1. My thesis to the movie would be: Race is not determined through genetics. Rather race was determined by the color difference of various humans’ skin color. Race is determined by the exterior portion of our body, not the interior.
2. The argument that our race is not determined by our genetic structure was supported in the movie as the group of students in a workshop determined who they were most similar with. They originally thought they would be most similar to people of the same race. But in the end they found out that most of the time their genetic structure was more similar to a person of a different race. They also used evolutionary evidence to support this way of thinking by stating that all human races originally evolved from Africa and moved their separate ways throughout the world. This was meant to explain why genetics don’t determine race. The students were also asked to explain where their ancestors were from. Then they tried to see if their genetic structure matched the same structure of a person actually living there presently. In most cases the students genetic makeup was most similar to an area that was not from where their ancestors came from.
3. A question that I have is that if genetics don’t support the color of a person’s skin than how come when a African American and a white American have offspring the color of the child’s skin is usually in between the color of the two parents? How come, if genetics don’t matter, a white couple does not give birth to a darker skinned baby or how come two darker skinned parents don’t give birth to lighter skinned babies from time to time? In the documentary it explains that the mitochondrion DNA came from the mother. What if a gene from the father’s makeup partly determines the color of the child? They explained in the documentary that they still have not determined all the genes of a person’s body and what they lead to. So maybe there is a gene that does determine the skin color of a child. But as stated in the movie, what color our skin is, is the trait that has the most effect on an individual. Statements having to do with black people being more athletic or white people being more intelligent are clearly not true claims. The study did show that all of the genes that the people had were mixed between races. These traits are affected by our surroundings and the environment that we grew up in than the DNA that we have or the color of skin that we have.
4. I thought that the documentary was very interesting. All of the students were positive their DNA would be most like another person of their own race. But nearly all of them came away surprised at the end of the experiment. This study shows that too much of an influence is put on what color of skin we have, because people with different colors of skin are made up with virtually the same DNA. I think many people do still believe that the color of a person’s skin makes them completely different from a person of a different color of skin. Therefore I hope that many of those people would have a chance to view this excellent documentary.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Reading #3
1. In the English colonies, slavery developed quickly into a regular institution, into the normal labor relation of blacks to whites. With it developed that special racial feeling- whether hatred, or contempt, or pity, or patronization-that accompanied the inferior position of blacks in America for the next 350 years: that combination of inferior status and derogatory thought we call racism.
2. Zinn’s argument is that the Africans who were brought to America as slaves had no chance to escape it. One reason is because the settlers needed help with the labor in the Americas because they were not used to the climate and the workload was too much for them. They knew if they tried to enslave the Native Americans they would have no chance because they were terribly outnumbered. Another reason is that Africans had already been used as slaves in Europe so they were the obvious choice for the Americas. Slave trade became a huge portion of the economy as slave trade became very profitable. The long journeys to the slave boats and the terrible rides on the slave boats made the Africans have a helpless feeling that made it impossible to resist.
3. I agree with Zinn that the Africans had little opportunity to escape the brutal actions of the English. The English had great pride in their country and their empire therefore they did not want to lose a grip on their territory in the Americas due inability to cope with the new climate and support themselves on this new land. At this time the English were not the most dominant nation in the world. They could not use Asian, Middle Eastern, or other European cultures as slaves because those cultures were almost as far along as the English were. Zinn mentioned that it would be impossible to enslave the Native Americans due to the fact that the English were vastly outnumbered by them. The book mentioned the possibility of using low class whites as slaves, but that would not be very effective either as they would be less able to work on the land than the upper class English would. Using the Africans was the perfect option for helping the English establish themselves in America. As the text stated, the Africans were wonderful farmers. They also obeyed orders without much resistance and worked very hard for the English. That is why I believe, like Zinn, that the Africans had virtually no chance in avoiding becoming slaves. You could say that the Africans could have resisted capture in Africa, but to my knowledge at this point in history the English controlled most of the African territory. Zinn is against the ruling by the English that having slaves was the right thing to do. This made his argument a little more shaded toward the slaves’ point of view. But I have the same view so I would probably be a little biased as well
4. As I stated in the last paragraph I agreed with his assessment of slavery. This article proves that the English were not only cruel to the Native Americans. They were also extremely cruel to the Africans. The article stated that on the marches to the coast of Africa 2 out of every 5 of the Africans died and on the way to America on the way one out of every three died. So that means that if they started out with a group of 300 Africans by the time that group got to the Americas only 80 would still be alive. These malicious actions are never really looked at in history with the scope that they should be looked at with. Then once the Africans got to the Americas they were treated poorly for the rest of their lives as slaves. Are the people that built our nation really people that we should really look up to?
2. Zinn’s argument is that the Africans who were brought to America as slaves had no chance to escape it. One reason is because the settlers needed help with the labor in the Americas because they were not used to the climate and the workload was too much for them. They knew if they tried to enslave the Native Americans they would have no chance because they were terribly outnumbered. Another reason is that Africans had already been used as slaves in Europe so they were the obvious choice for the Americas. Slave trade became a huge portion of the economy as slave trade became very profitable. The long journeys to the slave boats and the terrible rides on the slave boats made the Africans have a helpless feeling that made it impossible to resist.
3. I agree with Zinn that the Africans had little opportunity to escape the brutal actions of the English. The English had great pride in their country and their empire therefore they did not want to lose a grip on their territory in the Americas due inability to cope with the new climate and support themselves on this new land. At this time the English were not the most dominant nation in the world. They could not use Asian, Middle Eastern, or other European cultures as slaves because those cultures were almost as far along as the English were. Zinn mentioned that it would be impossible to enslave the Native Americans due to the fact that the English were vastly outnumbered by them. The book mentioned the possibility of using low class whites as slaves, but that would not be very effective either as they would be less able to work on the land than the upper class English would. Using the Africans was the perfect option for helping the English establish themselves in America. As the text stated, the Africans were wonderful farmers. They also obeyed orders without much resistance and worked very hard for the English. That is why I believe, like Zinn, that the Africans had virtually no chance in avoiding becoming slaves. You could say that the Africans could have resisted capture in Africa, but to my knowledge at this point in history the English controlled most of the African territory. Zinn is against the ruling by the English that having slaves was the right thing to do. This made his argument a little more shaded toward the slaves’ point of view. But I have the same view so I would probably be a little biased as well
4. As I stated in the last paragraph I agreed with his assessment of slavery. This article proves that the English were not only cruel to the Native Americans. They were also extremely cruel to the Africans. The article stated that on the marches to the coast of Africa 2 out of every 5 of the Africans died and on the way to America on the way one out of every three died. So that means that if they started out with a group of 300 Africans by the time that group got to the Americas only 80 would still be alive. These malicious actions are never really looked at in history with the scope that they should be looked at with. Then once the Africans got to the Americas they were treated poorly for the rest of their lives as slaves. Are the people that built our nation really people that we should really look up to?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Reading 2
“The ‘Tempest’ in the Wilderness” Summary
1. Indians, “such people” of this “brave new world,” personified the Devil and everthing the Puritans feared – the body, sexuality, laziness, sin and the loss of self-control. They had no place in a “new England.”
2. Ronald Takaki is arguing that the Native Americans had no chance to establish peace with the new European Americans. He also argues that the European settlers purposely did not want to establish peaceful relations with the Native Americans that way they could have all of the American land to themselves. They also thought that the worst possible thing that could happen was for the European settlers to fall into the Native’s way of looking at the earth. Takaki mentions on page forty and forty-one, “They represented what English men and women in America thought they were not – and more important, what they must not become. As exiles living in the wilderness far from ‘civilization,’ the English used their negative images of Indians to delineate the moral requirements they had set up for themselves.” Due to this Takaki feels that the Europeans Americans felt that they must eliminate the Native Americans from the Americas so they could have the land to themselves. He says on page forty-eight that Jefferson’s main focus was expansion and not the survival of the Native Americans. He quoted Jefferson later in his article when Jefferson said, “These will relapse into barbarism and misery, lose numbers by war and want, and we shall be abliged to drive them, with the beasts of the forest into the Stony mountains.”
3. It is often said that if the Native Americans would have adopted Christianity than the European settlers would have included them in their society. But why would the Native Americans have wanted to do that? They lived together in a very peaceful atmosphere, where the European invaders instantly killed or destroyed Native American property if they didn’t get exactly what they wanted. Why would they want to live in that kind of society, since when they offered food and help to the European Americans during the winter, the Americans tried to steal more from them and would burn down their villages? The Native Americans lived relatively peaceful together so when met by this violence, it is very clear why the Native Americans did not want to change to that kind of lifestyle. When the Europeans landed in America it was inevitable with the two drastically different lifestyles of the Europeans and the Native Americans that they would not be able to live together without violence. His conclusion that the Native Americans were brutally forced out of their lands by the Europeans is correct, but as I just stated I don’t think it could have ended any differently than it did.
4. This article was very similar to the other article that we just read. Many people see Thomas Jefferson as one of our nation’s heroes. But similarly to Columbus, he did many inexplicable things to the Native Americans. We aren’t told this in our history classes. It is truly sad that the Native Americans greeted the Europeans peacefully and the response from the settlers was the exact opposite. But greed won out in the end. The greed for America and to be the capitol of the world triggered these inhumane actions toward the Native Americans. Interestingly, I don’t think the Native Americans had much greed toward the Europeans. But that’s how the history of the world has progressed. Native Americans were just a few of the many cultures that were unjustly persecuted. Finally, I think Takaki did a neat thing by including Shakespeare’s play to further state what the English thought of the Native Americans.
1. Indians, “such people” of this “brave new world,” personified the Devil and everthing the Puritans feared – the body, sexuality, laziness, sin and the loss of self-control. They had no place in a “new England.”
2. Ronald Takaki is arguing that the Native Americans had no chance to establish peace with the new European Americans. He also argues that the European settlers purposely did not want to establish peaceful relations with the Native Americans that way they could have all of the American land to themselves. They also thought that the worst possible thing that could happen was for the European settlers to fall into the Native’s way of looking at the earth. Takaki mentions on page forty and forty-one, “They represented what English men and women in America thought they were not – and more important, what they must not become. As exiles living in the wilderness far from ‘civilization,’ the English used their negative images of Indians to delineate the moral requirements they had set up for themselves.” Due to this Takaki feels that the Europeans Americans felt that they must eliminate the Native Americans from the Americas so they could have the land to themselves. He says on page forty-eight that Jefferson’s main focus was expansion and not the survival of the Native Americans. He quoted Jefferson later in his article when Jefferson said, “These will relapse into barbarism and misery, lose numbers by war and want, and we shall be abliged to drive them, with the beasts of the forest into the Stony mountains.”
3. It is often said that if the Native Americans would have adopted Christianity than the European settlers would have included them in their society. But why would the Native Americans have wanted to do that? They lived together in a very peaceful atmosphere, where the European invaders instantly killed or destroyed Native American property if they didn’t get exactly what they wanted. Why would they want to live in that kind of society, since when they offered food and help to the European Americans during the winter, the Americans tried to steal more from them and would burn down their villages? The Native Americans lived relatively peaceful together so when met by this violence, it is very clear why the Native Americans did not want to change to that kind of lifestyle. When the Europeans landed in America it was inevitable with the two drastically different lifestyles of the Europeans and the Native Americans that they would not be able to live together without violence. His conclusion that the Native Americans were brutally forced out of their lands by the Europeans is correct, but as I just stated I don’t think it could have ended any differently than it did.
4. This article was very similar to the other article that we just read. Many people see Thomas Jefferson as one of our nation’s heroes. But similarly to Columbus, he did many inexplicable things to the Native Americans. We aren’t told this in our history classes. It is truly sad that the Native Americans greeted the Europeans peacefully and the response from the settlers was the exact opposite. But greed won out in the end. The greed for America and to be the capitol of the world triggered these inhumane actions toward the Native Americans. Interestingly, I don’t think the Native Americans had much greed toward the Europeans. But that’s how the history of the world has progressed. Native Americans were just a few of the many cultures that were unjustly persecuted. Finally, I think Takaki did a neat thing by including Shakespeare’s play to further state what the English thought of the Native Americans.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
About Me
Me name is Nathan Inniger. I am a sophomore Sport Management Communication major. I am a huge sports fan and love the Buckeyes, Browns and Indians.
Activity #1
1. But even allowing for the imperfection of myths, it is
enough to make us question, for that time and ours, the excuse
of progress in the annihilation of races, and the telling of
history from the standpoint of the conquerors and leaders of
Western civilization.
2. His main argument is that historians give credit too
easily to some of the great explorers and leaders of our
history without giving the same attention to how many of them
forced brutal tactics on several races in order to acclaim
their fame. He is assuming that many history lessons taught to
American children don’t tell of the terrible acts that many
conquistadores such as Christopher Columbus forced upon other
races, ethnicities, or religions. He explains this when he
states in his book, “If history is to be creative, to
anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it
should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing
those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief
flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join
together, occasionally to win….That being as blunt as I can, is
my approach to the history of the United States.” He also
states in his book, “The history of any country, presented as
the history of a family conceals fierce conflicts of interest
(sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors
and conquered, masters and slaves capitalists and workers,
dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world
of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job
of thinking people… not to be on the side of the executioners.”
By these two statements he is clearly stating that we as a
nation learn too much about how these conquistadors benefited
our country rather than the damage they did to other cultures.
3. I would definitely apply his argument to the way
history should be taught in our schools. I took history from
fifth to eighth grade and twice in high school and I had never
heard about these alarming actions that Columbus headed.
Generally in my history courses we are taught that anything our
government or other historical heroes did on benefited our
country. We are not told about how Columbus was brutal to the
Native Americans he encountered. We are not told about
Constitution from the standpoint of slaves and so on. I agree
that many of our nation’s heroes have had a wonderful effect on
our nation, but we are rarely told about their flaws. I think
instances like this should be more closely examined in history
classes especially in high school and on up.
4. I was honestly stunned when I read this article. I had
never heard these terrible revelations about Christopher
Columbus before or if I had heard them they had just been a
side note while discussing him. I always knew Columbus as being
the guy who discovered American in 1492 and established
friendly relations with the Native Americans in Virginia. I
think that Howard Zinns’s article was wonderfully written. It
not only had portions of Columbus’s account, but also another
different account from a Las Casas who was against Columbus’s
actions. This helped make his argument more believable and
accurate. After reading this article I am now going to ask
other members in my family is they have any knowledge of this
so I can see if maybe during me history learning experience I
missed something or if Zinn’s article is as valid as he made it
seem to be.
enough to make us question, for that time and ours, the excuse
of progress in the annihilation of races, and the telling of
history from the standpoint of the conquerors and leaders of
Western civilization.
2. His main argument is that historians give credit too
easily to some of the great explorers and leaders of our
history without giving the same attention to how many of them
forced brutal tactics on several races in order to acclaim
their fame. He is assuming that many history lessons taught to
American children don’t tell of the terrible acts that many
conquistadores such as Christopher Columbus forced upon other
races, ethnicities, or religions. He explains this when he
states in his book, “If history is to be creative, to
anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it
should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing
those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief
flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join
together, occasionally to win….That being as blunt as I can, is
my approach to the history of the United States.” He also
states in his book, “The history of any country, presented as
the history of a family conceals fierce conflicts of interest
(sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors
and conquered, masters and slaves capitalists and workers,
dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world
of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job
of thinking people… not to be on the side of the executioners.”
By these two statements he is clearly stating that we as a
nation learn too much about how these conquistadors benefited
our country rather than the damage they did to other cultures.
3. I would definitely apply his argument to the way
history should be taught in our schools. I took history from
fifth to eighth grade and twice in high school and I had never
heard about these alarming actions that Columbus headed.
Generally in my history courses we are taught that anything our
government or other historical heroes did on benefited our
country. We are not told about how Columbus was brutal to the
Native Americans he encountered. We are not told about
Constitution from the standpoint of slaves and so on. I agree
that many of our nation’s heroes have had a wonderful effect on
our nation, but we are rarely told about their flaws. I think
instances like this should be more closely examined in history
classes especially in high school and on up.
4. I was honestly stunned when I read this article. I had
never heard these terrible revelations about Christopher
Columbus before or if I had heard them they had just been a
side note while discussing him. I always knew Columbus as being
the guy who discovered American in 1492 and established
friendly relations with the Native Americans in Virginia. I
think that Howard Zinns’s article was wonderfully written. It
not only had portions of Columbus’s account, but also another
different account from a Las Casas who was against Columbus’s
actions. This helped make his argument more believable and
accurate. After reading this article I am now going to ask
other members in my family is they have any knowledge of this
so I can see if maybe during me history learning experience I
missed something or if Zinn’s article is as valid as he made it
seem to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)