We'll talk about this more during our next class, but I'd be interested to get some feedback on your reading from A People's History (Chapter 1 & 2). I'm particularly interested in your reflections in two areas:1) The historical content itself -- what you learned, what was new to you, what you questioned, what you had a strong reaction to.
2) Zinn's approach as a historian, which he details on pages 8-12.
12 comments:
I had a strong reaction to the comments that Columbus reported to the royal court of his initial "heroic" voyages. "The Indians, Columbus reported, 'are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone...'" (5). I do not know how others interpreted this statement, but I imagined a voice in a pompous elitist tone saying them in my head as I read. In addition to this tone, I pictured mannerisms that insinuated the obvious inferior and unsophisticated thinking held by the Indians. Immediately after reading this statement, I thought to myself, Why are these virtues looked down upon? From the perspective of Columbus, the Indian's virtues were "naive," a joke at best. And, most importantly, they were beliefs and virtues that did not coincide with his own... and different is bad. Clearly, this chapter showed the virtues and morals that Columbus held near and dear.
I had the same impression as I was reading that part too. It is always disturbing to me when people do not respect the values of others, but especially when those feeling superior are the ones who are visiting (or in the case of Columbus and the explorers, invading) the land of the people they are judging. I realize everyone has their own values and beliefs - that can't be avoided and shouldn't be. At the same time, I feel it is important for people to keep an open mind, try to understand why people live as they do and hold certain values, and be respectful. If Columbus and the others who came to the Americas did this, instead of assuming their ways and beliefs were the best, maybe thousands of lives could have been spared. Introducing students to the multiple perspectives of historical events like this one and discussing what could have been done differently is a great way to help students learn from the past. It provides the opportunity to make connections to how current events are similar to or different from historical events and encourages them to think critically about the likelihood of similar decisions yielding similar results. Learning to respect those who are different than us, view situations from different perspectives, and analyze current events in light of what we know about the past are all vital skills to teach our students so they can make positive changes in our society and world.
I really learned a different side to Columbus that I had never read about before. Everything that we were taught in grade school had showed Columbus in a positive light. But after my readings, I had a different feeling. The one quote that really jumped out at me was, "The first man to sight land was supposed to get a yearly pension of ten thousand maravedis for life, but Rodrigo never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a light the evening before." (5) It makes Columbus come across as a very selfish human being. Who knows that would have changed in our world if Rodrigo really was considered the founded of the land. It also makes you just think about our United States history in general. What things are different then what we have previously learned? This is something I hope to find answers to as we continue to read on.
I was fairly familiar with the "truths" of Columbus prior to reading Chapter 1 and 2 of Zinn's book. What still shocks me to this day is the continued "praise" of Columbus as an all mighty hero. I realize younger students are sensitive to such heavy content discussions, but I believe we are doing greater harm than good by treating Columbus as a hero that we can all see he is not deserving of. It is one thing to ignore the wrong doings of the past, but it is entirely something else to glamorize a horrific time period in history. As future teachers of all grades, I think it is important to begin questioning our content rather than teaching as we were taught.
I had a strong reaction to the same things that other people have been saying. Christopher Columbus has been revered as this hero for so many children. To learn the truth behind this hero is to almost re-learn history. Like Marla had said students need to become aware of this and unlike us they need to find out at a younger age what really happened when Columbus landed in the Indies. This author questions history and knows that it has mainly been told from a dominant cultures point of view. He points out that it is the leaders are the ones who have control of what people come to believe is the “true” history. Many of the subordinate cultures are left out and subject to a leader’s impression of them. He is taking a different view point on history, one that most textbooks do not cover. Since we are in a European dominated culture we see it from the European point of view, but what about the other groups that inhabit America? This is something that students need to be aware of and exposed to. I am eager to read about how other groups see the history of this nation and to change my perspective of American history.
In terms of the reading, one of the most lasting thoughts for me was the fact that slavery was a direct product of European desperation, pride, fear, and greed. While this concept is not necessarily a new one - I had never really heard the background as tied to the Indians. The settlers placed themselves on an undeserved pedestal within a setting that they were clearly not able to manage and utilize as well as the Indians. Excessive pride seems to be the big downfall. The chapter describes it as, "...historical, not natural" (30) and says that "...there is a possibility for something else, under historical conditions not yet realized" (31). That really struck me, though I'm not completely sure of the needed "conditions." It's definitely an interesting thought. I definitely don't think that our society is over the pride issue. It is possible (or even good) to "get over" our history and start fresh?
I really like that he is straight forward in the fact that he has a bias. Everyone does, but he admits it. I think, based on the first 2 chapters, that this book will be an eye opening experience for me. It goes against the information that was taught to me when I was growing up. It makes me a little angry that it took this long to get another side of the story. I'm glad that I will be able to use this as a resource and hopefully be able to pull it in when I am teaching. I think it's a great place to at least start, but is no where near where I would like to end.
I felt very similar when reading these first two chapters, but I really enjoyed how the author delivered the information. He really is straight forward, which makes the text very interesting and easy to keep reading. So much of the history that is taught in schools is through the lens and view of the victors rather than the victims. Also, so much of ancient history is guessed because there were not many records kept. History is to be interpreted, not taken literally. Children should learn to be analytical readers and question what they read. This book really addresses this issue and gives voice to the often unheard storis of the past. Children should learn or try to look through more than one lens when learning about history.
This is a response to Melissa's comment. I, too, really only knew Columbus in a positive light. Is this because my elementary class was 99% white students? Should we blame the teacher for being so racist, or was it the textbook we were being taught from? I think both of these have attributed to my knowledge of Columbus.
Reading PH, I agree with jerrico about how Columbus must have sounded so pompous. His idea that Indians were naive is incredible (I'm being sarcastic!). I did not know his feelings towards the Indians before reading this book. The Indians were the ones who taught us how to grow corn, and be able to survive in the new land. Still Columbus sees them as naive? This makes me rethink my whole knowledge of Columbus and his "achievements." Somehow, I think I will definitely disagree with how he went about gaining those achievements.
Mary, I definitely agree with you when you say, "So much of the history that is taught in schools is through the lens and view of the victors rather than the victims." It is very true. We only read about those who are victorious and who conquered this land. However, we never really read about those who have helped the victors attain what they accomplished. And we rarely hear from the victims point of view too. For example, did Columbus really accomplish all this on his own...no, but we never really do hear about his men. And that quote that Melissa mentioned caught my eye too. It is upsetting that this Rodrigo fellow never really got any recognition and Columbus selfishly took the credit. It is just amazing to actually read and hear about something that we won't typically find in our elementary textbooks.
This leads me into the idea of who decides what is civilized and what is savagery? We had a really good discussion about this in class. And it was clear that it is usually the victors or those in control who decide. They are usually the ones to decide what is different from their norm whether it is food, language, religion, clothing,etc. And is it okay to make these "different" people change their customs and beliefs just to fit those who think they are different? Today, people may have different opinions towards religion, race, sex, etc. I think the issue is that we really need to start educating young minds with the idea of seeing the world from multiple perspectives rather than just one side. It is very important to see through the lens universally. Overall, we see through our own lenses in life, but it is up to us to view life from all perspectives.
Wow, I agree with everything everyone is saying. Along with many of you I was unaware of the negative side of Columbus. As a child I always did think of him as an amazing hero who found America! There is so much more to the story. Someone mentioned the quote that explained whoever spotted land first would receive a yearly pension but Columbus ruined this for the sailor Rodrigo by explaining that he spotted the land first.
In our S.S. class on Thursday we did an activity called say the last word. In this activity we had to choose a quote and discuss what it meant to us. I chose the quote on page 4 "The information that Columbus wanted most was: Where is the gold?" It goes on to say how the King and Queen of Spain financed his trip becuase I am sure they had high hopes for gold and more wealth as well. This quote made me realize how in the past and even today money is the power which drives people. Columbus didn't go on his expedition to seek out new civilizations he did the trip to find gold and to help himself become rich. What he struck was more than richness it was a whole new world of resources. Although people and corn were not what he was looking for, it was gold something of value back in Spain. I was disgusted by the fact that Columbus and his men whipped out a whole peaceful civilization. The quote about spotting land is just another example of money bringing out the worst in Columbus. Why does money always seem to be the root of all evil?
Post a Comment