Zinns Article #2-Drawing the Color Line

In the article “Drawing the Color Line” by Howard Zinn, he talks about the true beginning of slavery among English and the Blacks. He mentions how slavery became an “institution” when talking about labor. Zinn talks about in the year 1619, the Virginians were “desperate for labor, to grow enough food to stay alive.” (Pg 23) When talking about slavery, Zinn mentions how they could no longer use the Indians because there were more of them [Indians] then there were English, and if they massacred the Indians they would surely see one [massacre] against them. Zinn states that by the year 1619 there had already been a million blacks bought out to slavery. They [English] targeted the blacks because “they came from a settled culture, of tribal customs and family ties, of communal life and traditional ritual, that African blacks found themselves especially helpless when removed from this.” States Zinn. (pg 26) He mentions the brutality of the slaves when being transported overseas; they were forced to travel in small groups in coffin-sized areas, chained together. The odds of them surviving the trip overseas was about one and three, however the profits doubled in time so it made the trip worth it to the slave traders. Zinn talks about the historical “web” of events leading to the slavery this is what he says; “We see now a complex web of historical threads to ensnare blacks for slavery in America: the desperation of starving settlers, the special helplessness of the displaced African, the powerful incentive of profit for slave trader and planter, the temptation of superior status for poor whites, the elaborate controls against the escape and rebellion, the legal and social punishment of black and white collaboration.”(Pg 30).
I felt again, that Zinn wrote an article that was an easy read, and that it yet again went against everything I have learned in school. We all learned that slavery was there, and that it was brutal, however I never knew the extent of the brutality when shipping them over seas. I was also never aware of the one out of three odds of survival, which I found rather disturbing. I also could agree with Zinn’s argument that slavery and racism is not natural that it is more of a created human choice and past historical circumstances instead. I feel that slavery was created based on the human’s selfishness to survive and to make money, which carried over into creating racism. Once slavery was adapted it was the cause of the hatred between blacks and whites, it is because of historical events that created today’s racism, everything branches back to slavery.

Chapter two-Takaki

In chapter 2 of A Different Mirror written by Ronald Takaki I feel that he was trying to say that the English were being slightly hypocritical when calling the Native Indians "savages". In the first part of the chapter Takaki talks about how both the Irish and the Indians were savages,because they were not "civilized". However when reading further, it seems that the Indians were far more civilized than anyone else. They farmed extremely well, they noticed weather changes and established seasons which helped them determine when and how to grow their crops. Takaki mentions that when the white man because desperate for food they started turning on humans and eating them, and they called the Indians savages? It seems that the English was just trying to make excuses as to why they needed the Indians, they took them over to be slaves and just ended up killing them. For all of the English's' mistakes they would claim (or blame) God and say that it was his doing, or it was meant to be because God said it was.
When Thomas Jefferson was President he said that it their own fault (the Indians) that they were dying, but all he wanted to do was help them become civilized so he could then take their land.


The Chapter was an easy read, and i somewhat enjoyed it. These are not the same view points I've learned before. However, he ONLY mentions the savagery from the English, does this mean there was none from the Indians? I somehow doubt that. Takaki should compare the Indians and the English, they were both savages, however the Indians could have turned to savagery in self-defense.

When reading this chapter i agree with the majority of the facts Takaki was giving, however i would have liked to see some of the "finger" pointing on both sides. Everyone knows that both groups were savages, i just would have liked to see it from BOTH perspectives. When reading this i was Shocked at some of the things the English did when they got desperate for food, and how the killed off the Indians. I was familiar with some of the information, but not the details and i never realized how gruesome it really was.

Zinn Article

In this article Howard Zinn talks about how the acceptance of murder with a “hero” for the progress of one specific group of people (Columbus) . Zinn states that his viewpoint may be different than that of others, he states that “ the history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest…” When Zinn is telling the story of history he tells it from the viewpoint of the victims (Arawaks, slaves, etc.) He does not “grieve” for victims, he just chooses to view history from someone else’s’ point-of-view. Zinn does not “invent” victories for certain movements, but to simply reiterate failures of the past. In the coming years the Indians attempted to get rid of the English settlers, they were multiplying right in front of their eyes, and wanted to end it so they could save their families, communities, and tribe. They had a few massacres, until the English settlers retaliated and ultimately started a war. The English had decided that because they could not live with the Indians and could not take them as slaves they served no purpose and decided to exterminate them. According to the historian Edmund Morgan, “Within two or three years of the massacre the English had avenged the deaths of that day many times over.” The population of Indians before the English was just about 10 million, and after the extermination the population was just under a million. Not only did the English kill the Indians, some of them died from diseases (brought over by the English) and other “Natural” causes. Before the English invaded the new land, the Indians were “engaged in the great agricultural revolution…” according to Zinn. Technically Columbus did not find the “new land” he invaded a land that had a “culture that was considered complex, some of the places were populated equivalent to Europe, and where human relations were more egalitarian than in Europe” Zinn states. Zinn states that “They were people without a written language, but with their own laws, their poetry, their history kept in memory and passed on, in an oral vocabulary more complex than Europe’s, accompanied by song, dance, and ceremonial drama. They paid careful attention to the development of personality, intensity of will, independence, and flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one another and with nature.”

A few questions rise when reading this article. To me they were important to talk about. In telling the history and the story of Columbus’ voyage is it right to talk about his side and his side only? The story of him being a conqueror, and how the Indians were of no help? Would mentioning that the Indians were possibly more intelligent and organized, and more agriculturally advanced than Europe ruin our history as we know it? Could we (English) have learned from the Natives of the land we took over instead of eliminating them?
These are all questions that come to my mind when reading this article written by Howard Zinn. I would have to agree with the majority of Zinn’s arguments. I find it necessary to hear the story/history from the “victims” point of view and not necessarily the conquerors point of view. Zinn mentions on pages 15 and continuing onto 16 that the Indians, specifically the Iroquois tribe was far more developed and complex than perhaps the English were. Things seemed to be run far more smoothly and organized than that of England and all of Europe. Growing up in Columbus Ohio and visiting the replica of the Santa Maria on the river front many times, I was always taught that Columbus was a hero, he discovered the Americas, and that is how we became. A vague and partially accurate statement; however there is far more than just that. In school they never teach you the brutality and why there are hardly any Native Americans in the present United States.
I really enjoyed reading this article, it made me think about the other side of the development of the new world, and made me feel a little guilty about how we became this wonderful country. I made me ask questions to my self starting with “what if” it also made me compare the attitudes of today’s society and how today we resemble the same attitudes and the selfishness of our “hero’s” in our past. Zinn opened my eyes to a whole new perspective, and possibly a perspective I enjoy learning more about.

Introduction

My name is Andrea Smolak, i am from Powell Ohio (north of columbus) and i am a junior here at Bowling Green. I am a psychology/sociology major, attempting to become a researcher for child/adolesenct development, i would love to further my education and get my PsychD degree.

In my free time i enjoy spending time with my family and friends and also travelling. I have had the honor of travelling downunder to New Zealand and to Australia and enjoyed every second of it. (if interested i have stories and pictures) I am also well travelled around the US.

At home i have two siblings, two cats and one dog. (I LOVE animals) In the future i would love to own an English Mastiff (which require a bit more room than just an apartment).

I am also interested in working on cars, and racing them periodically (not that i am any good) but its a lot of fun.

That's me in a nutshell, i look forward to meeting and getting to know everyone in the class!