In addition to my previous post about freedom, it is interesting how the oppressive measures of the British government actually promoted the pursuit of liberty in America. The textbook Give Me Liberty even depicts British oppression as the pinnacle of American independence. It is obvious that oppression can create resentment, which is a major proponent of revolution. However, the absolute monarchies in Europe were able to consolidate power and oppress the "commoners" without having to face major opposition until late 18th century. (after the American Revolution) There must be some elements of the American colonial society capable of sustaining the concept of freedom and strengthen it in face of oppression. It is essential for us to explore this core factor in a multifaceted event in order to unravel the complex network of historical occurrences contributing to the success of the American Revolution.
What is the nature of British oppression? This is a question we must ask in order to analyze its weaknesses. By listing out the different enactments - Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Act, Tea Act, et cetera, we can see an apparent pattern - the British government focused on commercial benefits rather than sociopolitical factors. Britain was heavily in debt after the French and Indian War, so their view on the colonies as a source of economic support became greater than their original intention of using the colonies as a symbol of British colonial success. Due to this fact, they were unable to defend or justify their actions through strong social and political arguments. Furthermore, with the composition of colonial authorities being a group of aristocrats and wealthy merchants, economic aggression would greatly offend the decentralized system of colonies.
The American colonies' ability to evolve from a system of autonomous states to a united society was also an essential factor to counter British oppression. Initially, delegates from some colonies rejected the idea of opposing the British monarchy, which was an expected outcome given that a main motive behind Britain's oppressive approach was to install fear and subordination within the colonies. However, as punctuated previously, economic aggression violated the most essential source of income for colonial leaders. Facing a common enemy, it was only natural that the colonies joined forces to avoid the predicament. Therefore, the British misplaced their oppression, allowing colonial authorities to exploit the social and political weaknesses of British control. Colonial elites were able to sustain the little damage dealt to them through economic aggression and alter it as to promote centralization of power against weakened British influence on the colonies.
British oppression was misdirected, the colonies were united, and British control was weakened. It is clear now that British efforts to obstruct the American Revolution actually became a major proponent of its success. This may seem obvious given the circumstances listed previously, but it is a very interesting outcome in comparison with other revolutions of similar objectives in Europe. For instance, the French Revolution, the most iconic of all European revolutions due to its sociopolitical complexity, was unable to utilize oppression as its driving force. An authoritative government's main goal is always to suppress a revolution through oppression, and the French absolute monarchy did so effectively. Although the system was overthrown eventually, the concept was ineradicable. The conservatist representatives of the Congress of Vienna, the parliamentary monarchy in England, and the monarchical nature of French "empires" are all examples of an oppressive system being deeply ingrained within European society. If oppression is so pervasive, then "true liberty", being clearly defined as an inverse of oppression, would never exist. The American Revolution gave the entire world a prime example of how oppression can be redirected, not overcome, in order to support the manifestation of liberty.
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Common Sense - An Enlightened Society
Through the documentary collection Voices of Freedom, we are able to connect our knowledge about certain historical movements to interesting primary perspectives which give us greater insight to the progression of social, political, and economic concepts during colonial times. I found the excerpts from Common Sense by Thomas Paine particularly intriguing. The pamphlet is so eloquently put and contains modern ideas of freedom and liberty rarely found in European society during the time. In comparison with other Enlightenment ideals of transnational human rights, Paine's pamphlet contributed, in my opinion, most significantly to the evolution of liberal concepts. It is as John Adam said: "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain".
It is important to note that the American Revolution happened before the French Revolution. The French Revolution have been interpreted in European history as the massive assimilation of primitive liberal concepts throughout the continent, challenging the conservatist political model of absolute monarchy. Therefore, it was not only a revolution for France, but ultimately a sociopolitical revolution for Europe. Essentially, France was a bubble filled with resent towards the status quo and radical Enlightenment ideals which were distributed in the vernacular. The bursting of that bubble caused an instantaneous realization throughout Europe that the authoritative model of old regimes were rusted and deprecated, which could be revitalized by implementing concepts introduced by Enlightenment philosophers. Nonetheless, it is important to understand that the effects of the old regime caused the oppressed majority to take on a more sympathizing attitude towards the monarchy, so the effects of the revolution was phenomenal but not extremely influential towards the core principals of a monarchical society.
As stated previously, the American Revolution happened before the French Revolution, which suggests that it had more potential fostering liberal concepts than many European countries. Furthermore, American colonies were built under the expectation that the social construct would be "freer" compared to that of England, though there were varying opinions on the concept of freedom. This contrasts greatly with how ideas of liberty and freedom were treated in Europe. Although ideas weren't radical to a point in which they were publicly condemned, old European regimes have consolidated enough power to collectively oppress major signs of liberal movement. Such restrictions did not apply to the American colonies, primarily due to political instability in England and the colonial aristocracy's ability to consolidate local authority. At the very foundation of American colonies, they were already one step ahead of Europe when it comes to the concept of liberty.
The development of colonial society was no less significant to the establishment of liberty than its founding elements. Colonies competed for immigration by expanding religious toleration, which was proportionate to most Europeans' perspective on liberty in general. The expansion of freedom and liberty was also partially a result of England's competition with other European nations to construct a colonial society more "dignified" than the others.
The conclusion? Thomas Paine's Common Sense, of course, illustrates the results the best. He asks rhetorical questions such as "how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species", which challenged the rigid social classes of Europe. He even introduced the idea of "all men being originally equals", which was revolutionary even in comparison to Enlightenment philosophies. Given the smaller area and population of the colonies, his ideas assimilated more quickly than the Enlightenment philosophies and ideals of the French Revolution. Essentially, his work did not necessarily trigger a revolution, but provided the foundation required for America to differentiate its liberty from the more deprecated British concept of liberty.
Why is this differentiation important? Well, it is one of the main proponents of the American Revolution, but also it exemplifies the liberal advances of American colonies in comparison with Europe. Europeans, as a whole, claimed to be the greatest race of human beings to have ever existed, but their society was fundamentally flawed in the lens of a modern liberal perspective. Various aspects of their society, including the massive population and deeply rooted oppressive regimes, were all obstacles of a march towards freedom and liberty. It can thus be concluded that the American Revolution was far more successful at manifesting its liberal qualities than any revolution or movement in Europe, demonstrated through the artful analysis of Thomas Paine.
It is important to note that the American Revolution happened before the French Revolution. The French Revolution have been interpreted in European history as the massive assimilation of primitive liberal concepts throughout the continent, challenging the conservatist political model of absolute monarchy. Therefore, it was not only a revolution for France, but ultimately a sociopolitical revolution for Europe. Essentially, France was a bubble filled with resent towards the status quo and radical Enlightenment ideals which were distributed in the vernacular. The bursting of that bubble caused an instantaneous realization throughout Europe that the authoritative model of old regimes were rusted and deprecated, which could be revitalized by implementing concepts introduced by Enlightenment philosophers. Nonetheless, it is important to understand that the effects of the old regime caused the oppressed majority to take on a more sympathizing attitude towards the monarchy, so the effects of the revolution was phenomenal but not extremely influential towards the core principals of a monarchical society.
As stated previously, the American Revolution happened before the French Revolution, which suggests that it had more potential fostering liberal concepts than many European countries. Furthermore, American colonies were built under the expectation that the social construct would be "freer" compared to that of England, though there were varying opinions on the concept of freedom. This contrasts greatly with how ideas of liberty and freedom were treated in Europe. Although ideas weren't radical to a point in which they were publicly condemned, old European regimes have consolidated enough power to collectively oppress major signs of liberal movement. Such restrictions did not apply to the American colonies, primarily due to political instability in England and the colonial aristocracy's ability to consolidate local authority. At the very foundation of American colonies, they were already one step ahead of Europe when it comes to the concept of liberty.
The development of colonial society was no less significant to the establishment of liberty than its founding elements. Colonies competed for immigration by expanding religious toleration, which was proportionate to most Europeans' perspective on liberty in general. The expansion of freedom and liberty was also partially a result of England's competition with other European nations to construct a colonial society more "dignified" than the others.
The conclusion? Thomas Paine's Common Sense, of course, illustrates the results the best. He asks rhetorical questions such as "how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species", which challenged the rigid social classes of Europe. He even introduced the idea of "all men being originally equals", which was revolutionary even in comparison to Enlightenment philosophies. Given the smaller area and population of the colonies, his ideas assimilated more quickly than the Enlightenment philosophies and ideals of the French Revolution. Essentially, his work did not necessarily trigger a revolution, but provided the foundation required for America to differentiate its liberty from the more deprecated British concept of liberty.
Why is this differentiation important? Well, it is one of the main proponents of the American Revolution, but also it exemplifies the liberal advances of American colonies in comparison with Europe. Europeans, as a whole, claimed to be the greatest race of human beings to have ever existed, but their society was fundamentally flawed in the lens of a modern liberal perspective. Various aspects of their society, including the massive population and deeply rooted oppressive regimes, were all obstacles of a march towards freedom and liberty. It can thus be concluded that the American Revolution was far more successful at manifesting its liberal qualities than any revolution or movement in Europe, demonstrated through the artful analysis of Thomas Paine.
Friday, August 24, 2018
Log Horizon's Portrayal of Colonization
As I read about European colonization of the Americas for this week’s reading, I realized that the TV show Log Horizon bears many similarities to the pattern of European colonization. Log Horizon’s plot revolves around large amount of people being transported from the real world to a new world in the video game Elder Tale in an event known as the “Catastrophe,” and it follows the characters as they build a fully functioning society in this world. The interaction between the transported people and the world of Elder Tale is not only very similar to European colonization, but it also helps explain some of the attitudes Europeans had towards colonization.
The world of Elder Tale has geography identical to that of Earth. When Elder Tale was just a game and not its own world, there were many NPCs, called “people of the land,” who were background characters in the game, which none of the players really paid attention to. However, when the players, called “adventurers,” were transported into the game world, these people of the land became real humans just as sentient as the adventurers, with their own lives and thoughts. Furthermore, the people of the land had many lives before the adventurers came. Therefore, to the people of the land, the adventurers had seemingly appeared out of thin air. The people of the land are analogous to the Native Americans during European colonization of America, and this will be explored in greater detail later.
When the characters all arrive in Elder Tale, the players are split up into five major cities in Japan. Each city and its surrounding area has its own unique government and ruling parties. I believe that, to an extent, the cities of Akihabara and Susukino can be compared to the colonists from England and Spain, which can be seen in how the two cities operate. First, the narrative is told from the perspective of the people of Akihabara, which should be kept in mind when considering how the show perceives groups of people outside of Akihabara. The people who landed in Akihabara had not immediately consolidated a functioning government and presence after the catastrophe. It would not be until the formation of the Round Table when a government would be established in this city. I perceive this as being similar to the early colonization of England. As described both in class and in the textbook, the first English colony Jamestown could not establish a lasting society and did not have a presence in the Americas. Only when later colonies were established would England have a functioning colony in North America. Similarly, when the adventurers first arrived in Akihabara, they were in a state of chaos, and society quickly collapsed. Order was only established when outside guilds entered Akihabara to form the Round Table, the government of Akihabara.
In contrast, immediately after the catastrophe, Susukino immediately set up its own government. From Akihabara’s (and by extension the show’s) perspective, Susukino’s government appeared oppressive towards both its citizens and the people of the land. Therefore, some of the people in Akihabara tried to get people to join them by saying that they were going to save both adventurers and People of the Land from Susukino’s oppression. In this way, Susukino is similar to the Spanish empire because Susukino was one of the first cities to set up a functioning government and society in the new world of Elder Tale, similar to how the Spanish Empire was one of the first to set up its colonies in the New World. Furthermore, some of the English colonists declared that they wanted to save the Native Americans from Spanish oppression, which is similar to Akihabara’s ostensible desire to save the adventurers and people of the land from Susukino. In particular, recall that Hakluyt, an English scholar, fervently said that “the Indians of the New World were ‘crying out to us . . . to come and help’” (Give me Liberty, 57). In Log Horizon, the protagonist detected cries of help from Susukino, and he even sent a rescue mission there, which has a similar sentiment to Hakluyt’s words.
Interactions between Akihabara (and most likely the other four big cities, but the anime mainly focuses on Akihabara) and the People of the Land are reminiscent of the interactions between European colonists and Native Americans. From early on it is noted that the adventurers possess far more physical and magical strength than the People of the Land. This is similar to the advantage Europeans had over Native Americans due to more advanced technology and weapons. Among the nobility of the People of the Land, some wanted to repel the adventurers, but the majority of them believed that it was in their best interest to remain friendly and form alliances. This corresponds to how many Native American tribes were relatively friendly with adventurers, forming economic relationships, yet many other tribes were violent through incidents such as the Pequot rebellion. However, one notable difference in Log Horizon is that, as far as Season 1, there was never an incident of People of the Land violently attacking/rebelling against the adventurers.
There is a major turning point in Log Horizon that bears similarities to the interaction between Pocahontas and English colonists. What had transpired in “real life” was that Powhatan had captured John Smith and planned to execute him, but Pocahontas had convinced Powhatan to release him, and Pocahontas eventually married John Rolfe. This story made Pocahontas famous and made her a symbol of European and Native American amity. Now, what happened in Log Horizon was that the members of the Round Table (the governing body of Akihabara) convened in the capital of Eastal (one of the nations for the People of the Land). Meanwhile, the nobility of Eastal had several meetings regarding what to do about the adventurers. The general consensus among the nobility was to reject the adventurers from the capital. However, the princess of Eastal, Lenessia, was able to convince the nobles to accept the adventurers and encouraged the two parties to work together. Lenessia rescued the representatives of the Round Table from potential confinement by the People of the Land, which is analogous to Pocahontas saving John Smith from execution. Furthermore, Pocahontas’ marriage with John Rolfe is very similar to Lenessia’s relationship with Krusty, one of the leaders of the Round Table. Although their relationship is never officially confirmed in the first season, it is heavily implied that both have some level of attractiveness towards each other, and this relationship had been verified through several events throughout the first season. For one final connection, recall that Pocahontas had taken a voyage to England and had symbolized harmony between the Native Americans and the colonists. In Log Horizon, Lenessia, escorted by Krusty, made a trip to Akihabara, and the speech she gave there was representative of a unified cause between the adventurers and the People of the Land.
With this in mind, we can get a better idea of the European colonists’ treatment towards the Native Americans. From our current open-minded society, it may be difficult to comprehend the varying attitudes of colonists towards the natives. For example, William Penn established Pennsylvania with the goal for colonists to coexist with Native Americans. On the other end of the spectrum, Bacon’s Rebellion was partially motivated by the desire to displace Native Americans from their land so that farmers could obtain more land, described by the textbook as a “call for the removal of all Indians from the colony” (Give me Liberty, 107). Although Bacon’s reaction towards natives may seem irrational to our current society, we can better understand the Europeans’ perspectives by considering the analogy between Native Americans and People of the Land in Log Horizon.
Many of the adventurers of Log Horizon believed that the People of the Land should still be treated as mere NPCs of a game. Even from the very beginning of the Catastrophe, the People of the Land were already displaced from their homes because of the adventurers’ actions, whether intentional or not. No matter how much evidence was against the adventurers’ beliefs, many adventurers still held that they were the only “true” people - after all, only the adventurers had arrived from the “real” world - and the People of the Land should just be treated as an afterthought. In addition, the adventurers possessed far greater physical and magical abilities than the People of the Land, analogous to the European technological advantage. The adventurers' possession of magical powers can be compared to the early European colonists’ belief that they were blessed from God to enlighten this foreign land. Since the adventurers had magic, strength, and even resurrection, the adventurers came to consider themselves as far superior to the People of the Land. Similarly, since the Europeans had both technology and God’s will on their side, they believed they were superior to the Native Americans, which they believed to justify their unfair treatment of the native population. By presenting the TV show from the perspective of colonists from our modern society in the face of an unknown land and people, Log Horizon establishes a better understanding of the attitudes and inevitable prejudice between colonists and the indigenous people during colonization of the New World.
Sources: GML, log-horizon.wikia.com
The world of Elder Tale has geography identical to that of Earth. When Elder Tale was just a game and not its own world, there were many NPCs, called “people of the land,” who were background characters in the game, which none of the players really paid attention to. However, when the players, called “adventurers,” were transported into the game world, these people of the land became real humans just as sentient as the adventurers, with their own lives and thoughts. Furthermore, the people of the land had many lives before the adventurers came. Therefore, to the people of the land, the adventurers had seemingly appeared out of thin air. The people of the land are analogous to the Native Americans during European colonization of America, and this will be explored in greater detail later.
When the characters all arrive in Elder Tale, the players are split up into five major cities in Japan. Each city and its surrounding area has its own unique government and ruling parties. I believe that, to an extent, the cities of Akihabara and Susukino can be compared to the colonists from England and Spain, which can be seen in how the two cities operate. First, the narrative is told from the perspective of the people of Akihabara, which should be kept in mind when considering how the show perceives groups of people outside of Akihabara. The people who landed in Akihabara had not immediately consolidated a functioning government and presence after the catastrophe. It would not be until the formation of the Round Table when a government would be established in this city. I perceive this as being similar to the early colonization of England. As described both in class and in the textbook, the first English colony Jamestown could not establish a lasting society and did not have a presence in the Americas. Only when later colonies were established would England have a functioning colony in North America. Similarly, when the adventurers first arrived in Akihabara, they were in a state of chaos, and society quickly collapsed. Order was only established when outside guilds entered Akihabara to form the Round Table, the government of Akihabara.
In contrast, immediately after the catastrophe, Susukino immediately set up its own government. From Akihabara’s (and by extension the show’s) perspective, Susukino’s government appeared oppressive towards both its citizens and the people of the land. Therefore, some of the people in Akihabara tried to get people to join them by saying that they were going to save both adventurers and People of the Land from Susukino’s oppression. In this way, Susukino is similar to the Spanish empire because Susukino was one of the first cities to set up a functioning government and society in the new world of Elder Tale, similar to how the Spanish Empire was one of the first to set up its colonies in the New World. Furthermore, some of the English colonists declared that they wanted to save the Native Americans from Spanish oppression, which is similar to Akihabara’s ostensible desire to save the adventurers and people of the land from Susukino. In particular, recall that Hakluyt, an English scholar, fervently said that “the Indians of the New World were ‘crying out to us . . . to come and help’” (Give me Liberty, 57). In Log Horizon, the protagonist detected cries of help from Susukino, and he even sent a rescue mission there, which has a similar sentiment to Hakluyt’s words.
Interactions between Akihabara (and most likely the other four big cities, but the anime mainly focuses on Akihabara) and the People of the Land are reminiscent of the interactions between European colonists and Native Americans. From early on it is noted that the adventurers possess far more physical and magical strength than the People of the Land. This is similar to the advantage Europeans had over Native Americans due to more advanced technology and weapons. Among the nobility of the People of the Land, some wanted to repel the adventurers, but the majority of them believed that it was in their best interest to remain friendly and form alliances. This corresponds to how many Native American tribes were relatively friendly with adventurers, forming economic relationships, yet many other tribes were violent through incidents such as the Pequot rebellion. However, one notable difference in Log Horizon is that, as far as Season 1, there was never an incident of People of the Land violently attacking/rebelling against the adventurers.
There is a major turning point in Log Horizon that bears similarities to the interaction between Pocahontas and English colonists. What had transpired in “real life” was that Powhatan had captured John Smith and planned to execute him, but Pocahontas had convinced Powhatan to release him, and Pocahontas eventually married John Rolfe. This story made Pocahontas famous and made her a symbol of European and Native American amity. Now, what happened in Log Horizon was that the members of the Round Table (the governing body of Akihabara) convened in the capital of Eastal (one of the nations for the People of the Land). Meanwhile, the nobility of Eastal had several meetings regarding what to do about the adventurers. The general consensus among the nobility was to reject the adventurers from the capital. However, the princess of Eastal, Lenessia, was able to convince the nobles to accept the adventurers and encouraged the two parties to work together. Lenessia rescued the representatives of the Round Table from potential confinement by the People of the Land, which is analogous to Pocahontas saving John Smith from execution. Furthermore, Pocahontas’ marriage with John Rolfe is very similar to Lenessia’s relationship with Krusty, one of the leaders of the Round Table. Although their relationship is never officially confirmed in the first season, it is heavily implied that both have some level of attractiveness towards each other, and this relationship had been verified through several events throughout the first season. For one final connection, recall that Pocahontas had taken a voyage to England and had symbolized harmony between the Native Americans and the colonists. In Log Horizon, Lenessia, escorted by Krusty, made a trip to Akihabara, and the speech she gave there was representative of a unified cause between the adventurers and the People of the Land.
With this in mind, we can get a better idea of the European colonists’ treatment towards the Native Americans. From our current open-minded society, it may be difficult to comprehend the varying attitudes of colonists towards the natives. For example, William Penn established Pennsylvania with the goal for colonists to coexist with Native Americans. On the other end of the spectrum, Bacon’s Rebellion was partially motivated by the desire to displace Native Americans from their land so that farmers could obtain more land, described by the textbook as a “call for the removal of all Indians from the colony” (Give me Liberty, 107). Although Bacon’s reaction towards natives may seem irrational to our current society, we can better understand the Europeans’ perspectives by considering the analogy between Native Americans and People of the Land in Log Horizon.
Many of the adventurers of Log Horizon believed that the People of the Land should still be treated as mere NPCs of a game. Even from the very beginning of the Catastrophe, the People of the Land were already displaced from their homes because of the adventurers’ actions, whether intentional or not. No matter how much evidence was against the adventurers’ beliefs, many adventurers still held that they were the only “true” people - after all, only the adventurers had arrived from the “real” world - and the People of the Land should just be treated as an afterthought. In addition, the adventurers possessed far greater physical and magical abilities than the People of the Land, analogous to the European technological advantage. The adventurers' possession of magical powers can be compared to the early European colonists’ belief that they were blessed from God to enlighten this foreign land. Since the adventurers had magic, strength, and even resurrection, the adventurers came to consider themselves as far superior to the People of the Land. Similarly, since the Europeans had both technology and God’s will on their side, they believed they were superior to the Native Americans, which they believed to justify their unfair treatment of the native population. By presenting the TV show from the perspective of colonists from our modern society in the face of an unknown land and people, Log Horizon establishes a better understanding of the attitudes and inevitable prejudice between colonists and the indigenous people during colonization of the New World.
Sources: GML, log-horizon.wikia.com
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Slavery and Equality - The Inevitable Catastrophe
The Give Me Liberty textbook gives a comprehensive outline of social, political, and economic fluctuations throughout the period before American colonial times. The content also connects nicely with events many of us have learned from the AP Modern European History course. The textbook is capable of laying out facts and provide interesting interpretations of certain historic events based on these facts, one of which is the topic of slavery.
Although slavery is now commonly recognized as an immoral practice, its history is rarely explored in depth. The general public tend to blame Eurocentrism ("white superiority") as the main proponent of slavery. This is a very superficial interpretation of the issue, because only one facet of the issue is discussed. Slavery traces all the way back to Ancient Mesopotamia civilizations, and the textbook examines the path of slavery in a less emotional way, claiming that the event was an inevitable catastrophe rather than a product of prejudice. As stated by Eric Foner, "prejudice by itself did not create North American slavery."
Slaves had always been treated with cruelty. Throughout history all across the globe, slaves had been captives of war or victims of discrimination. In primitive civilizations in which survival was the constitution, slavery was seen as a conventional practice. If you were defeated or did not have the ability to survive, then it was natural for you to be a slave. This reasoning saw no flaws in the disorderly framework of ancient civilizations.
As the Europeans established their own definition of being "civilized", many aspects of their society became superfluous. They were able to translate material quantities into currencies which can be used consistently, and therefore have a clearer definition of profit. The proportional relationship between profit and labor is obvious, so slavery was used to further one's economic status.
It can therefore be concluded that slaves were treated equally - with the same cruelty - regardless of their race. Of course, the notion of "white supremacy" did factor into the more intense mistreatment of black and Indian slaves, but constitutionally speaking, slaves of all races possessed the same rights. Furthermore, they had greater opportunity to gain freedom than any of the slaves in previous historic periods due to the subtle liberal qualities of European civilization during colonial times.
So what event in history widened the gap between white slaves and slaves belonging to other ethnic groups? What caused the disappearance of white slaves? It doesn't make sense that a society which depended so heavily on labor just suddenly abandoned a significant demographic of slave labor, especially since the transportation of slaves was a cost to be considered. Foner argues that the dramatic demographic shift in slavery initiated along with migration from England to Virginia. Colonization of Virginia was highly profitable to the English government, especially during the time of rapid urbanization, population boom, and political instability. However, there was a misconception of Virginia as a "death trap" (Foner). In order to counter this widespread impression of Virginia, white authorities sought to improve the status of white slaves, shifting their attention and favor to the white demographic more than ever before. This caused the enslavement of white people to decrease drastically over time, and therefore resulted in the rapid increase of black and Indian slaves.
By providing this chronological description of the "rise of slavery", a significant component of racism is discovered - politics. Discrimination against the indigenous was a political issue as it was a moral and religious issue. Furthermore, this clears up the common misconception that slavery was an event which suddenly occurred along with the colonization of Africa and the development of the Triangular Trade. Slavery is not morally justified, but I argue that it is a natural phenomena. It could not be prevented due to the harsh nature of the earliest civilizations. It is not a product of prejudice, but a product of our struggle for survival.
The "Ultimate Truth"
I’ve heard many true statements referring to history before, but nothing resonated with me so clearly and so honestly as “History is written from the perspective of the present”. I think this idea really connects with the topics of historical orthodoxy and revisionism, which we discussed in class on Tuesday. When we were talking about this, I noticed that all the examples we brought up were ones from the present. This makes sense, because the knowledge that would be most directly applicable to our lives is that which concerns the world we are living in now. However, I decided to consider these topics as they are connected not just to our own time, but to various periods throughout history. By looking at these ideas with a much wider lens, I realized that there have been many moments throughout history where what was considered orthodox, and what was considered revisionary, actually switched. A prime example of this is with the idea of a heliocentric solar system. Before the time of the revisionist Copernicus, the “historical orthodox” idea was that the solar system was centered around the Earth. Anyone from modern times looking back at text that supports that theory would immediately dismiss them as uninformed, ridiculous, and utterly wrong. This really shows how something that was once considered the truth can, over the course of history, change completely. By applying the label of “historical orthodoxy” to this, we’re really able to see how, while the fundamental idea behind what it means to be orthodox has not changed, the things that are considered orthodox most certainly have. Overall, I think that this topic really contributes to the idea that there isn't necessarily one "ultimate truth", and that, for many situations, the "truth" is simply what a group of people collectively believe in that moment.
I’ve added a link below to a site I found which describes some of the greatest shifts in ideology and thinking throughout time. Many of them follow this pattern of once being rejected as strange and unorthodox, but, over time, and with mounting evidence supporting them, became accepted as the traditional way of thinking.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/22/philosophy.plato
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Women in America
An interesting title popped up while I was reading the Give Me Liberty textbook today: "Women and the Family". Equality between men and women has always been a controversial issue in the United States. However, it is not as strongly debated upon in some older and more mature countries, such as England and France. To put it into perspective, sexist statements in more developed European countries tend to be considered as less offensive, because sexism in these countries has already lost its meaning, and the comedic element of these statements are weighed more importantly than its offensive qualities. Nonetheless, Americans seem to be extremely sensitive to this issue. From a man's perspective, women can react very dramatically to statements which punctuate the differences between the two sexes. From a woman's perspective, many aspects of society are still inherently in favor of men, and such injustice must be resolved. It doesn't make sense, however, to have such great inequality between men and women, especially in a highly developed society constructed upon the principle of egalitarianism.
The textbook gives some insight to solving this mystery of gender inequality. The unstable family life of Virginia - the earliest enduring English colony - dramatically changed women's role in English American settlements. Although women's rights technically improved in the colonies due to demands for labor, this movement of gender equality was superficial. The failure of men to establish their patriarchal ideals led them to view women not based solely on their ability, but arrogantly their very identity.
Historically speaking, women have been mistreated due to the misconception that they are inferior to men in most aspects. This argument had been greatly undermined throughout history, as the European society gained liberal qualities which enabled philosophers and scientists alike to explore social, physical, and mental differences between men and women. Over time, humanity has reached a general consensus, or at least recently established a social norm, that although there are fundamental differences between men and women, such differences should be regarded as insignificant. Although this argument may not be consistent throughout the globe, certain countries have already established this fact, and the world is indeed progressing towards agreeing to this statement. However, the early American colonies, which was founded atop the most primitive model of liberty and ideals regarding gender, diverged from this meritocratic thinking at its starting point. This inhibits them from completely accepting the fact that men and women should be treated equally due to their approximately equal capabilities.
The reason for this divergence was how rapidly women surpassed men in terms of ability during the early colonial era. The recognition of the female potential and capacity was not overnight - it was a gradual process. Even now, a woman's ability may not be fully recognized. However, due to the influx of men and women into the American colonies during its early stages and the demand for labor, women were taking on jobs they were never exposed to in England. This was revolutionary, because many of the tasks women were doing could be considered as equivalent to men. During this time, feminism was still a premature concept, so it was difficult for men in the colonies to accept that women were equally capable. Therefore, in order to justify the inferiority of women, men had to discriminate against them arrogantly, without clear reasoning. This may be the underlying reason why there is still a significant part of the American population who refuse to accept gender equality, despite the strong claims supporting equality between the two sexes.
- Kung-Min Lin
The textbook gives some insight to solving this mystery of gender inequality. The unstable family life of Virginia - the earliest enduring English colony - dramatically changed women's role in English American settlements. Although women's rights technically improved in the colonies due to demands for labor, this movement of gender equality was superficial. The failure of men to establish their patriarchal ideals led them to view women not based solely on their ability, but arrogantly their very identity.
Historically speaking, women have been mistreated due to the misconception that they are inferior to men in most aspects. This argument had been greatly undermined throughout history, as the European society gained liberal qualities which enabled philosophers and scientists alike to explore social, physical, and mental differences between men and women. Over time, humanity has reached a general consensus, or at least recently established a social norm, that although there are fundamental differences between men and women, such differences should be regarded as insignificant. Although this argument may not be consistent throughout the globe, certain countries have already established this fact, and the world is indeed progressing towards agreeing to this statement. However, the early American colonies, which was founded atop the most primitive model of liberty and ideals regarding gender, diverged from this meritocratic thinking at its starting point. This inhibits them from completely accepting the fact that men and women should be treated equally due to their approximately equal capabilities.
The reason for this divergence was how rapidly women surpassed men in terms of ability during the early colonial era. The recognition of the female potential and capacity was not overnight - it was a gradual process. Even now, a woman's ability may not be fully recognized. However, due to the influx of men and women into the American colonies during its early stages and the demand for labor, women were taking on jobs they were never exposed to in England. This was revolutionary, because many of the tasks women were doing could be considered as equivalent to men. During this time, feminism was still a premature concept, so it was difficult for men in the colonies to accept that women were equally capable. Therefore, in order to justify the inferiority of women, men had to discriminate against them arrogantly, without clear reasoning. This may be the underlying reason why there is still a significant part of the American population who refuse to accept gender equality, despite the strong claims supporting equality between the two sexes.
- Kung-Min Lin
Fake News
When we talked about denialism on Tuesday, it inevitably reminded me of what is currently happening with President Trump. He completely denies the legitimacy of news sites that make him look bad, thus giving himself the ability to control what news he involves himself with. He is able to create an image of himself that is completely free of any fraud or wrongdoings of any kind. However, this is completely unjust and allows for mass spreading of propaganda. When he or one of his cabinet members are asked to clarify a lie/item of propaganda, they simply deem them "alternative facts", which implicates that they are indeed true. In conclusion, Trump's relationship with "fake news" ultimately perpetuates denialistic tendencies in history and politics.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Welcome USHAP 2018-19!
Welcome to our classroom blog! I sincerely hope you find this a valuable resource for information and sharing ideas. Please remember to observe classroom guidelines on the blog but also understand blog are often informal rather than formal writing assignments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)