So Rachel was right when she said this was a hard reading. It was extremely "academic" as she put it. I had trouble getting through it because of all the fancy words (had to look a lot of them up) but I'm planning to skim through it again after I post... So this reading, from what I understand seemed very repetitive. It was just showing repeatedly how different the European settlers were compared to the Native Americans. Though it was repetitive, there was one part that stuck out in my head as very interesting: how they thought having children in one certain area would make the mothers give birth easier and their children would be stronger and healthier.
This was an academic analysis of the transition of European thought from equality of all men to severe racism.
The Europeans went through multiple stages of trying to reconcile their views with the massive deaths the Native Americans were suffering compared to their less extreme mortality in the New World.
Their reasoning was logical, and followed the evidence and theories they possessed, yet they reached a detrimental and mostly incorrect state. There are genetic and environmental differences between different populations of humans. The Europeans did not know about genetics, or infectious disease, or many other important factors.
Despite their lack of knowledge, they followed a logical and straight forward thought process. With the information they had, they made reasonable arguments. We have trouble understanding many of their conclusions, they just seem to wrong to us. But the Europeans did not have the knowledge we did.
The message I received from this reading was that careful analysis without sufficient information cannot return a complete answer. It is something we need to remember as we study any topic, from science to history.
Sound analysis and insufficient data cannot return a complete answer. What do you think?
@travis- This is very direct but yes "Sound analysis and insufficient data cannot return a complete answer." That seems like a no brainer to me.
I agree with Emily that Chaplin seemed to be constantly explaining why the European settlers would think that they were superior. Although he constantly gave solid examples it just seemed a bit redundant in the middle. on pg.231 Chaplin said that "the dominance of the white body was noat a given but a labored creation of racial ideology," which explains why he gives a sort of series of ideas. I fount it interesting how the European immigrants had to struggle to keep their identity. Those back in Europe thought that their country was much better and so first the settlers had to prove that America was just as good if not better than Europe. and I guess the best reason they came up for this was that "disease was an innate weakness...explained by internal factors that presented themselves externally..." (pg. 244)
Funny line: "Carolina's winter was sharp enough 'to regulate English Constitutions.'" (pg. 236)
I found the second one to be especially interesting. The points made were repetitive but thought provoking. Thinking about how the Europeans believed that race was based on where someone is born and raised. Travis made the point that this may seems strange that they would think this to us however they lacked the knowledge that we now have. He then theorized that "Sound analysis and insufficient data cannot return a complete answer." This begs the question how much data is needed to produce a correct answer. Today do we accept answers based on lacking knowledge and how much knowledge do we really have?
This reading also brought to light some confusions that I have had throughout the class one was argued about a lot yesterday: Who had greater resources? They say Europe did to get ahead but then that settlers were able to flourish by taking advantage of the American resources.
Also why is it that Natives were catching all the diseases from Europeans when it was the Native land? Did Europe just have more sicknesses?
What struck me most about this reading was the explanation of "Natural Philosophy" and description of its application to race in colonial America. I found that it was very similar to Environmental History in practice. It took what whites thought they knew about race and attempted to trace back an explanation into environmental causes. When people in the 15th century applied Natural Philosophy to race, they didn't have Darwin's theorys to base any of their own off of, so what might seem to be the correct way of approaching an explanation between whites, blacks, and indians turned into a way of justifying white superiority.
"The relatively unexamined topic of Natural Philosophy is important because of its mutation into a racial idiom, the argument for English physical superiority to Native Americans."
"It (Natural Philosophy) declared that that the natives lacked the physical ability to thrive in their homeland."
Natural Philosophy used some really silly explanations for race. The old explanation was based off of single bodies developing race, and not generational changes. The idea was basically that everyone is born with set human similarities but, based on your diet and lifestyle, you become more of your race as you grow older. People thought that you could contract race like some sort of virus if you drink their water and eat their food. (I loled at this part of the reading just imagining it.)
As I read on I found the reasons for whites to claim their physical superiority ridiculous, and their means to keep it that way even more ridiculous. It was almost like pre-social Darwinism.
I thought the first passage was kind of interesting. I hadn't really realized that racism began from the idea that the English were better than the Natives since "their own physical type thrived and persisted in its old form, despite its exposure to American milieu for more than a generation," while the Natives were dropping like flies. I guess I had always assumed that the concept of racism had begun from the slave trade, or something related. I suppose its not a very far-off concept, though. It was essentially boils down to the same concept- people thinking they're better than someone else.
As for the longer passage, I thought it also had several interesting points, but it seemed like it took a bit longer to say them than it needed to. The passage was hard enough to get through without it being so unnecessarily long and repetitive..
Travis- I guess I'd sort of have to agree too. But even though they didn't have any evidence supporting otherwise, they still made assumptions. Very bad ones that apparently started racism...
Peter- Europe did have more diseases, actually. A lot of the deadly diseases back then had mutated from animal diseases. And since the Europeans were much closer together and they worked so close to all of the animals they domesticated, it was much easier for diseases to develop and evolve over in Europe. But the natives all caught them because over in Europe, people had been building up immunities to these diseases from being around them for centuries. Once they were brought over to America, the Natives had had no contact, and thus no immunities to them, so the diseases were able to spread like wildfire.
As for the resources... It's hard to say. Actually, I wouldn't really know how to answer that. America had so many resources, but there weren't enough people to take advantage of them. So, I don't know if this is true or not, but I think it could be said that America had more resources, but England was able to use more of their own since there were more people over there. Maybe.
Of course, people did come over to America to catch fish and get furs and other resources. Which means that America would most likely be the best answer to that question.
Last edited by mlong on Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:17 am; edited 1 time in total
I was amazed at how shaky a base the racial ideals developed by the English had. When developing their views, they barely had science to back them up. Since racism lacks any solid base or scientific justification, I wonder how it still exists, or ever did exist. Their views were also completely hypocritical. When they were new to American soil, they were fearful of everything. They worried about how the new environment would negatively affect their bodies. They wondered about the climate, drinking water, new diet, and even the change of air. Claiming that all of these factors were major obstacles, and many of their men died in the adjustment, they emphasized their survival in this new and unfamiliar place as something could only be done by the finest and fittest. Then, later in the reading, they talked about how the Indians held a fear of England, of its diseases and new environment. The English claimed that this fear and struggle was a clear sign of physical inferiority on the Indians part. Doesn’t calling the Indians inferior in their fear translate to calling themselves inferior when they (the Englishmen) were fearful of the new America land?
I have to agree with many people that this piece of writing was very repetitive. I felt like it could have been a lot shorter and to the point.
While reading this i found myself in shock how the Europeans could really believe that the Natives were inferior to them based on diseases. A part of me thinks that maybe they were just finding ways to be more powerful and in control so they didnt want to help them get better.
It was hard to believe that it took sooooo many years to start realizing that the Natives may not be immune to some of the diseases brought over from Europe. I always question things like this because it seems so crazy that people would randomly start thinking this so many years later.
“…The contrast between English vigor and Native mortality revealed the physical inferiority of the latter in the place of their nativity.”
This situation, with the English considering the natives to be physically inferior, reminds me of an article my roommate recently showed to me about why people who are over-weight are less attractive. The article basically claimed that it is because being overweight is unhealthy and as humans we want to reproduce with people who are healthy in order to have healthy children. I think that if that’s true, it may sort of apply here. When the English saw the natives they immediately dismissed all of their diseases as a result of their “weak bodies.” But maybe this was because the natives looked so different from them, with different colored skin and hair and whatnot, and they thought that this was “unhealthy.” And, the English then assumed that the natives had weak bodies. I may be completely wrong, but it’s just a theory.
This reading reminded me of our discussion during our first class. I remember when we discussed the idea that if a group of people survive a disease while another doesn’t or if a group of people advances further in technology than another, it is natural to think that one group is “better” than the other. In this case, the Natives contracted diseases in which the English did not, giving the English the inclination to believe that they were more fit to live in America than the Natives themselves. Going against this “Natural Philosophy,” saying that “all humans are potentially the same,” the English did not seem as though they were making a terrible assumption that they were “stronger and lustier” than the Natives. I agree with Travis that ignorance doesn’t infiltrate logical thought, but it obviously obscures the truth.
Having said that, I found it completely ridiculous that the English believed that absorbing the culture and environment of the New World would make them have Native offspring. This is like saying that if I move to India, my kids will be Indian. Despite this lack of knowledge about reproduction, you’d think the English would have been smart enough to realize the falsity of this assumption. Although, I say this tentatively, because I’m sure that future generations will laugh at our logical thought process, thinking “what were people in 2010 thinking the world would end two years later?!”
SHOOT! I wrote up my post yesterday, but I accidently clicked the "upload" button for a picture and then ent out the door. Sorry. Here it is
I had a hard time keeping up with this reading. I was confused about what exactly the English thought, and who specifically thought what. I think this is because I approached the reading with an either or mentality, that they either thought the extinction was because of disease, or they thought it was from God, and therefore they were superior.
This reading picked apart the many layers of thought that resulted from the disease, I just wasn’t ready for how complex it would be. My favorite example of this complexity was on page 79, when it discusses medicine. The Europeans marveled at the native expansive knowledge of remedies and understanding of medicine, and how that flipped because the natives where still dying, so the English then took at as a sign of their (the natives) inferiority. The author described it as “a back-handed notation of their bodily inferiority.”
The largest misinterpretation by the Europeans seemed to surround the question “were these diseases already in America, or did we bring them here.” It’s crazy that it wasn’t until the 1700’s that some colonists recognized some the diseases as being from Europe.
It was cool seeing the different offshoots of the misinterpretation that the diseases were native to America. I had previously assumed that everyone thought God was the reason. Some tried to apply science to the situation and look and see if it was the result of a difference between native bodies and European bodies. My question is, do you think that that explanation was intended to be objective? Were they following logic by saying they it was because they had different bodies? Or did they immediately jump to that conclusion to further propel this idea of superiority. What was the intent?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
