reknowlton – American History to 1877

April 7, 2014

Misconceptions About Slavery

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

In the web series Ask A Slave, Azie Dungey draws upon her experience as a living history character at Mount Vernon to expose some surprising misconceptions about slavery. As Thomas explained in his post, Dungey’s sarcastic wit distinguishes this series as particularly memorable, and she takes a lighthearted approach to the often taboo—or at least somber—subject of slavery and racism in American history.

One of my favorite videos was that featuring the abolitionist, a man morally opposed to racialized slavery yet clearly uncomfortable interacting with a black person. While many of the issues Dungey exposed were rooted in modern ignorance, the abolitionist showed an important contradiction at the time of slavery. The abolitionist, although good-natured, came from a town with little to no black population. As the conversation continued, he grew more uncomfortable and felt compelled to defend “good” slaveholders like Jefferson, and he seemed shocked to hear that slaves had no desire to relocate to Africa or Jamaica. As Thomas mentioned, the conversation ended with the abolitionist conceding that Lizzie Mae raised some intelligent points…for a woman.

A shocking modern misconception that Dungey brought to light was that Lizzie Mae’s position was an honorable occupation. Obviously since this is a humorous show, she used the most ridiculous examples at her disposal, but clearly a horrifying number of people do not grasp the concept of slavery. One person asked if she found her position in a newspaper advertisement, while another man actually had the gall to ask if her job was an internship with a human resources department. People asked where she went for vacation and what she did for fun, and a few even expected her to be proud of Washington for being president. When someone commented that she must be excited to meet so many famous people, she flatly remarked, “If you’ve seen one rich white man, you’ve seen them all” (season 2, episode 1).

Even some people who had a firmer grasp on the hardships of slavery acted as if slaves had normal choices and opportunities. People asked Lizzie Mae why she didn’t go to school in Massachusetts and where her children went to school. Someone asked why she couldn’t merely escape through the Underground Railroad. Clearly, some people failed to understand exactly how oppressive slavery was, as if Lizzie Mae could easily escape her situation with a little bit of effort and self-education.

I really enjoyed the web series for its humor and shock value, both of which I’m sure were intentional. I sincerely hope the majority of Americans know better than the views portrayed in these videos, since Dungey probably selected the worst questions she could remember. She did, however, effectively expose some embarrassing ignorance, regardless of how far that ignorance extends. Even though I didn’t suffer from illusions that Washington’s slaves held honored and happy positions, these videos still changed the way I think about slavery. I think anyone could benefit from seeing Dungey’s videos, especially given her talent and charisma as an actress.

March 24, 2014

Andrew Jackson

Jackson’s election marked a new era of politics, one in which appealing to the population at large became crucial. Universal white male suffrage had largely prevailed, and populism swept national politics (Wilentz 164). Jackson succeeded in uniting a number of disparate groups with general calls for reform, and many others supported his campaign in the interest of defeating the unsuccessful John Quincy Adams. While the Era of Good Feelings ended a major period in American politics, the rise of Andrew Jackson signaled the beginning of another one.

The election itself in 1828 clearly indicated a huge change, as described by Wilentz. The slanderous campaign proved more personal than political, and Wilentz argued that “politically charged cultural styles” supplanted actual “political issues” (162). The Adamsites laid heavy criticism on Jackson’s wife and mother, an attack which later led Jackson to blame his wife’s death on Henry Clay. Wilentz asserted that the Adamsites aimed to portray Jackson as a “boorish, lawless, frontier lowlife” (162), although I was a little surprised that Wilentz did not give a couple more examples of the political slander taking place, given the level of detail with which he wrote. He scarcely mentioned the equally absurd attacks made on Adams, such as the fact that Adams had made the government pay for his personal billiard table and had been involved in shady affairs in Russia that likened Adams to a pimp (or so I remember from my high school history class).

Wilentz didn’t seem to quite capture the nastiness of the 1828 presidential campaign, although perhaps that was intentional, since he focused more on political issues and movements. I agree with his overall point, however, that politics had suddenly become much more personal. The Peggy Eaton conflict further highlighted this. In her blog post, Ella attributed this personal aspect of politics to a lack of defined political parties. I agree with her that such issues were often petty and distracting from larger political issues, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the lack of today’s defined political parties. In fact, this trend of personal politics has continued into today’s media. One need look no further than accusations of Obama being Muslim or Mitt Romney travelling with his dog on top of the car. Even if such fixations were true, who cares? Evidently, many Americans do.

What surprised me most was that finishing these chapters left me with the impression that Jackson was not so different from his predecessors. I was hesitant to adopt fully Wilentz’s perspective on this matter, but perhaps his writing showed that popular myths of Andrew Jackson as a near lunatic are unfair to his undeniable political skills. Wilentz did mention Jackson’s unusual background, including squandering his inheritance on “drinking, gambling, and women” at the age of fifteen (83). Such aberrations were never a focus for Wilentz, though, and Wilentz almost seemed to describe Jackson’s aggressiveness as a suitable virtue for a fearless leader. The Jackson Wilentz described seemed likely to raise his voice, perhaps, but not to beat down a man with his cane in the middle of a crowd after an assassination attempt. I don’t doubt Jackson’s intelligence and drive, but nonetheless, he always seemed a little unhinged to me.

While Jackson accomplished much during his political career, many questions also arose as to whether he was overstepping his authority. Even before his presidency, he met criticism as a major general for “expell[ing] the Spanish from Pensacola and provok[ing] a diplomatic row” with Spain (129). At times, he seemed to give little regard for what was appropriate to do, and instead he went to extreme measures to accomplish what he believed needed to happen. Although we didn’t read about his war on the bank in these chapters, it exemplified his approach to politics. When Jackson had a secretary of the treasury who would not support his plan, the secretary was fired and replaced. When Jackson couldn’t kill the national bank outright, he proceeded to move as much money as he could to local pet banks, a move which almost certainly contributed to the economic crisis for which Jackson’s successor, Van Buren, was blamed.

Andrew Jackson is a complicated figure, and although Wilentz’s portrayal of him departed from that with which I was most familiar, I appreciated the fresh perspective. Perhaps Jackson’s legacy is unfairly tainted, and his presidential career was born out of much larger political circumstances than anything of his own initiative. Admiring such a man is difficult in a modern context, considering, for example, his role in the violent removal of Indians, but remembering that context has changed drastically is crucial to understanding history.

March 17, 2014

The War of 1812 and Western Expansion

In chapter five of his The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz convincingly debunked myths that the War of 1812 amounted to nothing more than a waste of resources. Declaring it a “bungled, needless, and costly effort,” while not a ludicrous accusation since the war was costly and messy, misses some important points (88). America had the worst of its troubles in the early stages of war, and even if the burning of Washington proved a “symbolic embarrassment,” it was followed by a number of accomplishments. The fledgling country displayed “skillful management of war debt,” returned many captured Americans to their homes, and at last established vital international credibility (88). While America did not win the war, I agree with Wilentz that this conflict was a pivotal moment in American history nonetheless. America had finally proven itself a viable nation amongst the other world powers. I therefore respectfully disagree with Charlotte’s assertion that the war was unproductive and accomplished little to nothing. I do not think Wilentz was attempting to argue this point, for he seemed more focused on providing counterarguments to similar statements from other historians. Instead, Wilentz identified the Indians and Federalists as the “losers” of the war while maintaining that it was an important success for the nation at large (88).

Wilentz also did an excellent job tracing the decline of the Federalist Party. I knew the party’s influence waned as the war they had failed to support drew to a close, followed by the so-called “era of good feelings,” but I was unaware of Federalist activity during the early stages of the war. Indeed, early on in the war, neither the outcome nor the level of support for the Federalist Party was yet clear. Many were, for good reason, skeptical of the war, and it was not clear until later that the Federalist Party would inevitably decline. As Wilentz described, Madison held a “vulnerable” position and incredibly limited military resources (77). Until Madison secured Pennsylvania in the election, DeWitt Clinton had a legitimate chance of winning the presidency and weakening the Democratic-Republican Party’s influence.

The outcome of the war is what ultimately solidified the Democratic Republican Party and doomed the Federalists to “political isolation” (80). I agree with Wilentz’s interpretation here, and I believe it raises the question: what if the war had ended differently? How might the political parties have been affected? Even in the last stages of the war, Madison was eager to proceed with peace negotiations due to a threat of secession from the New England Federalists. I cannot help wondering if the Federalist threat was a very real one, or if the Democratic-Republican Party would have emerged as the sole political party even under different circumstances. Thomas claimed in his blog post that the Democratic-Republicans’ ability to “grasp political power,” unlike the Federalists, defined the subsequent era in American politics. I would need to think about the issue more extensively before arriving to such a conclusion. Especially in an era where political parties were virtually nonexistent, exactly how important was the winner of this struggle? Would a Federalist rise to power have changed everything or almost nothing?

As for Frederick Jackson Turner’s suggestion that the frontier defines much of American history, this exact thesis was the focus of my American history class a few years ago. I may even have read excerpts from this same article, although I cannot be sure. At any rate, it’s an idea to which I have already devoted a great deal of thought, and I think it is a very useful way to approach American history. The best way to study history, in my mind, is to take a number of different approaches. Giving careful consideration to Turner’s argument alongside other viewpoints ultimately provides the best sense of history, one that encompasses a variety of theses.

March 11, 2014

Partisanship in the United States’ Early Years

A theme that stuck out to me most in the Wilentz reading for this week was partisanship, conflict. How often do we hear that the twenty-first century is an era of gridlock and uncompromising partisanship, perhaps even to an unprecedented degree? We hear exasperations that “[p]artisan polarization… is greater than ever,” and we all shake our heads at an inefficient, distance Congress (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/17/partisan-polarization-in-congress-and-among-public-is-greater-than-ever). While I don’t mean to say that current criticisms of the government are baseless, they certainly seem hyperbolized when one considers that the United States has almost always been divided. The issues change, as do the political parties, but as early as the late 18^th century, an intense struggle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists dominated American politics. Today’s problems are not so surprising when juxtaposed with past political fights and incidents such as the midnight appointments of John Adams.

As Dr. Shrout highlighted in class, modern popular views of history suffer from a misconception that the Founding Fathers had a clear vision and plan for the country (“Confederation and Constitution”). It’s important to take a step back and realize that the Founding Fathers did not know what they were doing, and that is okay. They attempted to create something new, and such an undertaking required mistakes and trial-and-error. As Beth mentioned in her post, conflicts and the rise of political parties “tested the system” rather than harmed it. The democratic system, although frail, was designed to be egalitarian rather than monarchical, and conflict is inevitable in a system where many people, not a king alone, have the right to participate.

In light of this early turmoil, I appreciated Wilentz’s defense of Jefferson against more unkind portrayals. Jefferson certainly made mistakes, and the inconsistencies in his presidency are undeniable, such as increasing the power of the national government despite a campaign slogan that promised otherwise. No one could have foreseen, however, the events of Jefferson’s presidency, and labelling him a hypocrite grossly oversimplifies these initial stages of the United States. Despite Jefferson’s faults, he accomplished much during his two terms and did so under an inordinate amount of pressure from his opponents and his fellow Democratic-Republicans (Wilentz 64).

Some of the problems of early America that Wilentz covers were especially interesting because typical history textbooks sometimes gloss over such details. I knew of the fragility of the new nation in terms of the Articles of Confederation, but I had scarcely heard of some of the issues Wilentz addressed. Burr and Wilkinson’s conspiracy to attack Mexico and convince some western states to secede, for instance, shocked me (Wilentz 60). Even my knowledge of America’s international struggles with Britain and France was limited, and I soon discovered that I had also severely underestimated the internal strife that the nation faced in its earlier years.

Acknowledging the well-founded anxiety of the founding fathers, then, one can easily follow Paul Semonin’s logic on an often forgotten piece of American history. Of course America wanted to assert its viability as a nation, even if paleontology seems now an unlikely mechanism for doing so. As Wilentz explained, various conflicts in Europe left the British in charge of the Atlantic and the French in charge of European land. Little room in this picture was left for America, except as “a neutral with no military leverage whatsoever” (Wilentz 62). As we mentioned in class today, the founding fathers had already been anxious about repaying war debts to France, lest France decide to reclaim America as its own territory (“Confederation and Constitution”).

As Yuxi explained in her post, in an odd way, the mastodon became a crucial “emblem of power for… insecure” leaders, a story that has since been overshadowed by other contemporary events. Although the new nation had many obstacles to overcome, its foremost political figures met that challenge with passion and zeal. Yes, their commitment often engendered anxiety and internal strife, but it also created the United States as we know it today.

February 9, 2014

Racism and Social Stability in the Southeastern Colonies

As he describes the development of the Chesapeake and Carolina colonies, Alan Taylor asserts that the rise of racial slavery allowed for improved social stability even as class differences grew exponentially. I had not made this connection explicitly before, but I agree with Taylor’s argument and believe it accurately explains the events that took place in southeastern colonies.

Before African slavery became economically advantageous, planters relied heavily on indentured servants from England, in the case of Chesapeake, and from Barbados and the West Indies, in the case of Carolina. These servants were poor and desperate for work, and they hoped that they might survive their term of indenture and benefit from the generous headright system. As Thomas explained in his post, a society rooted in indentured servitude was often a fragile one, and social rest became common in incidents like Bacon’s Rebellion.

Even before the rise of vast economic inequalities, in the Chesapeake colonies, Taylor describes how the insecurity of those in power led to increased violence and hostility in relations with the lower class. Because so many, regardless of race, had to work for others in harsh conditions, those who achieved some success anxiously regarded independence as a “cherished and vulnerable status” (Taylor 139). My mind associated plantations with the genteel, incredibly wealthy men Taylor later describes, ruling over hundreds of slaves, and I didn’t realize that, initially, the leaders of Chesapeake felt anxious about their “origins, qualifications, and conduct” (139). As Taylor points out, this insecurity engendered brutal responses to criticism and protest. Society stood divided, and the rise of a figure such as Berkeley in this context could only lead to trouble.

Berkeley, as Emma described in her blog post, took the position of governor with the intent of favoring all of his elitist friends. He created a system that bestowed the wealthy with substantial power and wealth, and when the Navigation Acts combined with economic difficulties put a strain on smalltime planters, he refused, for his own personal interests, to support their plan to attack Indians. While I was familiar with the flow of these events beforehand, the context Taylor creates enhanced my understanding of this time period. I agree with the connections that he draws between tension among classes and the resulting instability. Bacon’s Rebellion did arise from the Navigation Acts, but even without the Acts, the uneasiness present in society dictated some level of conflict.

The Chesapeake colonies eventually adopted African slavery in favor of indentured servants for economic, not social or moral, reasons. The economic improvements in England resulted in fewer emigrants to America, more slave traders were present in the colonies, life expectancy of African slaves increased substantially, and Parliament had lifted a monopoly on the slave trade, resulting in more suppliers and lower costs. Although the incorporation of African slaves rose purely out of economic reasons, it dramatically transformed the social landscape of the Chesapeake colonies.

Thomas described how the rise of African slavery and new legislation “encouraged racism and facilitated white cohesion.” In the event of a slave uprising, the support of “armed whites” proved fundamental for the great planters (Taylor 154), and indeed, planters feared a rebellion so greatly that they felt compelled to maintain order with pain and fear. Racism became a tool to justify this brutality, and as it became widespread, the racial solidarity of the colonists created critical social stability. Taylor traces this pattern both in the Chesapeake colonies and in Carolina. I think it’s an insightful observation, and it aptly explains why colonies became more stable despite the large growth of an economic gap in white society.

January 28, 2014

Violent Puritans and the Not-So-English Middle Colonies

Focusing now on how the Puritans interacted with the Indians, Taylor develops significantly the portrayal of New England from last week’s reading. His descriptions of Puritan anxiety to suppress natives and of imbalanced trades capture the darker facets of New England, practically unmentioned in chapter eight.

The special attention given to King Philip’s War certainly addresses Shane’s concern last week, that Taylor writes of “internal problems” in New England with little regard for potential “external threats.” Charlotte, similarly, wrote that the violence present in Jamestown seemed to create a contrast to New England relations with natives; like the Americans of classic Thanksgiving stories, the Puritans of chapter eight appeared “democratic” and “egalitarian.” Although Taylor mentions the persecution of religious dissenters, until chapter nine, the harshness of the Puritans is far from apparent. Instead of families searching for religious freedom and harmony, the Puritans referenced in King Philip’s War feel “compelled to destroy their Indian enemies” to prove “their own worthiness” in God’s eyes (200).

This point also raises questions about religion as a justification to exploit native people, an issue which Taylor does an excellent job of highlighting. Puritans claim that they’re permitted to exploit others because they are in God’s favor, but the fact that they do so successfully is also used as proof that God does in fact favor them. The rationale seems circular and flawed, yet the Puritans saw no faults with it, and their religious convictions only increased violence in their interactions with natives.

I appreciate Taylor’s emphasis on the effects of King Philip’s War within English colonies, as I was mostly familiar with its damages to the many native tribes involved in the war. Taylor’s observation that the New English faced “shocking and demoralizing” losses and mass destruction from the Indian rebels creates a more complex context for colonies in the New World. The New English may have decimated the natives in some respects, but both sides suffered dramatic losses, and English losses often left settlements vulnerable to their European enemies, such as the French. Taylor’s forte as a historian is arguably showing the complexity and diversity of American colonies over time. Though he struggles to incorporate all elements of the story at times, the story he does tell challenges common notions of colonial America and reveals much overlooked in a high school US history course.

This trend of pulling focus from the English continues in Taylor’s description of the middle colonies, when he devotes almost half of the chapter to the Dutch Empire. I found the detailed information on Dutch activity in the New World especially intriguing because in my former experiences with US history, the Dutch are merely mentioned in passing. The brief background usually presented only serves to clarify later English activity, yet Taylor closely examines the Dutch in their own context, thereby enriching the following account of English middle colonies. I didn’t realize how extensive the Dutch Empire was in the New World, and while Taylor’s focus on the non-English has some flaws, in this instance it also created a richer context for the middle colonies, much more diverse than New England and the Chesapeake Bay colonies.

Taylor’s writing best suits one already acquainted with American history, for his approach to history, while a fresher perspective than that of a textbook, does overlook points generally emphasized in the history of colonial America. As someone mentioned earlier in class (my apologies, I don’t recall who), John Smith, a renowned and significant figure in American history, receives little attention, while Taylor’s account of the French fur trade spans a considerable number of pages.

In these chapters on the English middle colonies, Taylor once more struggles to include the important information about the English without giving them the spotlight. He provides invaluable and often overlooked information in many instances, but his writing is best used when supplemented with other material and discussion; it perhaps lacks the focus to serve as a fundamental resource on American history. I enjoyed reading about the Dutch history in the region but was surprised by the resulting lessened importance of English colonies. I’m left wondering: what exactly is best to include in an account of American history?

January 22, 2014

Economics and Religion in English Colonization

In chapters 6 and 8, Taylor examines the early failures and eventual successes of English colonies. The British arrived in the New World some time after the Spanish, Portuguese, and French had laid claims to the land, and while the economy the English developed varied significantly from those of the Spanish empire and of the French trading posts, all Europeans came to America with similar objectives. I agree with many of Taylor’s points on incentives to emigrate, and I believe these incentives warrant close study.

In reference to the reading on Tuesday, Dana attributed French and Spanish violence to desire for wealth and greed. European powers saw rivals in each other and relished the chance to change their fortunes in America. Grey’s blog post reinforces the significance of economic incentives in a claim that, for the French and Spanish, the economy outweighed all other factors in New World colonization. Grey even names religion an “afterthought” to “economic conquests.”

This theory, voiced in my classmates’ writing and often inferred in Taylor’s work, often aptly describes European and native relations. Downplaying the significance of religion, however, fails to capture the essence of colonial interactions. Religion plays a crucial role in understanding the cultural differences that the Europeans encountered, and certainly in English colonization, religion and economics serve as interdependent, equally important incentives.

Taylor frames English colonization in Virginia as a strictly economic venture, devoid of missionaries and of the desire to Christianize natives. He does identify the colonists’ intentions to first “absorb[… natives] as economic subordinates” and then convert them, an excellent point, but I feel Taylor detracts too much from religious incentives even in this description. Religion, as much as economics, determines English attitudes towards colonization.

What else but religion do the English exploit to justify seizing the land? The English insisted they could take the land because of a religious obligation to improve it, undoubtedly derived from a passage in Genesis: “fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over… every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Taylor also pinpoints an English obligation to “subvert the native culture and transform the Indians into lower-sort English men and women” (128). While the English had economic reasons for subverting the natives, also present is a desire for cultural conversion. Making the natives English naturally encompasses a conversion to Christianity. While the English might have lacked the missionaries of the French and Spanish, religion remained a crucial factor in colonization.

The Great Migration to New England, in particular, perfectly captures the interplay of religion an economics, and I mostly agree with Taylor’s portrayal of Puritan colonists. The Puritans associated “material aspiration” inextricably with “the pursuit of salvation” (166). A hardworking and devout community, the Puritans met the challenges of colonization far more readily than the inhabitants of Jamestown. Puritan emigrants sailed to America with their families and with a sense of purpose, and Taylor describes them as successful, equitable, and determined, even if stern, people.

Largely, I agree with the facts presented. Quite unlike other colonists, the Puritans fared remarkably well in the New World and created communities enriched by religious and educational programs. My only critical response is the tendency of history books to portray Puritans somewhat, well, politely. Yes, Taylor mentions the Salem witch trials, the exile of religious dissenters to Rhode Island, and the tense relations with England, particularly with the monarch. Juxtaposed with the incredible violence of the other colonies, however, the Puritans appear an admirable group, the type of colony, if any, one might want to join. Even with their faults, they aimed to create a moral society, not to exploit natives and make a fortune.

I remember feeling similarly about the Puritans in my high school US History class, but that same year, we also read some Puritan literature in English. The Puritans possessed many talents, but likability was not among them. In Particular, I remember Jonathan Edward’s sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Here is a short excerpt:

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”

(For those interested: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html)

I don’t believe Taylor writes about the Puritans incorrectly, per se, but I do think primary sources paint a far more vivid picture of Puritan society than secondary sources. With that sermon in mind, Taylor’s description of the Puritans facing criticism in England takes on a much deeper meaning. One can easily imagine what they might have said of the society allegedly “awash in thieves, drunks, idlers, prostitutes, and blasphemers” (162). No wonder the king threatened to remove them from England; Puritans make poor neighbors.

Regardless of their character, though, the Puritans do exemplify the blending of religious and economic themes in colonial America. Trying to separate the religious from the economic in the colonization of America is as difficult as it is impractical. More beneficial to the study of history is the acceptance of religion and economics as one intermingled and cohesive influence.

January 15, 2014

Diversity in American History and in Native Culture

In Taylor’s Introduction to American Colonies, he presents a critical question: what precisely does the study of American history encompass? Historians no longer describe a successful group of English men conquering the free world and trouncing the iniquitous Indians; instead, our perceptions of colonial America have broadened to include the preexisting culture of the Native Americans, other European colonies—Dutch, French, and Spanish—and African slaves (Taylor x).

Taylor argues that the tendency to isolate the people of the New World “into the racial and cultural categories of European, African, and Indian” obfuscates the level of diversity present at that time and impedes our full understanding of American history (xi). This eclectic collection of fluctuating cultures came to define America. No group went without struggle in a new environment alongside unfamiliar people. The story of America defies any outdated restrictions of being an English story (xii), and the impressive scope of this story makes it all the more enjoyable to study.

Taylor also touches on the topic of race in his Introduction, another facet of this concept “diversity.” He explains that the colonization of America, in fact, engendered widespread “racialized sorting of peoples by skin color” rather than reinforced a longstanding belief (xii–xiii). Although I had failed to consider this perspective before, after some consideration, I believe Taylor makes an excellent point. Most who have taken an American history class at some point are well-versed in the exploitation of Indians and Africans, but certainly some Europeans faced a similar degree of deception and mistreatment, such as indentured servants. According to Taylor, as the British vied for more leverage in a competitive environment, the notion of white superiority became a powerful tool to ensure their success (xiii). The claim that such racial views developed in the colonial setting has changed the way I think about America’s history of both liberty and oppression.

Taylor opens his discussion of American history in Chapter 1 with a comprehensive description of pre-contact Native Americans, a more specific account of diversity in American history than the Introduction’s broad overview. He refutes the image of Native Americans as a static culture (4) concerned with preserving the earth and living in peace (19), a distinction that, I believe, is pivotal to our understanding of European interactions with the natives. While the history of exploitation in these interactions remains indubitable, it stems from several important European advantages and not from Native American naivety.

A significant portion of the chapter focuses on the growth, successes, and failures of horticulture in native civilizations. The successes certainly challenge notions of natives lacking sophistication and technology: the Hohokam and Anasazi built large towns ruled by a customary social hierarchy (12), horticulture’s popularity prompted the development of extensive irrigation canals, the fertility of the Mississippi Valley allowed the construction of great monuments (15), and many enjoyed a more stable and longer life in permanent settlements (11). However, excessive use of the land also elicited disastrous results for many of these large native groups, and horticulture “never spread universally” in pre-contact America (11).

The numerous cultures presented in this chapter raise an issue. How can one define Native American culture? While a number of similarities exist across native peoples, the category of “natives”—which we would prefer to define as easily as the archetypal Indian of “Cowboys and Indians”—comprises hundreds of distinct groups. Taylor speaks of natives who adopt a “more sedentary” lifestyle and grow maize until it overwhelms the land, yet others never depart from nomadic hunting and gathering (11), and others still settle permanently in areas rife with fish or edible plants (12).

As natives discovered viable ways to reside in a single place, the development of horticulture fostered new cultures. Hunting and gathering remained an option, but it became a single choice in an array of possibilities. Because completely grasping the span and diversity of Native American culture presents a considerable challenge, each exposure to this culture opens my eyes to something different. Some small piece of me may hold onto portrayals of natives such as The Indian in the Cupboard and The Lone Ranger, but popular, stereotypical images of Indians give us all the more reason to delve into the true complexity of Native American culture. A deeper understanding of the preexisting conditions in America, before Columbus made his legendary trek, necessarily enhances one’s understanding of American history as a whole. Diversity in America clearly has a much more substantial history than the more recent melting pot era.