Franklin (1784) writes, “whatever they pretended of meeting to learn good things, the real purpose was to consult how to cheat Indians in the price of beaver” (p. 230). In Paine’s “Common Sense”, his disposition was pretty radical thinking for that time. Paine’s essay was more persuasive, trying to convince what is in the States’ best interest. His outlook is that forming an independent nation would be better than relying on Great Britain. He tries to persuade that America’s conflict with Britain can’t be reconciled and wants to make it apparent that the idea of the British government is not best and does not protect America.
By 1940, there were many factors contributing towards the fact that India had not yet acquired themselves independence. It can be said that the main reason that there was no independence was in fact due to the divisions, whether it be political or religious, within India. This view is supported fully by source 15 and somewhat source 17. The question is asking whether or not the British were the reason that India weren’t getting independence as they wanted to keep hold of the nation at this point, or if the reason India was still being ruled by Britain was because of their own issues within the nation. Source 15 fully agrees with the fact that it was India’s fault that they were not achieving ‘purna swaraj.’ It states that Britain ‘ could not contemplate transfer of their present responsibilities to any system of government whose authority is directly denied by large and powerful elements in India’s national life.
They showed us how to farm, showed how to hunt effectively, introduced medicine, showed the Invaders where gold was, amongst other incredibly influential tasks. Zelinsky goes on to discredit the Indians as if they are non-factors. In the text we read, “…Had the European colonists found an utterly unpopulated continent, contemporary American life would not have differed in any major respect from its actual pattern.” In my opinion I do not understand how Zelinsky can just discredit the existence of the Indians. I find it impossible to think that early North America would be the same without the contact with Indians. I share the shame viewpoint that DeVoto expresses.
She explains in the beginning of the article that Hamlet was her opportunity to prove her friend wrong when he told her "one can easily misinterpret the universal by misunderstanding the particular" (Bohannan.197). Bohannan believes that the Tiv will understand Hamlet because she believes that, Human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over; at least the general plot and motivation of greater tragedies would always be clear—everywhere—although some details of costume might have to be explained and difficulties of translation might produce other slight changes. (Bohannan.197) Bohannan, however, came across with many difficulties in telling Hamlet to the Tiv. She found that the Tiv misunderstood and argued with the details of the story more than the plot and the whole events of the play. The first example of misunderstanding was the word "ghost".
I shall then come to conclusion based on the analysis in my assessment. As it is the subject of the hypothesis for this question, I shall start with analysing the impact of beliefs of land. The primary Belief on land of the Plains Indians was that no body owned it, and that everything belonged to the Great Spirit. The white Americans however believed that land was owned by whoever took it first, or who bought it off the owner. This led to conflicts and therefore partially led to the destruction of the Native American way of life.
Who were the first known settlers of what we now know as the United States? Were the Pilgrims actually trying to make it to Virginia? And lastly, did the Pilgrims and the Indians really get along the way we tell stories in today’s society? Loewen’s main point and argument is simple, the true history of it all reveals some quite embarrassing facts, and if our textbooks wanted to give an accurately moral story, they could have correctly told both the good and bad sides of the stories. Often times, many of us have an inaccurate belief that the Pilgrims, settling the soil in 1620, were the first humans in what is now known as the United States.
Anti-intellectualism is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as: “opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach”. Hofstadter never makes a definitive definition of what he views as anti-intellectualism, however in his book he does reference several issues that stem from Americans not allowing for proper education to all our countrymen and at times have been hostile to those who are considered intellectuals. Rafik Elias interprets Hofstadter’s definition of American anti-intellectualism as “compatible with the technical and vocational objectives of higher education but hostile toward intellectual thought and the academic professionals who represent it” (Elias 2008, p.110). In the early nineteen hundreds women and blacks had a hard time obtaining an education because they were not seen as equals or they were seen as inferior to white men. In many communities school masters, (who were white men in their own right), limited class sizes in public schools and allowed white males to take the first spots in classes (Hofstadter 1963, p. 302).
Yet, that is not happening quite well since the white man has claimed his ground, and pushed the native people to the side. Throughout the letter, Chief Seattle continues to point out the white man’s flaws upon arrival and residing in the Indian’s land. The shift in the point of view has the effect of an eye opening thought to the close minded on how the Indians are perceived. In the second paragraph Chief Seattle states “But perhaps
Before the Europeans colonized the Americas, there were people that lived on the land. The Native Americans that inhabited these lands were not warned of the Europeans’ arrival, nor did they know that there were civilizations past the rocky shores of the Americas. To the colonists, the Americas were undiscovered lands that they intended to call their own. However, the Native Americans proved to be an obstacle in their plan. The Europeans looked down on the Native Americans and referred to them as “savages” because their society did not match their own.
What is Zinn’s basic criticism of historian Samuel Eliot Morison’s book, Christopher Columbus, Mariner? e. Zinn, I believe, would criticize Morison for his Eurocentricity, for ignoring the native perspective, and for ignoring the impact that the European discovery and subsequent exploitation had on the indigenous population. He'd say Morison went overboard in his praise of Columbus. For Zinn, Columbus was a bad guy. 6.