Native Americans

From the lectures in class we learned that there are many misconceptions about the natives that lived in North and South America before and during European colonization. When in reality the natives were living in highly developed and complex societies. Many of these misconceptions can be derived from the miseducation of American youth coinciding with the passing down of old stereotypes and stigmatic views of Native Americans along with the theories on how this country was founded. At a young age children are taught in school that Christopher Columbus was the first to step foot on American soil and in doing so became the trigger for the development of the successful modern day American society, when in truth, Columbus never actually reached North America. I find it interesting that some Americans view Columbus Day as a celebration of their heritage, and in doing so, the man is seen as a hero who discovered the New World. Due to the lack of proper historical education, some people, whether unintentional or not, tend to look over the fact that Columbus and his men subjugated and killed thousands of Native Americans for their selfish desire of gold.

I was also interested to learn that the French were highly successful in forming a thriving and more of a genuine companionship with the Native Americans than any other colonial power. However, I feel as though the French only did this because they had to rely on the natives a great deal for their own survival. It was the willingness of the natives to take part in trade with the French that enabled the French to continue existing in North America. Even though all of the colonies took advantage of the Native Americans, the French did so much more admirably. The French did not oppress the natives to the same extent as the other countries did. Since the natives had more influence over the French, they were able to maintain their independence.

The 3 Colonial Empires

I found it very interesting how the 3 colonial empires all came with the same objective, but they went about accomplishing it in different ways. France, Spain, and England all wanted to acquire new land for their colonies. France stuck in Canada, traded fur and formed kinship relationships with the native peoples and due to the small population of their colony they encouraged intermarriages. Since France couldn't increase the size of their colony because of the lack of interest in Canada, they weren't fighting any native peoples for territory they just needed enough to trapped and hunt. The English just wanted territory for their poor community to live and the Spanish wanted land for their missionaries and to turn everyone Christian.
While reading Chapter 1 in the book I came across many interesting facts regarding the native people, particularly the cultures along the Pacific Coast. The richness of the environment made California the most densely settled area in North America. It was stated that about five hundred separate tribes speaking ninety languages occupied California. With that amount of different languages how were they able to communicate with members of a different tribe? Were the languages similar enough to where they could understand or were they brought up educated on the different languages of the surrounding tribes? Also, the book mentioned how the life expectancy was 18. At what aged did the women give birth and if the parents died while the child was still very young who took on that responsibility?

PREHISTORY

I found it very fascinating and did not realize that many historians viewed the time before Europeans arrived here as Prehistory. I strongly believe in that this is also a very false statement. I agree with what we were saying in class that while it was not written down in books much of the things from the "prehistory" are still around today. I find it funny that we are taught so much of these ideas and beliefs as young children in our history classes, when like Tai said some of the information in our textbooks is not exactly all true.

I really feel that there is kind of like a conspiracy and they only want us to believe what they feel is true and that is why they teach us the limited amount of information as young children. As we continue our education most of us find that information was presented to us falsely and that there are many different theories and ideas about how the New America was discovered and what led us to be the country we are today. That's why I think that as we continue to progress it is very important for us to broaden the horizons of our children so that they may make their own minds up about how this world was founded instead of conforming them to one idea.

Enclosure: Protection of Personal Property or Injustice?

When the English first came to the new world, they brought along with them their concept of personal property--your land? Fence it in! So when they got here and saw all sorts of native populations milling about and tribes sharing land in common, they noticed also that these native populations lacked, well, fences. The term we discussed in class was the concept of "enclosure," which is important to the English at the time (particularly to their philosophers). Like any population acting on so-called "divine" superiority, it was clear that the English way of doing things was right, and that the natives' way was wrong.

As I certainly may be getting ahead of myself (or exposing obvious holes in the lesson plan--kidding, kidding), at the center of this concept was John Locke (not the "Lost" guy, althought I can probably work him in later). In his book The Two Treatises of Government, Locke says, "God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being," and, "The fruit, or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his, i.e. a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his life." How relevant! No enclosure, no personal property. So taking the natives' land (and hoping to supplant their spiritual beliefs with your own) is totally justified, right?

Locke also says, "God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniencies of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational, (and labour was to be his title to it;) not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious." These rights, like many rights promised back in the late 1600s, were really only valid if you were a white land-owning male. God gave the English rationality and industriousness; what they were doing (taking land from those who had cultivated it themselves) was truly not seen as wrong, rather, that rational action given to them by God was rightly used.

It is interesting to me to observe how far these property debates go back. Obviously, the English used this concept of "enclosure" to justify what they were doing. Later, Thomas Jefferson will read Locke's work (perhaps the driest piece of literature you could ever read) and some of the ideas would end up in some other American documents, I don't remember what they were called, we haven't gotten that far yet.

Oh yes, and did anyone see the "Lost" finale? That was epic. (I told you I'd say something).

Locke ("On Property")

From a Native Perspective

Most history is written from the European prospective. Europeans want to portray themselves as the "good guys" in their book they write about them. When you wrtite about yourself, you want to be seen in a good light. They leave out of truth and other points of intrests. Native Americans are (in my opinion) poorly portrayed or not enough information is given. Columbus is not a favorite person in the Native community. Actually, orginazational groups are trying to abolish Columbus day. He is considered by many Native American groups as the first "terrorist" in this country. Columbus is considered the one who started genocide of the Native Americans. So why would we want to celebrate this guy? Or the Virginias' 400 year anniversary this year? Maybe you can see (or hope)why this might be politically inncorrect?

When colonies started forming, they consisted of the English, French and Bristish. These are people coming from a different country coming over here to live and start a "new"life. This is still happening to this day. The American Govenment are dealing with this issue right now, called Immigration. I watch on CNN or any news channel people picketing and yelling telling people, " Go Back to your own coutry!" These people yelling look like European decent. Do these people realize that their own anecstors were Immigrants too.

Kinship Economy and Coastal Migration Theory

The idea of colonists having a kinship economy with the Indians is very interesting to me because it is very similar to an aspect of Arab/Islamic culture. I have studied the Arabic language and Arab/Islamic culture while at KU. There is a social practice called “baqsheesh” that is very similar to a kinship economy. When meeting a Muslim Shiekh it is a necessity to exchange some type of gift. This is more than just an informal gesture it is a ritual practice that is necessary to start and maintain good relations. It is interesting that such similar practices could take place in two entirely different places in the world. I would speculate that the emergence of global trade made such practices routine and commonplace.

I think that it is interesting that the Land-Bridge theory is still published in textbooks when there is far more evidence to support the Coastal Migration Theory in recent times. Upon further research on the internet about Coastal Migration Theory I found a story about the 9,000 year-old remains of a maritime culture on Heceta Island off the coast of Oregon and the 9,800 year-old remains of a culture that used kelp in the Channel Islands off California. I feel that the greatest evidence to support Coastal Migration Theory is the remains of humans living in Australia. Walking to Australia would be difficult and it is a very long swim.

Land bridge and French failures

In class we discussed that the land bridge theory is no longer a widely accepted theory for how people migrated to North and South America. I disagree that the land bridge theory was not a plausable passage for people to travel from Asia to North America. While the earliest immigrants may have traveled a different passage, a large number of people most likley traveled across the land bridge accounting for a significant percentage of the population. Empirical evidence in the form of human remains and artifacts shows that there was human activity along the eastern corridor. Becasue of this evidence I think that the land bridge theory holds some level of importance when discussing possible routes of migration into the Americas.

We also discussed how Louisiana was not favorable to the French because of the tribes that occupied the land. I would like to add another theory as to why utilizing the Mississippi river as a means of transporting goods in an attempt to turn Louisiana into an agricultural and shipping center was not a managable strategy. First depending how far North a trader is (northern Minnesota or lake superior) the river is not navigable due to a thick layer of ice. In early spring currents are extremely strong and the course is unpredictable due to flooding. Also the river was not dredged at this point limiting the size of the boat that could travel through the channel. (With modern dredging technology the channel is now guaranteed to be 9 ft., but it may have been shallower without manipulation.) Finally the return of the transporting ship to the north would be made difficult due to the afore mentioned strong current. Although they did have the capabilities to sail upstream and into the wind it was still a tedious process. These factors may have greatly hindered French's efforts to utilize the river and the port as a means of conducting business.