Analysis Of Columbus The Indians And Human Progress

Although they dressed well with various types of feather earrings and gold necklaces and earrings, they did not hold any value on gold or any other type of precious things they had. Whereas, the Spanish wanted gold because of money and this lead to them treating the Indians horribly so that they would become their slaves and help find them more gold to send back to their kingdom. The Arawak people were beaten to death, hung and endured other types of torture because the Spanish wanted more gold, but there was only a limited supply of gold on the land they were living on. Thus, this lead in many casualties of the Arawak people, and numerous Indians were later sold into slavery and brought to Spain, where they would endure even more hard labor

Argumentative Essay Outline I. Claim: Celebration of Columbus Day should be abolished due to Columbus’ harsh treatment toward the Native Americans and fallacies in his exploration. II. Sub-Claims: A) Reason: Columbus’ exploration was not meant to discover America but to conquer and exploit existed American civilizations.

This American Columbus and colonization mythistory influences the highest American statesman in Theodore Roosevelt to the lowest American marine to preface the Native American genocide as excusable for the sake of Western society. As Zin notes, an American officer in the Phillipines drew the aforementioned parallel between American Native and Filipino colonization: “There is no use in mincing words.. We exterminated the American Indians and I guess most of us are proud of it..and we must have no scruples about exterminating this other race standing in the way of progress and enlightenment, if it is necessary…” Indeed, as the American officer spoke of “progress and enlightenment” in exterminating the Natives and Filipinos, so Chauncey DePew spoke in reference to Columbus’ colonial triumph as marking American progress in terms of wealth and power. Suffice to say, the American officer’s account of the Native American colonization and genocide is replete with similar glowing and progress-driven terminology as present Chauncey DePew’s account.

In the article,” A Brief History of racism in the US” the author start that they was struggle for the native people from went the US got “discovered”. One thing that Christopher Columbus did way in made the Native people slaves and made them mine for gold and may some go with him back to Spain to serve the king and queen as slaves. On the journey Christopher Columbus in prison 11000 men, women and children. He 500 native people to Spain but only 300 people made it. The slaves who were forced to search

Although Christopher Columbus marked a turning point in history, he was not the hero he’s said to be. For one, he enslaved countless amounts of natives after his arrival in the “New World”. He believed they’d make good servants and put them to work finding gold for him. He also mutilated these enslaved people if they did not find enough gold for him. They were usually punished by the loss of a limb and, on occasion, by death.

At the time Columbus’s name rose to popularity, America was in need or an identity, and so the true nature of Columbus was omitted and his legacy was used as an icon symbolizing courage and unity. Through the surfacing of the true story behind the man, Columbus lost much of his fame. Yet in many ways the upstanding ideals he represented still carry

“1491” Questions 1. Two scholars, Erikson and William Balée believe that almost all aspects of Native American life have been perceived wrong. Although some refuse to believe this, it has been proven to be the truth. Throughout Charles C. Mann’s article from The Atlantic, “1491”, he discusses three main points: how many things that are viewed as facts about the natives are actually not true, the dispute between the high and low counters, and the importance of the role disease played in the history of the Americas. When the term “Native American” is heard, the average person tends to often relate that to a savage hunter who tries to minimize their impact on their surrounding environment.

Great Post! I believe Columbus could have worked alongside the natives rather than trying to enslave them especially when they were so avid in welcoming him. For example, today the U.S. is seen as a nation that takes what it wants (i.e. the scourge of the world), however, if we take the time to understand others and their traditions we might find ourselves alongside those we are working with to be happier people. Therefore, if Columbus could have understood this notion, he might have had more supportive individuals who welcomed his religion and

a. Trade and the advancement of technology both motivated and provided the means to the colonization and exploration across the seas. First, trading throughout Europe demonstrated a very profitable means of income for every nation, but the slow travel routes motivated the exploration of a new path to the desired destination. Trading had also provided the means of colonization because of the motivated exploration of new land. The development and advancement of new technologies had encouraged exploration because of the desire to demonstrate and test the new technologies such as the compass and gunpowder. The use of gunpowder had consequently improved the desire to trade as well.

1. Zinn had stated that many historians have so far heavily relied on biased views that are influenced by ideological choices on what to present and emphasize in portraying history. However Zinn is not to ‘accuse, judge, condemn Columbus’, but to question against the ‘easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress.’ In other words, Zinn is challenging the prevalent, stereotypical story telling of the American history by demoting the exaggerated heroism, and telling it from the victims and the lessor’s perspective. 2.

Merrell’s article proves the point that the lives of the Native Americans drastically changed just as the Europeans had. In order to survive, the Native Americans and Europeans had to work for the greater good. Throughout the article, these ideas are explained in more detail and uncover that the Indians were put into a new world just as the Europeans were, whether they wanted change or

The first chapter of both A​People’s History of the United States (​Zinn, 1980) and​A Patriot’s History of the United States​(Schweikart and Allen, 2004) tells the story of the discovery of the New World. Beginning with the landing of Columbus in the Bahamas, these accounts are told from two separate perspectives. Zinn often refers to the telling of history as a tale between victims and executioners, saying that in the “inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in History” he prefers to stand on the side of the victim, whereas Schweikart and Allen tend to stand behind the executioner. Much of A​Patriot’s History​is spent arguing the accuracy of the number of natives murdered by invading European entities, attempting to minimize the blame reflected on these executioners.

Throughout the seventeenth century, conflict between Europeans and Native Americans was rampant and constant. As more and more Europeans migrated to America, violence became increasingly consistent. This seemingly institutionalized pattern of conflict begs a question: Was conflict between Europeans and Native Americans inevitable? Kevin Kenny and Cynthia J. Van Zandt take opposing sides on the issue. Kevin Kenny asserts that William Penn’s vision for cordial relations with local Native Americans was destined for failure due to European colonists’ demands for privately owned land.

Historians differ on what they think about the net result of the European arrival in the New World. Considering that the Columbian Exchange, which refers to “exchange of plants, animals, people, disease, and culture between Afro-Eurasia and the Americas after Columbus sailed to the Americas in 1492,” led to possibly tens of millions of deaths on the side of the American Indians, but also enabled agricultural and technological trade (Henretta et al. 42), I cannot help but reflect on whether the effects should be addressed as a historical or a moral question. The impact that European contact had on the indigenous populations of North America should be understood as a moral question because first, treating it as a historical question is difficult due to lack of reliable historical evidence; second, the meaning of compelling historical claims is contestable as the academic historian perspective tends to view the American Indian oral history as invalid; and finally, what happened to the native Indians is morally repulsive and must be discussed as such. The consequences of European contact should be answered as a moral question because historically, it is hard to be historically objective in the absence of valid and dependable historical evidence.

During the early to mid 1800s, the colonization of “Indians” and subordination of “women’s rights in the American society,” was very essential to those in authority. They were perceived as a mere means to an end by promises of a better life in exchange for “land and work.” Although locals complied, those in offices took advantage by using antagonistic tactics in achieving wealth, power, and ownership. However, these actions lead to “The First Seminole War, The Monroe Doctrine, Andrew Jackson’s leadership, The Indian Removal Act, The California Gold Rush, The Seneca Falls Convention, and the Birth of the Republican Party.” Although some Americans have been perceived as heroes, their actions have said otherwise about their character.