In his article “The Columbian Voyages, the Columbian Exchange, and Their Historians”, Alfred W. Crosby seems to think that much of the Columbian voyages and what came out of them was detrimental to many cultures, most of all the Native Americans. Crosby brings up many institutions and ideologies to re-enforce his opinion, such as the slave trade and the conquest of many Native American
There are some of negative illustrations as well in this book that really do not promote the advantages of the Native Americans. The first symbol that I noticed as a disadvantage to the Native Americans was the 1839- 1840 event. The Dakotas killed an entire village of Shoshoni Indians. I feel that this is a negative illustration because it really went against the unity that the Native Americans should have had.
This section highlights that history has created a false narrative depicting the natives as a victimized people, which they were to some extent but only in the fashion that they did not possess the same technology for warfare, immunity of communal diseases transmitted, and they were not anticipating combat. All other factors considered, the natives stood to be a potential threat. In regards to knowledge obtained by Spaniards prior to arrival and knowledge gained from observation, it would be remiss had they not prepared for battle. This argument is not to be misconstrued in approving their actions; I do recognize colonization as an evil for both the reasons employed and its damaging effects, but rather to change the narrative surrounding that of the native people. While they did experience a tragedy, I feel that it is erroneous to write them into history as being incompetent resulting from their
One of the weaknesses of this book was the way in which a strong opinion of the author frequently came to the surface. The impression given when reading was one of bias in that the Spanish were wrong to come in and refine everything. This was reflected in the fact that periodically within the book, when the Spanish conquistadors did something to the Indians, it was pointed out how inhumane it was. Yet, when the Indians retaliated in some way, it was quickly pointed out how justified they were. The mentioned advantages that the Indians gained through the Spaniards were infrequent and underdeveloped.
As all authors are undeniably guilty of, James Axtell has a bias, and not one shamefully swept underneath the rug. The enlightening article Axtell has published remains not only as informational; it stands convicting in a sense. Unfortunately, the reader may find themselves lumped into the assemblage of Americans that regard the Native Americans as “pathetic footnotes to the main course of American History” (Axtell 981). Establishing his thesis, Axtell offers plentiful examples of how Native Americans contributed to Colonial America,
It gives perspective on the side of the American Indians. The source was limited, because it was very biased towards the side of the American Indians, and does not let the reader come to their own conclusion.
In addition, the Indian Removal Act increases the differences between the Indians and the white settlers. Jackson believes that the removal would benefit the Indians by causing them to “cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community” (“Message to the People”). The contradiction is that Jackson expected the removal to help the Indians become civilized and yet, he sought to separate them from the white settlers. If the Indians were allowed to live with the white settlers, they would have the opportunity to learn many things from their white neighbors. Hence, the isolation of the Indians would only push them further away from civilization.
The textbooks may include details such as, how the Indians have the role of disappearance and how the Europeans didn’t rely on the Indians. Whereas, in Colonial America, the Indians “...did not always fight and they did not disappear” (8) and the Europeans relied on the Indians to “...help advance their imperial ambitions…” (10) and much more. Furthermore, the biggest contrast to how the role of Indians in Colonial America were portrayed compared to how they were portrayed in traditional history textbooks is that the textbooks leave out details, such as how the Indians were helpful and important to the
The Native Americans once thrived on the rich land of the Americas, and they built a long-lasting civilization with the help of nature, gods, and organized roles within the tribes. However, the thriving population plummeted after their encounter with diseases and forced labor brought upon them by the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadores. Although at first the conquistadores mistreatment of Native Americans seem shallow and unethical, their conquest of the Americas only partially reflects the claims of the English Black Legends..
It is negligible what happens or does not happen in the real course of time, as long as there are people who have the power to manipulate what is considered to be “real history” in for them suitable way. As Dawes aptly points out, “things are so because they are claimed to be so, and the material world does not effectively push back.” (Dawes 188). He continues by adding that “Catch-22 presents a language system in which the dictates of authority rather than referentiality determine manner of representation” (Dawes 188).
Not all is known and the facts passed down may not reveal the whole truth. History is biased and can easily be manipulated by those with more power, and it is a modern historian’s job to weed through the commonly accepted information, and try to find the truth. If the truth is not found, then they present alternative theories to broaden the world’s knowledge on the possible course of events in the
4. History as a record of events is uncertain and unimportant, but history as a model or type or myth to be made present and lived is of supreme importance.
Paul Cohen writes in his book A History of Three Keys that there are three different kinds of historical consciousness; history as an event, written by professional historians, history as an experience, based on people who were alive and involved with the actual event, and history as a myth, a manipulated past to serve in today’s world. This is the only way history is written according to Cohen, three distinct and very different forms of history. He argues them while explaining the events of the Boxer rebellion in China. Cohen argues that the three forms are very different in their very nature and have no bearing on each other. History as a myth has a direct purpose. Cohen writes, “When good historians
The question of “What is History?” is answered through philosophical questions. This led to many tangents which could confuse readers and retract from the strength of the thesis. Furthermore, the concept of history being based on facts almost seems to be refuted as the author states that facts are not always concrete. An example of this is when the Carr mentions that articles are seen as a form of fact, however, that documents only tell what the author of the document believed had happened. Such a rebuttal causes confusion on whether to trust historic “facts,” as all as they seem to be all