“My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature and now I tremble as I write.”. "[There are] endless testimonies [that] prove the pacific and temperament of the natives... but our work was to ravage, kill and destroy." He was so determined to meet the needs of Spain 's royal family that he disregarded basic human nature. "The admiral was so blind as those who came after him and he was so anxious to please them [royal family] that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians". Columbus was quite more devious and had more malicious intent than we are previously taught.
New historicist believe that the writing of history is merely an interpretation, not an absolute fact, other than the big facts we know such as who was president at the time or who won a certain battle. New historicist also believe that history is neither linear nor progressive. The reason for this is because while people can have goals history does not, and also defining what progression is changes from person to person. These theories can are also beliefs of cultural criticism; however, cultural criticism focuses more in political support of oppressed groups. Summary of the Short Story "Rocket Night" by Alexander Weinstein tells the story of Rose Hill 's Rocket Night through an unnamed narrator.
The question is, what type of ruler was he; ruthless or Enlightened? Asoka was a ruthless leader due to the fact he was power-hungry and ignorant. Power-Hungry Leader One reason why Asoka was a ruthless leader was because he was power-hungry. In his conquering of Kalinga, he killed hundred of thousands of Kalingins to get what he wanted; more land (Doc A). Not only did he kill thousands for his claiming of land, but he claims he gave up violence and decides to live a peaceful and happy life when he
Christopher Columbus “It appears to me, that the people are ingenious, and would be good servants”. (Document 2) What started out as a journey to find a new trade route ended in the discovery of the Americas for Christopher Columbus. The moment Columbus arrived in the Americas he formed an opinion on the natives. Columbus viewed the Native Americans as if they were below him, and he treated them like slaves. Readily, he believed they were ingenious, and thought that he could easily control them and force them to do whatever he wished.
He exemplified the ways of both a hero and a villain. However, it is my opinion that he is a villain. I believe this because he could be an extremely violent leader and because he never fully reigned over one of the places he conquered/ruled. He is a villain because he murdered thousands of people and soldiers from different nations. Alexander tortured many of his victims and then he killed them.
Overall, historians and theorists have predicated the Cold War as a learning experience for future decision-making. However, one can draw similarities in current military actions, like Iraq and Afghanistan, where those can argue not much has changed in the demeanor and action of military leadership to civilian leadership. Overall, Betts provides a thoroughly researched and structured framework for the reader to analyze historical evidence from a different perspective but I found his conclusions to be inherently flawed. Bibliography: Betts, Richard K. Soldiers, Statesmen, and Cold War Crises. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1977.
“In that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees…” (Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, pg. 10). Society as a whole expects historians to be impartial, to report the events of the past as they happened, without incorporating their own thoughts into these events. We choose to believe that they are politically neutral, that they have no bias, and that they report history fairly and that everything occurred the way they say. However, as historian Howard Zinn points out in A People’s History, most historians have succumbed to the disturbing trend of glossing over and sugarcoating some of history’s most horrific events, excusing them as necessary for “progress,” and then moving on.
Humans have a need to categorize the world around them. We like things to be labeled and orderly. Dividing humans up into races probably started innocently enough. Basing the races on geographic location and observable, objective traits like skin colour and facial features isn’t inherently bad, but becomes problematic when one group decides they are superior and begins attributing negative characteristics to other races. The Europeans did exactly that when they needed reasons to justify their colonization and enslavement of other people.
They were very brutal fighters they showed no mercy towards their foe’s they did whatever it took to win the war (Doc 1). They were land hungry people that wanted to expand their empire. Their capital was Tenochtitlan this is where they would take most of their prisoners to perform human sacrifice rituals towards idol’s that represented their gods. Most of the Aztec’s army was commoners. All men in aztec society were given some form of military training so that they could join the army in their warlike society so that they could fight for the empire or even in a flower war to provide for the human sacrifice supply(Doc 1).
He expected to display the history from the viewpoint of the normal natives, rather than from the point of view of understudies of history or government authorities. "Zinn 's rule purpose behind making his book is...not to be supportive of the executioners, however to uncover understanding into the side of the distinctive people and social orders who were slighted or eradicated from history lessons. So to speak, Zinn needs to relate the account of the underdog, the men and women who have been concealed amidst the talked and made expressions out of others." As showed by Zinn, diverse books portray Columbus as pretty much a brilliant character who was conquer enough to trek towards peculiar waters, taking a risk with his life to go into the
All in all, you have to negotiate and come to the best most logical solution to keep everyone from killing each other. Everyone has their own opinions and views, but personally I believe that, the reason so many individuals believe that the flag is used as a symbol of hatred/ racism is because that’s what they have been taught and told their entire lives. History isn’t black and white, there are so many things that NO ONE knows the actual full blown truth behind. But instead of assuming and acting like we were there and know exactly what happened, maybe we should research and actually learn our history instead of turning nothing into something and causing more problems. Finally, no I do not believe that the flag is a symbol of hatred or racism, but I do believe that some individuals do believe that, that’s what the whole history of the flag is based on.
In Zinn 's book, Nathaniel Bacon is described as a manipulative man, who persuaded the gullible to agree with his ideas and values. The rebellion itself was because Bacon hated both the elite and the indians, and after he was released from prison for being a rebel, he took his 'army ' and began attacking innocent indians. After Bacon had died, Zinn includes the fact that the anti-rebel forces tricked Bacon 's militia into thinking that if they surrendered, the slaves and servants (who made up most of the rebels) would be given freedom. Instead, they took them back to their masters. The governemt strived to stop the rebellion for two reasons: to make a policy to control indians, and to discourage rebellion in the future.
Like the famous phrase, ‘there are two sides to a story,’ and it was Zinn’s purpose to write about the other side of the US history. He chose to view history from the standpoint of the Native people. As the prompt stated, the education system in the United States has only taught the story of “discovery”, the story of the “hero.” Zinn wanted to educate people how the Native thought and felt after the arrival of the Spanish. However, his intentions are not to accuse the arrival of the Spanish, but to release his facts “into a world of contending interests, where any chosen emphasis supports some kind of interest…” just like the historians, who emphasized the heroism of Columbus and his successors. The arrival of the Conquistadors is a topic
Obviously enough, in the most cases, historians are not the direct reporters of past events, because there is no way to revisit the specific period of time; but, rather, historians use primary and secondary sources in order to report the historical event. As a result, Davis is exposed to stinging attack from Robert Finlay. He reviews Davis 's book in his article on The Refashioning of Martin Guerre by criticizing her method in writing the story as a historical work. For him, Davis’s treatment of Martin’s story is not a historical work, but rather fiction. Primarily, Finlay focuses on his criticism on Davis’s imagination of reconstructing of the Martin Guerre’s story in order to make a dramatized story.