The "Tempest " in the Wilderness- Takaki Ch 2

The author of this article concludes with the distinction between savagery and civilization. He shows how people such as Columbus and Jefferson believed the Indians and the Irish were pure savages and needed to be civilized and colonized. The author also makes a comparison and connection between the Shakespearean play entitled The Tempest. The author stated “it was almost as if Shakespeare had lifted the material from contemporary documents about the New World”. Shakespeare even made connections to the names of the characters as Caliban could be rearranged to san “cannibal” along with Amleth being rearranged to be Hamlet. The English also distinctly compared the Indians to the Irish by saying they were both the same with a difference of culture. They were noted to be “cruel, barbarous, and most treacherous”. The main argument that is described in this reading is examples of how the Indians and Irish were simply harmless at first when discovering the New World. John Smith described how the Powhatans cared for the sick and dying English men. To me, the English men simply took advantage of the Indians and eventually destroyed them because they wanted what the Indians had. The English wanted more than just a part of the Indian territory; they wanted it all. The Indians simply struck back for their land that had been taken straight from them. After the 300 so men and women who were killed by the Indians, the colonist then declared that the land was theirs for all of their pain and suffering by the Indians. What about all of the pain and suffering the Indians went through in defending their own land? There is no evidence in this reading that tells us that the Indians were the ones who were doing the killing and the taking of the land. No the English men were. I believe that the English men are the ones who completely made the Indians as well as the Irishmen the “savages”. By creating these monsters of people, the English then tried to take their land and killing them by saying that they were “civilizing” them.

Rosenblum and Travis

I think Rosenblum and Travis make two distinct statements or main points in this section of the reading. The overall ideas in this reading rely on the difference of things and how people perceive them. The first point they make is the difference between a constructionist and an essentialist by giving the example of how 3 different umpires make their “calls” on whether the pitch was a strike or a ball. By looking at the pitch as umpire one calls the ball what it is, he is seen as an essentialist. Umpire one is simply observing the pitch as it was thrown. On the other hand, umpire two who states the pitches as “nothing until I call them” is seen as a constructionist. He looks at the pitch as it has no meaning until it is given by the observer.

The second point in this section of the reading is the process of naming. There comes some difference when you name certain categories. Constructionists pay attention to the names people use to refer to themselves while essentialists tend to give the names. Asserting a name can create social conflict such as the term Hispanic vs. Latino or African American vs. Black.

The authors make an argument and a distinction between differences of race, sex, sexual orientation and social class. In the reading they state that “Essentialists are likely to view categories of people as “essentially” different in some important way; constructionists are likely to see these differences as socially created and arbitrary”. There is argument of what these differences in color, sexuality and social class actually mean.

In one section of the reading Rosenblum and Travis mentioned the controversial difference between “sexual orientation” and “sexual preference”. I feel when using either of these words, someone is automatically being placed as either an essentialist or a constructionist. Everyone comes from a different background and some might not be as familiar to the terms as others. An example of this is in the reading when they mention that ironically, colored people used to be a derogatory reference to African American, but people of color is now a commonly reference to all nonwhites. This clearly shows that the change of names and terms is a never ending. How is one person to keep track of the frequent name changes of different cultures and races? Name changes simply flow with time and history.

Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress

In the article of Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress, Zinn writes on how he believes society learns the history of Columbus and his discoveries. The writer suggests that even with the annihilation of human race, many see the success of progress and discovery. In the conclusion he also suggests that many people are telling the story of success and history through the leaders or conquerors eyes and not the minority.
Zinn argues that today we read in history books what was discovered or heroic. What the history books don’t explain are the tears and blood shed or slavery that went into the process. Zinn mentions an author by the name of Samuel Morison, who briefly describes the killing and slavery. Morison even describes this time in history as a
“complete genocide” but yet completely summarizes Columbus as having a “ superb faith in God and his most outstanding quality of great seamanship”. The only mention in the entire novel of there being bloodshed in the discovery by Columbus is that small couple of sentences. Morison only mentions the truth quickly and then continues with more important and better things.
Some will always believe that there are two sides to every story. In this article Zinn is simply showing the opposite side of the story of Columbus and the discovery of the new World that society believes took place. This article is not a new discovery to the unknown tale. It is simply the other version of the story that had been suppressed. Zinn is simply bringing forth the victims and cruelties of our history.
I completely agree with the approach Zinn is taking in this article. He is not only telling the history we all know, but he is revealing the dark side to it. He is simply proving that the casualties that were taken did not go without their fare share or fighting. They showed signs of resist while joining together and occasionally they won. On the other hand I believe that Zinn is ignoring the opposite side to this story. I feel he is not completely looking at what good came out of these incidences. This history is what shapes our country today and I don’t think that Zinn gives the founders enough credit.
Overall for me, this article gave a better understanding of our history and society. Some of the information put forward in this article was completely new to me. I now have a better understanding of where I come from and the ones who suffered for who we are today.

Introduction

My name is Corinne and I am a freshman here at BG. I am currently a Dietetics major and I thought that this Ethnic Studies class would be an interesting choice when choosing a Cultural Diversity class.