiding parties, added to the already tense atmosphere of land strains, the settlers soon equally blamed all tribes. In the mind of the English, all those of a similar, inferior ethnicity were a sort of gestalt, a being that came together in uniform to plot against them, turning whites against one another in perverse ways. Accusations of treason by the elite’s were probably compelled by beliefs of bribery and blackmail, forcing the whites to give in, to be deluded by the aborigine’s desires. Aphorisms Europeans placed upon the First Americans resulted in the natives’ quickened destruction in wars of prejudice.
Despite discrimination placed upon African, far different from those of First Americans, a small number of them actually participated in the revolt. Their contribution “demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause” (3). In response, the elite planter class feared that, combined, the poor whites and poor black would be able to overthrow the rich in government and quickly “hastened the transition into racial slavery” (3). These factions of poor joined together against a common enemy in order to reclaim a sort of dominance in their society, actively showing that the contempt the two races had for each other could be temporarily veiled in order to rid themselves of such a threat. The rich wanted continued dominion over the government; and, they feared the freemen, with the added strength of Africans, would conquer them and thus needed a way to keep the blacks under total control. Though their numbers were indeed few, Africans were active contributors of the rebellion.
Their participation was a major factor leading to the reliance of racial hierarchy in the slave labor system – rather than the temporary services of indentured servants – after the rebellion. Discrimination against Africans grew more common in the English colonies as more were imported, experiencing a drastic increase from the once small slave population present in the Chesapeake region (2, 4). Enslavement of these peoples was made vastly easier by the intense contrast of cultures and the shock of removal from their homes as individuals were abducted and imported across the world (4). Rather than working toward freedom and having political power upon attaining freedom, as would indentured servants, slaves’ lifelong labor provided many planter’s with immense wealth and the presence of slaves lessened the tensions between the freemen and elite, allowing them a feeling of white supremacy (2). Yet, this self-denoted preeminence cold not keep slave-owners from fearing a revolt, going so far as to place and enforces rules to limit their slaves’ interaction (and thus knowledge) with each other (2). African labor, racial discrimination, and the slave labor system replaced the servant labor system and eased tension it had brought on.
With this practice now in place, dominance was clear. The wealth imposed their supremacy by way of their wealth. Their riches were able to purchase people who would serve them until decided otherwise, treating Africans as less than human and more in the manner of objects, possessions that did not deserve the same treatment as white men. In this smothering of African’s culture through forcing them into colonial society, it practically assured the white’s supremacy in the colony over all other races. Yet, the insecurities of whether or not their white dominance over the settlement would be tenuous were obvious in the several restrictions the slave-owners put on their purchased humans. They broke contact between slave families and friends, assuring no information, no matter its insignificance, to permeate their relations and unity, keeping them oscillated from the truth. Race now defined dominance in the Chesapeake colony, no longer wealth or position.
As now, though attempted to be lessened, racism still assures dominance and strife in the American society today. The most prominent example of this would be the government. True, on every level a multitude of ethnic groups participate, but think of the executive position. Never, in all the time of the United States, was there a president who was not a white man. It must be, thus, that as a nation the people assume that other races cannot run the country as well as white men. Perhaps they believe what those of colonial days though – that only a certain race had a sense well enough to run the government and people. Thus, the belief is born from the roots of Europe and has been a unifying factor in the dominant race of America – the whites. Even now, as it was then, numerous whites fear their weakening grasp on the federal government will finally come to and end. New challenges face this generation and racial hierarchy must be disputed amongst them.
Yet, even if that system was defeated on the federal level, it will not be able to permeate domestic beliefs of dominance. Take the “sting” operation at Todd Beamer High School in 2007, focused solely on drugs on campus. Undercover police focused their attentions on those of colored skin, instead of the whites whom clearly committed crimes including drugs on campus. These two officers, both fairer skinned, viewed the drug world with bias instead of logic. Rather than looking beyond their preconceptions, the officers clung to them and them as a guide. They plainly showed the view of many whites, believing countless of those in their race would be exempt from doing drugs. In a sense, they viewed whites as above the influence and those of every other ethnic group lesser enough to be susceptible and idiotic enough to perform the duties in a federally funded establishment. Thus, domestic views of racial hierarchy would be nigh unbreakable.
The horror of being inferior and lesser to another race drives the discriminatory conflict between ethnicities. Bacon’s Rebellion remains a prime example of this, though it encompassed only First Americans, Africans, and Englishmen. European’s in the region of the revolt thought themselves better than the other races, and went so far as to declare the First Americans as the cause of their riot. Africans participation in the revolt garnered the elite’s fear of losing dominance in society and caused the imposition of a racially hierarchal slave labor system to replace the servant labor system. In even modern times, people still claim white superiority both politically and domestically. After all these generations, humanity should have been able to overcome this fear.
Puglisi, Micheal J.
1:
"Whether They Be Friends or Foes: the Roles and Reactions of Tributary Native Groups Caught in Colonial Conflicts." International Social Science Review 70 (1995): 76-87. Academic Search Complete. Highline, Federal Way. 24 Oct. 2007. Keyword: Bacon's Rebellion and race.
The site itself is credible due to the course of its use as a scholarly search engine that provides a multitude of links and results that are, conclusively, legitimate. The author, Michael J. Puglisi, is associate dean at Marian College and has written a few books, one of which was focused on the Virginia frontier. His point is to show how little diversity was accepted in the colonial period and prejudice was strong against African Americans and Native Americans. The article itself speaks of the Native American tribe that lived in peace with the colonists and the foreign tribes that raided the Virginia frontier, which then resulted in the abuse of the friendly tribes by Nathaniel Bacon and the forced coercion of the same tribe to aid the colonial government to rid the colonists of the raiding parties.
2:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general backgrounds of the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University,the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Bacon's Rebellion, during, and after.
3:
"Bacon's Rebellion." PBS. 24 Oct. 2007
Pbs.org is the site of the public broadcasting system and has valid links to their current works and their further concentrated links (such as for teachers and children). Found in the teacher's section of the site, the article is a short, concise summary of Bacon's rebellion and reveals certain aspects that most other articles fail to mention.
4:
Zinn, Howard. "Drawing the Color Line." Drawing the Color Line. 24 Oct. 2007
Historyisaweapon.org is a credible sight due to the various links to documents that are historical, written by contemporary authors, and can allow for motivation of the peoples to action. The author, Howard Zinn, has written many controversial philosophical books and is an anti-war activist. In itself, the article gives history and in-depth fact of the slavery of African Americans, giving information regarding the causes for the truckle of Africans to Europeans and select conditions throughout hundreds of years that was the African slavery.
Portfolio: Federalists of New Hampshire
Federalists of New Hampshire
Shelby Lee
Paul Headman
Joshua Hollinger-Lant
Johan Horton
Despite this separation of morality, few people, whether federalist or anti-federalist, were happy with slavery. The issue of slavery and the constitution was not so much an issue of Federalist or Anti-federalists, but more an issue of north and south, where people in the north were mostly against slavery and the south for it. Yet, although the northern federalists were widely against slavery, as eight states had finally ratified the constitution, this political party became desperate for the ninth - and passing - vote. Thus, they were willing to commit almost any act. So, while the anti-federalists wanted nothing to do with slavery and the federalists could begrudgingly cope with it, the controversial issue - a factor in many debates over ratification - could not be solved easily (1). This satisfied most states, both north and south, for the time being. By this mutual agreement of blindness towards slavery, New Hampshire closed the gap in ratifying the constitution.
It was hard to ignore the ethics of slavery, though. As such, it was another controversial moral disagreement involved in the struggle over the constitution's ratification. Anti-federalists of New Hampshire cried, "hereby it is conceived if we ratify the Constitution that we become consenters to, and partakers in, the sin and guilt of this abominable traffic" (2) amassing a discontent toward the party working for the constitution’s ratification. Yet, the federalists shirked the issue, as they reverted to a safer rebuke, that the state had already decided to refrain from participating in such a "cruel and inhuman merchandise" (2) and they wanted what was best for the whole of American, not just New Hampshire. The sanctity of God's laws were still important in the era, though considerably less than the founding on New England, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws; yet, the federalists countered that they did not want to harm anyone any important in the era, and the bondage of fellow men was considered a treasonous violation of these laws. People asked themselves questions about how they would feel if in a slave's position. These types of questions were asked to in the many debates over ratification as they come to the issue of slavery. While New Hampshire did indeed ratify the constitution, the state still struggled to cope with the problems of being united with slave-oriented societies.
Thus, imprisonment of peoples will forever be unjust. Despite federalists' desperation to ratify the constitution, such is not a valid excuse for the continued slavery of an entire population. There remains the liberty of man that he can be under no other will than his own unless by his own consent, that he can give power to no man to take his life, to hold him against his will (John Locke, Two Treatise's of Government, Ch. V sections 22-24), yet continued was such a treasonous event in the United States. The anti-federalists would have easily won this political battle had they called for a compact regarding the dissolution of slavery. They would have gone to war with the southern colonies years before the tensions finally reached the point of explosion and it would not have been known as a civil war. Yet, with that would come true the federalists' fear of the confederacy would dissolving and all hope for union lost. Both of the groups, though, easily settled on bypassing the agreement all together. In itself, that proves the blasphemy of the anti-federalists and federalists alike, for they both praise liberties and unions of the states and better their own environment instead of those who truly need the aid. Slavery should thus have been a larger issue in the constitution's ratification.
Federalists, on another note, knew the new union would favor the rich. Generally, they agreed that those of the elite would be supported in running for office more often than those of the lower classes (3). The group agreed as such merely because they believed those who were economically sound would be able to bring the government more stability (4), in the sense that these peoples understood the ways of financing and taxation so they would be more likely to allow the union to flourish. Moreover, these men were, unlike the lower classes, educated (5). A few of these types of people in New Hampshire were wealthy artisans, lawyers, and merchants. Thus, in the United States, the wealthy would be favored for governmental positions.
Of course, there was much rebuke against this belief. Anti-federalists were quick to deem that allowing the elite to govern them would leave the union in the hands of the few, not the many (5). These small farmers complained that they would not be represented, that they would be smothered under the tyranny of the wealthy (3, 4). Their heated arguments pointed to aristocracy in place of the confederacy, and tempers flared as many accusingly highlighted certain of their fellows’ inability to even vote due to landownership requirements (5). Determinedly, they called for action against the ratifying of an oppressive society that the Revolution had freed them from. Despite the obvious logic in the favoring of the wealthy, anti-federalists claimed it inequality.
These distinctions between rich and poor were clearly logical for the era. When, most often, the lower classes do not have much comprehension of the government, or even an education, it could result in anarchy if the poorer were allowed equal voting rights. Admittedly, some of the poorer men might be those who were once quite wealthy or held great esteem and thus, greatly outraged by their inability to now participate in the rulings of the people. Yet, oft there have been many exceptions of such rules that have been made. Succinctly, only the elite and upper middle classes have knowledge enough to be able to lead the union and republic.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand the responsibilities that come with such wealth, and thus know how to adequately govern themselves in order to sustain those riches while the destitute cannot do so much as even rule over themselves properly to live capably (4). Thus, those who have less responsibility understand less of the morals which would accompany such responsibilities, and should be entitled to rule even the smallest portion of the confederacy when the elite can virtuously rule all into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they could not even support themselves, and thus could not have had views enough to responsibly reign over a segment of the government. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where a government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while the lower classes complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). The farmers of New Hampshire were barely able to sustain themselves and were quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork. Thus, they do not have a strong enough righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy. This governmental system will thus be a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment that governs them. Thus, it would be a despotic, corrupt union that would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
In spite of this reasoning, the majority of New Hampshire decided it would be in their best interest to continue holding onto these moral values, ratifying the constitution. Wisdom and morality led the federalists to victory, for they knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals whom would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not merely individual states. Federalists realized the vital need to postpone controversial issues, such as slavery, in order to unify the colonies in a more resonating harmony. The wealth had by most of the elites, rulers of the government, allowed them to better finance and lead the reformation of political power that had swept through America. With this wealth came the responsibility that helped federalists, of whom a majority were of the elite class, to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than small bodies. Judicious decisions helped to create a new world of government that would withstand centuries.
Sources
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture on Shay's Rebellion.
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government and several different conclusions could be inferred from the subject.
Built upon the foundation of morals, the government should represent the wise. Where economy thus defines these ethics, it can be said that the wealthy have the most virtuous principles where those whom remain destitute have the most corrupt (5). As such, it can only be produced that those who have great wealth understand the responsibilities that come with such wealth, and thus know how to adequately govern themselves in order to sustain those riches while the destitute cannot do so much as even rule over themselves properly to live capably (4). Thus, those who have less responsibility understand less of the morals which would accompany such responsibilities, and should be entitled to rule even the smallest portion of the confederacy when the elite can virtuously rule all into prosperity (4, 5). New Hampshire, in itself, has a grand variety of peoples in which to procure these trustworthy and truthful individuals, of these include the merchant, lawyer, and wealthy artisan (3). These are the men who understand how to run the powers of the confederacy and thus those who would be able to lead the new Union into a state of unity and harmony (4). The Constitution will allow such a trend to continue, such greatness to evolve and grow. It will not push such righteousness from political power, it will only hinder the corrupt and sinful, for power was meant to flow into the hands of the "...intelligent, virtuous, [and] politically-spirited leaders..." (3). It is obvious that while the anti-federalists complain of overwork and taxation without representation they could not even support themselves, and thus could not have had views enough to responsibly reign over a segment of the government. A New York Federalist spoke that, "Fools and knaves have voice enough in government already" "without being guaranteed representation in proportion to the total population of fools." (5). Those of morality will, by truest allowance of the government, be seated and lead the United States to excellence.
Where a government is built from morals, there are those bound to rebuke. Even while the lower classes complain, they do not understand that while the Constitution does not mean to impose aristocracy, it means only to favor the wisest of the people (3). Of course, in this favoring, laws are often created which tend to favor the rich and their wealth, and those who oppose the elite were quick to point their fingers (1). The farmers of New Hampshire were barely able to sustain themselves and were quick to blame taxation without representation, over taxation, and overwork. Thus, they do not have a strong enough righteous morality to govern the states with the best interests of all in mind. Thus, where the ethics of government rule, the elite must continue to reign over these United States.
It can be firmly believed that an economically moral-based government is simply irrational. Wealth creates greed, selfishness, and a need to aggrandize one's power through another's pain. If more favor is granted to the already protected elite, then the government will become an aristocracy. This governmental system will thus be a tyranny over those who have no powers to so much as have a word in the political environment that governs them. Thus, it would be a despotic, corrupt union that would fall apart at the seams simply because of the strains and laws which the wealthy take advantage of.
In spite of this reasoning, the majority of New Hampshire decided it would be in their best interest to continue holding onto these moral values, ratifying the constitution. Wisdom and morality led the federalists to victory, for they knew the importance of a government run by intelligent and responsible individuals whom would make the right decisions for the country as a whole, not merely individual states. Federalists realized the vital need to postpone controversial issues, such as slavery, in order to unify the colonies in a more resonating harmony. The wealth had by most of the elites, rulers of the government, allowed them to better finance and lead the reformation of political power that had swept through America. With this wealth came the responsibility that helped federalists, of whom a majority were of the elite class, to make more valuable decisions to the whole of the people rather than small bodies. Judicious decisions helped to create a new world of government that would withstand centuries.
Sources
1:
Atheron Joshua. 1788. 26 Nov. 2007
There is no specific author of this page or website. It is basically the combination of many authors of many different documents and articles. This source is reliable because unlike many sources I have found, this one happens to be an edu website. It contains many important legal documents from throughout the nation’s history. This specific article is about Joshua Atherton's ideals about slavery at the time. He was one of the people that attended the New Hampshire ratifying convention. It is basically a short speech about what he thinks about slavery during the struggle for ratification. This piece is useful because it gives general information on the anti-federalists view on slavery. It is the anti-federalist position because it said in the first paragraph, "If we ratify the constitution." It has all the information needed to write a portion of this essay.
2:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007.
This site’s validity is a little sketchy, but it has a copyright date and all rights reserved notice at the bottom. As the homepage says, though, this sights contains online copies of all eighty-five federalist papers, and information on the many people whom contributed to the debates in this time frame. For these reasons, the site can be credible enough to be used. This specific page contains information pertaining to James Madison, giving his biography from the early stages of his life and goes on to talk of how he participated in the struggle for ratification. It concludes with his later years in life and eventual death. This is the only page with the federalist perspective on slavery, although it wasn’t much and was thus the only useful source for that portion of the essay.
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
Atheron Joshua. 1788. 26 Nov. 2007
There is no specific author of this page or website. It is basically the combination of many authors of many different documents and articles. This source is reliable because unlike many sources I have found, this one happens to be an edu website. It contains many important legal documents from throughout the nation’s history. This specific article is about Joshua Atherton's ideals about slavery at the time. He was one of the people that attended the New Hampshire ratifying convention. It is basically a short speech about what he thinks about slavery during the struggle for ratification. This piece is useful because it gives general information on the anti-federalists view on slavery. It is the anti-federalist position because it said in the first paragraph, "If we ratify the constitution." It has all the information needed to write a portion of this essay.
2:
James Madison. Left Justified Publiks, 1995. 25 Nov. 2007
This site’s validity is a little sketchy, but it has a copyright date and all rights reserved notice at the bottom. As the homepage says, though, this sights contains online copies of all eighty-five federalist papers, and information on the many people whom contributed to the debates in this time frame. For these reasons, the site can be credible enough to be used. This specific page contains information pertaining to James Madison, giving his biography from the early stages of his life and goes on to talk of how he participated in the struggle for ratification. It concludes with his later years in life and eventual death. This is the only page with the federalist perspective on slavery, although it wasn’t much and was thus the only useful source for that portion of the essay.
3:
Roark, James L., Micheal P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, and Susan M. Hartmann. The American Promise a History of the United States. 3rd ed. Vol. A. Beford/St. Martin's, 2005.
The book offers a neutral and general background of the events leading up to the factions of federalist and Anti-federalist as well as what happens between the factions in terms of staking a claim to government. Written by Roark, a professor of history at Emory University, Johnson a professor at John Hopkins University, Cohen history of women and social history at the University of California, Stage women's studies at Arizona State University: New College of Interdisciniplinary Arts and Sciences, Lawson a professor of law at Boston University, and Hartman at the Ohio State University, the book was published by beford/st. martin's, a company that has published many different books and textbooks in a variety of areas. This text is useful to me because it gives a basic view of all subjects and a nuetral informative dialogue about the events leading up to Consitutional Ratification, during, and after.
4:
Ben Montoya. History Teacher. Lecture on Shay's Rebellion.
5:
Bogin, Ruth. "Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of America." William and Mary Quaterly (1988): 391-425. J-STOR. Federal Way. 15 Nov. 2007. Keyword: "New Hampshire" and federalism and politics and industry and concord and exeter.
This article offers a general background of the economy crisis and morals which accompanied it. Ruth Bogin, the writer, is a retired professor of Pace University and has written several books and articles pertaining to history and equality. The William and Mary Quarterly is a publishing service for academic manuscripts and ways to contact editors/staff in case of questions or concerns. The article is of use to me because, as it mentions New Hampshire and the rioters for equality by small farmers toward the government and several different conclusions could be inferred from the subject.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Portfolio: Writing 101 Final
"Why [consider history]?” Michel Focault declares “simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that [...] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means [...] the history of the present." This man’s theory has been simply and my own ideas remain similar to his, as shown through my experiences in my history class through this quarter. Using my outlook on history, I was able to understand the present with more depth.
Focault’s theory, in its most basal form, says that he believes history to be important. Yet, in "terms of the present" it cannot be. Focault suggests that a history merely explained in modern language has no meaning to the present. If simply restated without drawing connections between the here and now to there and then and how it correlates, then history would be pointless to examine. When presented in this manner, history did not contribute to the making of modern times, so it will relate to no one and none will learn from it. Yet, history will forever be significant as a "history of the present." Focault presents, here, that when describing history it needs to be explained in a manner of how time actually came to the present. It needs to be shown in a way that helps people understand how the past defines the now, the present, and how it influences us in the actions to be chosen and to be paths taken. Basically, Focault believes that history can only be important when drawing connections to the present, showing the influence it has on decisions and not as simply a moment of time separate from the present restated again and again.
This view of Focault’s differs little from my own. In history 121, I began the course with a droll outlook, thinking it would be just another course in early American history, of a time that did not truly contribute to the present. Yet, as the class went on, I realized how closely tied and elaborate each event truly was. One moment of time precipitated a larger, greater event, a small difference that grew as the years went by until it ripped and tore at the nation, such as the divide over slavery growing from simply having a smaller number of slaves in the north than in the south to a devastating battle over emancipation and states’ liberties in the Civil War. Each of these events could not be removed in the shaping of the nation, and I soon realized how much of this country was founded upon these events. So now, as I look at the question Focault poses - “why [consider history]?” – I have but one response. This response is that history should be examined because history defines the self. I have heard that “you can’t know where you’re going until you know from where you came,” because history is merely a recording of actions, a list of responses acted out amongst several events. Simply put, the past is life, the present is living, and the future is based on the life lived.
As I began to apply this concept to American history, I began to see the themes prevalent now that had begun before even the birth of the United States – such as the aversion of controversial issues. It allowed me to see the ties strewn betwixt the past and present, weaving together similarities so they could be adequately viewed. Take how anti-federalists (of the constitution) wanted all classes to be favored in federal governments, while the federalists skillfully countered the opinion with the idea of the elite being the only ones with education and wisdom enough to lead the people, which was mostly true. Today, as one can see, public education has been free for generations and people can continue onto the higher education offered to individuals from every region on earth; yet, still the elite rule and the issue of class has been rarely brought up. If it happens to be, the leaders either give heartfelt speeches about ultimately worthless hope or merely change the subject. In this manner then, I can correlate the country’s past issues with its’ present ones. Had my answer to Focault’s question been any different, though, I am afraid I would have learned history in an entirely different manner. Instead of actively looking to connect the past and present, I would have had a negative outlook on history and been completely close-minded about it. When reading John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, I would have shrugged off his radical ideals of rising against the government when it does not meet the wills of the commonwealth – as the Americans applied to Britain and its Parliament – as another speculation of an era long gone, instead of a liberty the current generation has against the growing tyrannical powers President Bush has imposed onto the United States. Thus, had I never thought in a way similar to Focault, I would have been unable to explore the intricacies of the past and present.
Had I thought of history in any other way, I would never have been able to understand how the present came to be. Focault believes that history should only be explored when it actively shows the correlation between the now and then, instead of being viewed as a time completely separate from the modern era. I myself believe the past to be what was lived, the present what is being lived, and the future to be defined from that which was lived. By answering the question Focault imposed, the influence it had on my learning through class and how that experience would have changed had I not believed what I had, I was able to adequately explore this idea. As I show, history is more than just a time that has gone by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
