katram – American History to 1877

April 30, 2014

Confederate Commercials

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The mockumentary “The Confederate States of America” was a fictional movie about an alternate history had the Confederates won the Civil War. In the movie, racism prevails and with that, the continuation of slavery. The movie was a satirical piece that was, although amusing, thought provoking. It addressed various events in history and continually portrayed the south as an oppressive force. The South would eradicate Native American culture, enslave Chinese labor workers, force the Jewish to leave the country, and create a “separate and unequal” world with Latin Americans. In an attempt to reunite the country, the South would even change history books by rewriting slaves as loyal servants and forcing Northerners to own slaves, something the Northerners would eventually appreciate.

What particularly struck me were the “commercials” in the film. These advertisements gave a glimpse of what modern life could be like. The ads consisted of job advertisements for unqualified doctors or “breeders” to treat slaves or for a police chase t.v. show called “Runaway.” The commercials included everyday products with names like “Sambo,” “Darky toothpaste,” and new revolutionized slave technology. Although these commercials appear to be greatly exaggerated, with the use of overt derogatory statements, it makes one wonders if certain aspects of these commercials would have been possible today. Like others have posted, I can’t help but wonder if I would find still find these commercials absurd and racists if I was raised in Confederate culture. I wonder if slave culture would have continued or if racism would be more prevalent then it is today. Even in contemporary culture where the Union won the war there are still modern commercials that are taken down because they are deemed to be prejudiced or insensitive. If Confederate beliefs had somehow influenced more legislation or history in the past, how much would it have changed society today? Would there be products, ads, and shows specifically targeting a race? One could claim that those do exist today.

As those below me have mentioned, the film is a mockumentary that is meant to be satirical and highly exagerating but parts of it are based on truths. Racism did clearly exist in the South and, unfortunately, does exist today. This film may have been about an alternative history but it forces one to think of modern culture today.

April 14, 2014

Ask a Slave

While watching the web series “Ask a Slave,” I was pleasantly surprised by Lizzie Mae’s witty comebacks and the humor she used to educate others. The short videos are based on an actress’s experience posing as a slave at Mt. Vernon, the home of George Washington. In the series, Lizzie Mae answers questions people ask her. Often time these questions are offensive and almost, if not all, are based on ignorance. I was particularly struck by a homosexual couple who compared their own marriage to the marriage Lizzie Mae faced as a slave.

While there may have been some similarities, like the illegality of their marriage, there are also vast differences. For instance, slave families lived with the constant fear of being permanently separated because of their master’s desires and had to obey their masters or risk death. They were controlled by another human being who thought of them as nothing more than property. The lack of thought or knowledge behind the questions asked to Lizzie Mae, although not entirely surprising, shocked me all the same.

As others have mentioned in their posts, the humor Lizzie Mae used to answer the questions asked of her was enjoyable but should not hide the message behind her videos. These videos point out the general lack of knowledge others possess about history and present a need to show others what helped create the land they now live in. A knowledge about dates is not necessary, rather people need to know of the lifestyle others had and consider the emotions behind the predicaments they faced. Thinking about how others may have felt can greatly change one’s perspectives on an issue.

March 26, 2014

The Consequence of Colonial Settlement

In Wolfe’s article, he argues that the colonist’s settlement process was an act of genocide towards Native Americans. He first defines genocide as a form of elimination, in which a group of people are forced to assimilate and are looked upon as “non-Indian,” thereby no longer racially stigmatized. In the colonists’ eyes, the “Indians” were no longer an obstacle to expansion once assimilated because they adapted to the colonial culture and treated land as the colonists did. They gave up their large territory and became part of the American culture.

Wolfe argues that genocide is not just the mass murder of a population but also the destruction of a society. A post below, believes that Wolfe’s argument for Native American genocide should be termed “cultural genocide.” However, Wolfe explicitly denies calling this act as cultural genocide because it devalues the experience of the Indigenous people who went through similar experiences, especially in comparison to the “prime” example of genocide, the Holocaust (402). He argues that the term “cultural genocide” implies an almost dismissive attitude towards the experience of the Native Americans specifically because people normally think of the Holocaust, a case of mass murder, as a much more malicious act. Wolfe states that what the Indigenous people went through was just as cruel as what occurred during World War II, only we as culture do not see it so because the natives were not outright killed but eliminated through assimilation. We forget that an entire culture was lost and forgotten, that the natives were forced to adapt or face death.

Others have pointed out that colonial settlement cannot be called genocide due to the intent behind expansion. The colonists had not removed the Native Americans with the intent of destroying a population, but rather, removed an obstacle out of their way and death was an unintentional consequence. While this may be partially true, we forget that for a lot of colonists, death was a consequence they knew but did not care about. Colonists would forcefully remove Native Americans by burning villages without warning or forcing them to march miles without the necessary supplies. I would argue that knowing death was a high possibility due to one’s actions and then ignoring it is just as bad or the same as purposefully murdering someone.

March 24, 2014

The Transformation of American Politics

The Wilentz reading describes the change American politics went through. One major change was how much the people’s perception of the president’s integrity can affects his patronage. Wilentz first demonstrates this through the 1824 election in which Henry Clay appeared to have committed a wrong doing, forever smearing how the people perceived Adams, especially during the 1828 election (256). The emphasis on presidential integrity is further seen during Jacksons’ 1827 campaign period. Here, as Rebecca and Ella describe, the campaign became more focused on slander then politics (306). This development, although not entirely new, was partially due to the Second Great Awakening, in which scholars placed more emphasis and interest on Christianity (266). As Charlotte mentioned, religion was seen as a moral guide to politics. This factor on top of rising new political parties that represented the more common man headed a rapid transformation of politics not entirely understood by Adams and Clay, leading to Jackson’s presidential victory.

Furthermore, in spite of the emphasis on presidential integrity, I believe the greatest political development during this period was the new importance of the people’s interest. Jackson was said to be the common people’s president. In fact he, more than any other 19^th century president, won the presidency through a large marginal popular vote. His popular victory demonstrated the rising involvement of non-elites. In addition to this, all white males gained suffrage. One could further say that the stress on presidential integrity was likely due to the rising interest of the people in politics and their ability to express their interest. This growing public attentiveness is what will change American politics to what it is today and create a uniquely American government.

March 10, 2014

The Voice of the People

In this week’s reading by Wilentz we read about the very beginning of the United States’ government and the emergence of the common people’s voice through the formation of the Democratic-Republican party. Although the party ultimately failed, the concerns voiced by the people would “plant the seed” for a bipartisan congress, as Yuxi mentioned in her post. The creation of the societies, made up of mostly planters and artisans, were designed to voice a dissenting opinion to what they saw as unfair benefits to the elites. However, the self-created opposing party never challenged the voice of Washington, but rather the documents and laws created that did nothing to help the commoners.

Beth mentioned that the conflict stemmed from an aversion towards a monarchy or a fear of a dictatorial president. Although, this was part of the reason, I do not believe it to be the only one. As Wilentz stated, the Democratic-Republican party, when voicing a disputing opinion, even in Congress, were sure to do it a way that did not directly oppose Washington (52). While openly challenging the highly-supported George Washington would be difficult, I believe it would have been done if the party truly believed Washington was becoming too powerful of a leader. Rather, the parties were willing to improve the government in a way they believed to be best.

The Democratic-Republican party especially feared that the voice of the common people would never be heard in the shadow of the elites that currently governed. While some may have been afraid of a government similar to that of a monarchy I believe the real push behind the formation of parties was a desire to hold the elites accountable to the Constitution and to create a government they themselves wanted. Even though some parts of the centralized government may have been modeled after Britain, it was simply that, a model and not a true representative of a monarchy.

January 27, 2014

Varied Colonial Slavery

In Human Bondage, Davis attempts to inform us about the vast extent of slavery during the colonial period of North America. He reveals to us, through historical records of the slave market and through written works of colonists and ship captains, slavery existed long before the colonization of what is now the United States. Although, it was losing popularity as form of labor, slavery existed within Europe and the United Kingdom before colonization. In fact, slavery was most extensive within the Caribbean, West Indies, and Brazil long before North American colonies became dependent on slaves.

Slavery played a vital role in the success of the colonies and is a large part of our history. As such, we have each learned different aspects of the history and each have our own impressions of this point in history. I myself, thought slavery had originated mainly due to a desire and greed for free labor by the colonists and that Africans were chosen simply because they were different. However, Davis shows that slavery was much more complicated than that. There was not a colony that was created (except South Carolina) with the intention of using slaves as a source of labor. The companies had hoped to utilize indentured servants or criminals and the poor to keep the streets of England clear. Furthermore, there were colonists who protested the use of slaves. As Dana stated, slaves were not originally treated differently solely due to skin color. Although still treated as beneath others, the reasons were more class based and it was not until slavery became a common system that racism proliferated.

As we have discussed in class, each colony at the time was different due to varied European origins, as such, each colony treated slaves differently. Although classmate argue that it is meaningless to state which colony treated slaves better, I would contend that this is a very vital part of our history. Davis would like us to see that slavery was a varied form of labor and not just a malevolent, universal plantation system we are usually exposed to. I am by no means, diminishing the inherent immorality of slavery but rather ask us to see that humans are complicated and thus, so is history. As such, we should potentially consider all cultural aspects behind slavery including how “better-treated” slaves affected other “worse off” slaves, colonists, and slavery itself and not just study history with a set belief or idea about that period in time. In this way, we can learn more about history and how it affects us culturally today.