Sunday, August 26, 2007
about me
As you know I am Ricky Woodie. I am a sophmore here at Bgsu and transfered from wright state last year. I am from dayton Ohio wich is 2 hrs south. I am a social guy so so fill free to talk to me and get to know me
chapter 2 post
Ricky Woodie
Ethics
Chapter 2
26 August 2007
Chapter 2
When reading this chapter I feel that the author Ronald Takaki thesis is that the English are hypocrites for calling the Indians savages, when they them selves acted far more like savages then the Native Americans. The chapter starts out comparing the Indians with the Irish , stating that both groups were savages. The English said they were savages because they were not civilized. They felt that the Native Americans represented the Devil in Gods eyes. Upon arrival it seemed clear that this was not true. Takaki talks about how The Indians were very civilized and structured. They farmed well by growing plenty of crops and established seasons, so they knew when to grow and what to grow. They also kept there soil very fertile. When the English came over they took back slaves to the queen and gruesomely tortured them by ripping them apart. They made excuses for why they needed the Indians land claiming they were not using the soil and that God wanted them to take the land. When the white men began to starve they showed signs of being savages by eating dogs, cats, and even corpses, to survive. One example of how savage they were was in the begging of the chapter where Takaki says that one man murdered his pregnant wife, ripped out the child then cut her up into a bunch of pieces and ate her. The white began attacking the Indians and stealing there food. They killed and poisoned the Indians. When the Europeans brought over diseases and killed off half the Indian population, they claimed that it was Gods work. The white man slowly took over the new land and forced the Indians out, stating that they would be executed if they did not give up their land. When Thomas Jefferson became president he told the Indians that it was there fault they were ding off and would have to become farmers instead of hunters to survive. He was saying this so he could take their land once they were civilized.
This is a good argument, but it just seems too bias. The author may want to include some savage activity from the Indians, then compare them too that of the white man and show how they were no where near as savage as the white man. The author also needs to cite where he got records of these incidents so the reader knows that they are actually facts and not fiction.
When reading this chapter I agree with the authors argument and feel that the Europeans were the savages not the Indians. How they murdered the Indians and killed their own and ate them when they had no food. They raped the Indian women and tricked the Indians. They would offer the Indians poisoned wine to kill them. They chopped them up in little pieces. I knew in the past they killed off the Indians, but I never knew the details before of how they did it.
Ethics
Chapter 2
26 August 2007
Chapter 2
When reading this chapter I feel that the author Ronald Takaki thesis is that the English are hypocrites for calling the Indians savages, when they them selves acted far more like savages then the Native Americans. The chapter starts out comparing the Indians with the Irish , stating that both groups were savages. The English said they were savages because they were not civilized. They felt that the Native Americans represented the Devil in Gods eyes. Upon arrival it seemed clear that this was not true. Takaki talks about how The Indians were very civilized and structured. They farmed well by growing plenty of crops and established seasons, so they knew when to grow and what to grow. They also kept there soil very fertile. When the English came over they took back slaves to the queen and gruesomely tortured them by ripping them apart. They made excuses for why they needed the Indians land claiming they were not using the soil and that God wanted them to take the land. When the white men began to starve they showed signs of being savages by eating dogs, cats, and even corpses, to survive. One example of how savage they were was in the begging of the chapter where Takaki says that one man murdered his pregnant wife, ripped out the child then cut her up into a bunch of pieces and ate her. The white began attacking the Indians and stealing there food. They killed and poisoned the Indians. When the Europeans brought over diseases and killed off half the Indian population, they claimed that it was Gods work. The white man slowly took over the new land and forced the Indians out, stating that they would be executed if they did not give up their land. When Thomas Jefferson became president he told the Indians that it was there fault they were ding off and would have to become farmers instead of hunters to survive. He was saying this so he could take their land once they were civilized.
This is a good argument, but it just seems too bias. The author may want to include some savage activity from the Indians, then compare them too that of the white man and show how they were no where near as savage as the white man. The author also needs to cite where he got records of these incidents so the reader knows that they are actually facts and not fiction.
When reading this chapter I agree with the authors argument and feel that the Europeans were the savages not the Indians. How they murdered the Indians and killed their own and ate them when they had no food. They raped the Indian women and tricked the Indians. They would offer the Indians poisoned wine to kill them. They chopped them up in little pieces. I knew in the past they killed off the Indians, but I never knew the details before of how they did it.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
zinn
In my opinion, I felt that the authors thesis was, that
we should not just except history for the way the government
teaches us to, but for how it really was (tell history as those
executed would tell it, not the executioner). The author goes
back into time to tell how the history of Columbus really was.
He tells us how Columbus first reached the Caribbean islands
where he sought off for slaves and gold. How he would cut off
the slaves hands who tried to escape. Zinn then goes on to talk
about the arrival into America how the native Americans were
forced from their land. He asks the question if this was blood
shed was necessary for human progress. Could the Europeans have
survived with out killing of a race of people. And were other
events in our history necessary for human progress such as
slavery in the United States or the bombings in Japan in World
War II.
He then ends his argument letting us know that America had a
large population before Columbus came. He said that they were
very settled and customized before Europeans came and forced
them out.
Were actions in the past necessary to for progress? This seems
to be the argument the author is stating and to answer that
question, you would have to look at the future. The author
should state other alternatives to what we should have done
(Americans) to better ourselves in a non harmful way. And he
needs to state these alternatives to argue how we would have
bettered ourselves without harm to others.
In my opinion, I think it all comes down to survival of the
fittest. I do not agree with everything that us Americans have
done in the past. I don’t think we needed slavery at all or
segregation and think that was wicked on our part. I do not
agree with what we did to the native Americans but wonder how
over populated Europe would have been today if we did not. All
in all we must do what we have to in order to survive.
we should not just except history for the way the government
teaches us to, but for how it really was (tell history as those
executed would tell it, not the executioner). The author goes
back into time to tell how the history of Columbus really was.
He tells us how Columbus first reached the Caribbean islands
where he sought off for slaves and gold. How he would cut off
the slaves hands who tried to escape. Zinn then goes on to talk
about the arrival into America how the native Americans were
forced from their land. He asks the question if this was blood
shed was necessary for human progress. Could the Europeans have
survived with out killing of a race of people. And were other
events in our history necessary for human progress such as
slavery in the United States or the bombings in Japan in World
War II.
He then ends his argument letting us know that America had a
large population before Columbus came. He said that they were
very settled and customized before Europeans came and forced
them out.
Were actions in the past necessary to for progress? This seems
to be the argument the author is stating and to answer that
question, you would have to look at the future. The author
should state other alternatives to what we should have done
(Americans) to better ourselves in a non harmful way. And he
needs to state these alternatives to argue how we would have
bettered ourselves without harm to others.
In my opinion, I think it all comes down to survival of the
fittest. I do not agree with everything that us Americans have
done in the past. I don’t think we needed slavery at all or
segregation and think that was wicked on our part. I do not
agree with what we did to the native Americans but wonder how
over populated Europe would have been today if we did not. All
in all we must do what we have to in order to survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)