Definition of Empire and Dependency Theory

During lecture this week we learned that the Osage were able to develop a very large trade network by obtaining modern weapons and learning how to use them effectively. They dominated the area from the west bank of the Mississippi river to the Pueblo lands in New Mexico. I found this very interesting because that is a very large area (maybe larger than the area that the Spanish controlled) and I had not previous learned about it. We always hear about the French and British empires and their influence in North America, but to me if the Osage dominated that much land, then they too should be considered some sort of empire. This is probably another example of history being dictated by European influences.

This past week we also learned that classical Dependency Theory does not hold up to a thorough examination of history. Dependency theory states that Native Americans became dependent on European goods and this eventually led to the Europeans powers becoming dominant in North America and Native Americans losing their culture. If we remember that the Spanish, French, and English all had different views of religous conversion (that were not that sucessful) and that trade was not a one-way street from Europe to North American, then Dependency Theory does not hold up. I also don't believe in Dependency Theory because Native Americans already had advanced aspects of their culture (crop-rotation) before Europeans began trading with them for beaver furs.

African Slaves and Noble Savages

From the lectures in class we learned about the origins of slavery. We also learned Africans were subjected to slavery in their own countries. Even though there was slavery going on in Africa, it differed greatly from they type of slavery happening in the Americas. We learned that slaves in Africa had more independence than slaves in America and that they only worked to pay off debt or because they were taken captives from other tribes during battle. With this in mind, I believe that Hugh Jones’, author of “They That Are Born There Talk Good English,” was wrong in saying that African slaves had it much easier in America than in Africa.

We also learned from the lectures that the natives were viewed in two different ways. They were either seen as noble savages or ignoble savages. The noble savage was seen as uncorrupted by the influences of civilization. I thought it was interesting that noble savages were favored among the colonists because according to them the ignoble savages were violent killers. The colonists liked the fact that some of the natives were not corrupt; however, the colonists forced their laws and ways of life onto the natives, and as a result of this, made them become corrupt by civilization.

American Culture...what is it?

This week in class someone brought up the fact that France looks down at America because we have "no culture". I would hear from fellow flight attendants, "If you go to Paris, know that, they do not like Americans." I really never understood that comment until this week. France does have a discinct language and history. But they too are having problems with the Muslims in thier country. Did France forget about us..did they forget we helped them win WWII.
American's do not have one specific culture but, we have many. The only one culture to this country is the Native Amerian culture. Today there are many pow-wows around the country. The Souix's still practice the Sun Dance. Native American Church (NAC), which are peyote 'meetings'. Sweats, where usually men, go to pray. Every tribe has their own unique cermonies, religous, name giving, a celebration of birth, 'being featherd'(which an individual eagle feather is giving to a peson who as earned it.) This footage is the different types of dancing styles. Southern Style. Enjoy.

They were Gods...

I wanted to offer another perspective as far as why white settlers were ultimately able to so easily subdue American Indians throughout the New World. We have studied and discussed the effects of disease, which spread because of trading. We know that grusome killings took place on both sides of the colonial-Indian conflict, but is it possible that natives' own spiritual and Godly beliefs casued their demise?
How is it that Europeans came to dominate the world? Indians were scared of the immense power Europeans commanded, from their advanced weaponry to their horses. Indians revered white explorers as Gods. Religion is a very powerful tool, as it has been throughout history and I believe this also played an important part in the colonies. The natives feared the whites' God as much as their guns. As the great (or not-so-great, depending on how you look at him) Columbus wrote of his voyage to America, "For it is true that nany little thing given to them, as well as our coming, they considered great marvels; and they believed that we had come from the heavens."
Beginning with their arrival, white explorers instilled fear in Indians, and that fear, as it guided the life of so many colonists, could explain why the colonists were able to drive American Indians westward and into a history of abuse and containment.

The Science of Racism

This week we discussed the question, which came first, slavery or racism? I believe that this could be seen as the chicken and the egg debate of history, and can be argued forever without coming to a concise conclusion. I do not think that one came about before the other, and that they did not have a mutually exclusion relationship. Instead, they built off each other to and used different types of authority to make a very strong system of slavery based on power structure dictated by race.
This was possible because at the time in Europe the population had one main authority, while another authority was gaining power. The first authority was the church who held all native people to be savages, and therefore in need of salvation and conquering. The second authority was science, which at the time made racism a self fulfilling prophecy. The major scientists were, surprise, all Western Europeans who essentially made up there own theories to prove themselves superior. Originally, even Eastern European was discriminated against but by making a common enemy out of a more physically distinguishable group of people racism became easier. By making African and native peoples the same, Europeans created ‘the other’. ‘The other’ was different, savage, violent, inhuman, and therefore capable and worthy of being enslaved.

"American History"

While discussing the articles in class week and last weeks blogs, I really started to think about some things. One of the things that we mentioned in class was how we could go to other countries like France and have a french person teach us about their heritage or to China and have a Chinese person teach us about Chinese history. But when it comes to America you don't have that one specific culture but a variety of things that you could learn and from many different people's perspectives. I found myself laughing at this idea because it was exactly right. America is comprised of many different cultures and ideas and yet we all seem to adapt to them.

On another note I feel as if the Europeans did not learn as much from the Native Americans as we could have. I feel that if they would have taken the time to listen and actually embrace their ideas instead of trying to control everything then maybe the "New World" could have been something much different. It is true that no matter what they were bound to find America but what could things have been like if they had been as truly "peaceful" as our elementary school education teaches us.

The American "Melting Pot"

First of all, I want to apologize for the video I posted--it's really, really, really awful (REALLY), but hopefully it's loose correlation to what I'm going to discuss helps you to look past the campiness/cheesiness (Schoolhouse Rock...enough said. It was the 70s, who knows what was going on)

As colonies are beginning to form and become more and more self-sufficient, it seems inevitable that there is going to a humongous blending of cultures and traditions (and I'm guessing tension is going to develop). But, along the lines of the theme we discussed in class, it's not going to be that simple. Although the term "melting pot" is sort of a cutesy way of labeling a diverse group of people, I'm really not comfortable with this term--first of all, it's constraining, and second of all, thinking of myself as an ingredient in fondue...not into that, either.

Many of the cultures that make up the primitive America didn't necessarily come here by choice--only the wealthy had this "choice." While some were simply forced onto slave ships and sold in the new land, others were forced out of their countries due to economic woes, and some came to America to escape the prominent religious institutions in their respective countries. Some are fervently religious (Quakers), some are relatively apathetic (English colonists), and some are bound to non-European beliefs and traditions. What brought these people together was the collective need for trade, whether for merely sustaining themselves or for profit. The "kinship economies" and trade networks made all sorts of goods and services widely available. Also, intermarrying creates new subsets of cultures with more than one tradition. Certainly, there are going to be your Bible thumpers and supremacists, but this mixture of cultures is going to become...dramatic pause..."the melting pot." More on why this term is stupid in a moment.

The label "melting pot" is a dangerous way of thinking of American culture. Think of cooking something, adding ingredients and so on. In the end, you usually get one homogenous mixture, a combination of the ingredients with the same texture, color, and density. So this "melting pot" would suggest that we should all view each other as the same, that we are all the same to a great degree. Maybe it's the Romantic in me, but I can't think of anything that violates our mixed heritages and individuality more than this. And this is why it is been so difficult to brand America with a general theme; our country embraces individuality like few others in the world (I'm being an optimist here, so sue me*)(*Don't sue me).

It has been suggested that America lacks its own distinctive culture--this is entirely untrue. Remember, in the grand scheme of things, we are a fairly young nation. The Brits are watching BBC and munching crumpets in buildings that are 600 years older than our own country. It's easy to label something, but labels are obfuscating--they can't really do justice to whatever they are trying to describe. The engrossing, comprehensive, grand revelation and marvelous reclassification of American culture is


I figured if I ended my entry like "the Sopranos" (for those not in the "know" on mind-blowingly awesome dramatic television, the Sopranos ended it's final season with a fairly regular scene cut to black, as if the cable went out or something), you guys would give me the benefit of the doubt like "the Sopranos" creators are getting--people are calling this a brilliant ending, because you have to use your imagination (funny how that works). I guess I'm trying to say is though it is easy to label or classify something like American culture as a "Melting Pot," it's more important to think what the labels we give something imply, and whether these labels should be reconsidered or rethought. Bottom line, thinking is good. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Indentured Servants and African Slaves

Regardless of their country of origin, many early immigrants were indentured servants, people who sold their labor in exchange for passage to the New World and housing on their arrival. While researching indentured servants and slaves I found a few interesting facts. There were many laws regarding indentured servants and slaves in the 1600s; some applying to both genders and some enforced upon only men or women. For example, Women servants who produced children by their masters could be punished by having to do two years of servitude with the churchwardens after the expiration of the term with their masters. This particular law was passed in Virginia in 1662; however similar laws were enforced in many different areas.
I was also curious to know about how many indentured servants and slaves there were; considering Europeans were very dependent on servant and slave labor for survival. I came across some interesting information. It is estimated that Carolina merchants operating out of Charles Town shipped an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 Indian captives between 1670 and 1715 in a profitable slave trade with the Caribbean, Spanish Hispaniola, and northern colonies. And because of the higher transportation costs of bringing slaves from Africa, whites in the northern colonies sometimes preferred Indian slaves, especially Indian women and children, to black slaves. Carolina actually exported as many or even more Indian slaves than it imported enslaved Africans prior to 1720. The usual exchange rate of captive Indians for enslaved Africans was two or three Indians to one African.

Only one person likes Columbus Day

Earl today in class it was discussed if the reading on slavery affirmed or contradicted what we have learned to this point. There is an old saying that goes there are three sides to every story, your side, my side, and the correct side. My personal opinion is that slavery was a terrible practice, but if you look at it logically it may not be as bad as history portrays it. The best way to look at it is this; owners had to pay significant amounts to buy slaves. The last thing any owner wants is to terminate ownership against one's will. Thus, in order to maintain ownership of property that is worthwhile the owner must ensure that slaves are treated well enough to yield a profit. It is not to say that some slaves were treated poorly, but some had to be treated well enough to make sure that they would be able to produce the outcome that was desired. (AGAIN I DON'T DO NOT BELIEVE SLAVERY IS ACCEPTABLE)

This week Columbus Day was discussed in which I feel I was severely out numbered. However, my opinion remains the same. I think what is important to understand that we are not celebrating the demise of the indigenous culture. Instead we are celebrating western exploration. I understand this is a sour topic for many, but why would people who immigrated to a country which turned out to be the most powerful in the world not celebrate the man who enabled their migration. By celebrating "his" discovery we are only celebrating a new opportunity for Europeans that came to America.

This is my land, this is your land...

It says Europeans wanted to "give to those strange lands the form of our own."
Well, they tried and then a whole bunch of people died. A lot of special traditions and customs were washed away in blood and new countries were forged through greed and oppression. That's okay and all if you like that sort of thing. You know, cultural obliteration, epidemic, murder...
But since it's so easy to be brutal to the European explorers that came to America, (And lets face it, they were coming across that ocean no matter what) why not use our imaginations to think of America had Columbus' boys played a little nicer.
Hmm. What would that have been like? The exchange of information between two highly evolved peoples. On one side you had Eurpoeans that brought fine clothes and glittery words like exploration, commerce and religion. On the other side, there were natives who understood wholly the importance of family, community and earth.
It probably would have been a damn nice combo!
So what I'm trying to get at is all that remains of the legacy of most American Indian and native tribes throughout the Americas are what we read in paperback. I can go to Germany and learn of Germans. I can go to China and learn of the Chinese. I cannot travel to 400 years ago and speak with an Iroquois medicine man about my sniffles.
Before it became the Americas, the land from the Canadien coast down the Atlantic seaboard to the Yucatan and in the Carribbean and finally south of the equator populated by natives thrived as it does now. The exchange between these two very different parts of the world was absolutely inevitable. However, very early on the natives that helped explorers understand the new lands and survive, somehow began to disappear. Their cultures, too. That was not inevitable.
Explorers should have been quick to embrace these people and their ideals of familial and earthly respect.
It surely would have made for a better, more meaningful understanding of agriculture.
I know for a fact that expansion into the West would have been quicker, more efficient.
A stronger governement based on the well being of all men, not just a few; That souds nice, too.
It might have even prevented this whole global warming mumbo jumbo... probably not, but I'd guess an Iroquios man would opt for the hybrid instead of the Hummer.
The Americas were going to happen, but it didn't have to be beaten like a step child as it grew up.

Colonialism as a religious mission:

We talked a lot about the major differences in colonizing that existed between the three colonial empires Spain, France, and England. One of the major differences that we discussed was Spain and France went to not only trade but also to convert the natives to Christianity. However, I do not think that conversion was at the heart of their reasons for going. The idea that colonization was a ‘civilizing’ mission to save the native savages is a hoax. I think that these two countries only used this idea as a way to make the idea of colonization more popular. I think that the English was the only country honest about their true intentions in the new world. I think that the treatment of the native people by their colonizers shows their disregard for their well being. In many cases the natives were used solely for labor purposes, and while there were priest and missionaries, they were only there to take the place of military forces. By implementing a seemingly religious mission colonizing countries were able to forge a more peaceful relationship and not waste military resources.