Lies My Teacher Told Me (Ch.3: 1493), James W. Loewen

Sanne Bergh

Eng48A

Journal for Loewen

Dec. 9, 2011

Author Quote

"The worshipful biographical vignettes of Columbus in our textbooks serve to indoctrinate students into a mindless endorsement of colonialism... the Columbus myth allows us to accept the contemporary division of the world into developed and underdeveloped spheres as natural and given, rather than a historical product issuing from a process that began with Columbus's first voyage"

Internet Quote 

On his first voyage, Columbus kidnapped some ten to twenty-five Indians and took them back with him to Spain. Only seven or eight of the Indians arrived alive, but along with the parrots, gold trinkets, and other exotica, they caused quite a stir in Seville. Ferdinand and Isabella provided Columbus with seventeen ships, 1,200 to 1,500 men, cannons, crossbows, guns, cavalry, and attack dogs for a second voyage. 

Brief Summary

Columbus is depicted as a hero by many textbooks based upon the fact that he founded a part of America. However, he is really not the hero that he is made out to be. He kidnapped slaves, caused war, and acted like a monster.

Response/Reaction

In response to Columbus' gruesome and greedy behavior, I reflect on the Disney movie about Columbus I would watch when I was a small. Like many students, I was under the illusion that Columbus was indeed, a hero. Disney's colorful renditions have a specular ability to make even the worst American event seem like a positive affair. In Loewen's text, there was discussions of torture, battle, and cruelty which contradict my entire childhood. However, with all this new knowledge about Columbus, I came to the conclusion that he is not very smart. First of all, he wasn't even going in the right direction and lacked the navigational skills to go to where he was actually going. He thought he was in China or the West Indies, and then in the land he didn't know, he claimed it. If he were in China, would he have claimed it? Second of all, he was a racist. He looked down on the Indians and chopped off their hands, and to justify their enslavement he called them "cruel" and "stupid" which is simply hypocritical. In addition to his insults, his previous letters reflecting on his first voyage stated that the Indians were "of quick intelligence" and "well built". Additionally, I personally think that he went out on the voyage for all the wrong reasons. It was good that the Indians stood up for themselves. They stopped helping the Spanish, sensing that Columbus was probably going to kidnap them and enslave them. It's just arogant, mean and rude to go to another country, plant a flag on the ground and claim authority. Columbus shouldn't have been there in the first place, he was looking for a trade route. One whiff of "fame" or "fortune" and Columbus got his greedy little paws all over it. What's even greater is the fact that America celebrates the man. At least we can get fifty percent off when we purchase our next toaster during the Columbus Day Blowout Sale at Sears.

From Letter.., Christopher Columbus

Sanne Bergh
Eng48A
Journal for Columbus
Dec. 6, 2011

Author Quote
"To the first island which I found I gave the name San Salvador, in remembrance of the Divine Majesty, Who has marvelously bestowed all this; the Indians call it 'Guanahani.' To the second I gave the name Isla de Santa Maria de Concepcion; to the third, Fernandina; to the fourth, Isabella; to the fifth, Isla Juana, and so to each one I gave a new name (32)".

Internet Quote
Columbus called the island (in what is now The Bahamas) San Salvador; the natives called Guanahani. Exactly which island in the Bahamas this corresponds to is an unresolved topic; prime candidates are Samana Cay, Plana Cays, or San Salvador Island (so named in 1925 in the belief that it was Columbus's San Salvador). The indigenous people he encountered, the Lucayan, Taíno or Arawak, were peaceful and friendly.

Brief Summary
Essentially, Columbus landed on an island and "conquered" it, therefore making it Spanish territory. He gave it a name, despite the fact that it already had a name. He brought the indigenous people back with him to Spain, with hopes of Christianizing them and making them servants.

Response/Ideas
Columbus represents the superiority complex that the Spanish possesses. He acts as a vehicle to symbolize their greed and desire for more and more power. It is understandable to go out to new countries to seek out a land that is different and new, but to rename the entire land and dub it as Spanish is a whole other matter. What essentially makes Europeans more powerful than "indigenous" countries or settlements is their bigger weapons. They had fancier armor, guns and boats and therefore held more precedence. It automatically created a sense of superiority and power over those who may not have possessed such items. For example, had the Indians of Guannahani created mutiny and rebelled against the Spanish, perhaps taking the weapons, would the Spanish become the indentured slaves of the indigenous people? Maybe in the eyes of the Europeans, they would have felt that these "savages" would have eaten them or simply sent them away. It's the very peacefulness and kindness that the Indians had that made the Spanish so quick to take them back with them. The Europeans were too quick to believe that the Indians did not have any intelligence. The true barbarianism lies in the fact that the Europeans went to another land, renamed it, kidnapped the people and called them stupid and faithless. It's also ironic, considering their will was to Christianize them and to give them morals, when the Bible itself could sense some hypocrisy in the entire matter.

Lies my Teacher Told Me: The Truth About Thanksgiving (Ch. 3), Loewen

Sanne Bergh
Eng48A
Journal for Loewen
Dec. 2, 2011

Author Quote
"They chose Plymouth because of its beautiful cleared fields, recently planted corn, and its useful harbor and "brook of fresh water." It was a lovely site for town. Indeed, until the plague, it had been a town, for "New Plimoth" was none other than Squanto's village of Patuxet"

Internet Quote
"Jane Kamensky, a professor of history at Brandeis, asks on the website "Common Place" whether it’s worth while “to plumb the bottom of it all – to determine, for example, ... whether Plymouth’s ‘Pilgrims’ were indeed the grave-robbing hypocrites that UAINE [United American Indians of New England] describes. ... Was the ‘first Thanksgiving’ merely a pretext for bloodshed, enslavement, and displacement that would follow in later decades?"

Brief Summary

Basically the author is saying that history books have lied about what really happened when the pilgrims "settled". They used religion to justify the beauty and food that was already there, and eventually would wipe out all of the Indians. The Indians reached out to help, but instead caught a nasty bug and died. There are many myths about the happiness of Thanksgiving and Loewen writes about the hardships both parties had faced. 

Responses/Reactions/Ideas

It's noted that the "beautiful cleared lands" was "none other than Squanto's village of Patuxet" which interestingly enough, was already populated. I believe the pilgrims had, what one may call, a superiority complex. They thought themselves better and had a close enough mind to believe that the men wandering the lands were "wild" and uncivilized. Squanto himself spoke English and interacted with the pilgrims, and that makes him wild. In all fairness, I believe that the pilgrims were completely selfish. I say this because they isolated themselves and did not allow themselves to seek out different ways of thinking. They refused to adapt, making integration complex. It is even noted that Squanto had a difficult time attempting to convince the pilgrims to bathe. An example of the close mindedness that probably wiped out "96%" of the settler's population. 

When "the plague" wiped out the population, the settlers claimed it was the will of God. There is an inherent lack of logic. It's simply impossible to go to a completely different land and believe in the same principles as one's own native land. For example, it's a little like speaking English in France and getting upset that these natives do not adapt to the English language. The pilgrims refused to adapt and integrate and stuck with European customs, despite the fact that they actually fled Europe. I believe that the pilgrims were acting a tad hypocritical. The pilgrims trampled all over the Indians' land, stealing their food, infecting them with foreign disease and simply acting completely rude. 

Of Plymouth Plantation, William Bradford

Sanne Bergh
Eng48A
Journal for Bradford
Dec. 1, 2011

Author Quote
"But here I cannot but stay and make a pause, and stand half amazed at this poor people's present condition, and so I think will the reader, too, when he well considers the same (115)".

Internet Quote
"Bradford writes most of his history out of his nostalgia, long after the decline of Pilgrim fervor and commitment had become apparent. Both the early annals which express his confidence in the Pilgrim mission and the later annals, some of which reveal his dismay and disappointment, were written at about the same time."

Brief Summary
Bradford talks about how it is to live as a pilgrim and the misgivings and difficulties that were faced. In his books, he justifies the hardships with the will of God and fate. Everything happens for a reason.

Your Ideas/Reactions/Responses to the Author's Ideas
In times when people had nothing or very little, or even in places where people do not own very much, religion plays a large role in the well-being and happiness of the people. Puritan faith was founded because they didn't want to worship God in the same way Europeans did. As a result, pilgrims fled to America to practice religion in ways that they saw fit. In complete isolation, beliefs tend to take on a whole new form. For example, there's a village in the South Pacific that worships a war veteran named John Frum Day. As a cargo cult, the group of people worship someone or something that is completely arbitrary. However, it is for the simple sake of worship that they do believe so strongly in something that might seem ridiculous. People need something to believe in. Compared to Puritans, this village is not so different. However, to look upon the "poor people's condition" is a rendition of the inherent cause of the intensity of the Puritan faith. It is what triggered people's ability to accept and understand why the world was so cruel. From an Atheist point of view, one might think that the land was simply harsh and inhospitable to people's needs and that there is no alternative belief besides geographical conditions. When Bradford "stops to stare" there is an inherent acknowledgement for the poor conditions of the land. People are undoubtedly left with nothing else but their faith. Essentially, isolationism makes people do things that might make people do crazy things.

To My Dear and Loving Husband, Anne Bradstreet

Sanne Bergh
Eng48A
Journal for Bradstreet
Nov. 29, 2011

Author Quote
"If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me, ye woman, if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold,
Or all the riches that the East doth hold"

Anne Bradstreet

Internet Quote
Due to her family's position she grew up under privileged circumstances and was a well-educated woman for her time, being tutored in history, several languages and literature.

Brief Summary
Anne Bradstreet was a well-educated woman, who also had eight children and a husband whom she valued greatly. She loves her husband, who also held a high social ranking and could support his wife.

Reaction/Response
Anne Bradstreet is an extraordinary author because she was one of the first female poets in the New World and Europe. I find it ironic that a woman who should be able to support herself, relies so heavily on a man. However, to be married and to have children is the social custom and she would probably be dubbed a witch or a sinner if she were to actually support herself. Although, it is important to point out that her self-reliance is completely possible. In Frederick Douglass' autobiography, it is noted that it is dangerous to teach a slave to read. For women, who have also faced social injustices, I find it amazing that a female Puritan in the New World would be highly educated. Although, women are similar to slaves because they have kept their mouths shut for a long time when it comes to their rights. It seems as though Anne Bradstreet was setting the stage for future feminists who would later use her life as an example. The example being that women can truly "have it all". For example, Bradstreet had an education, a successful writing career as well as eight children, and apparently a loving husband. Alternatively, perhaps the poem could be an example of satire. It seems that she is heavily weighing in on the idea of her husband being grand and amazing. Perhaps she is purposely being ironic. To compare oneself to her husband, and stating that she is not worth a man's value, is part of the Puritan's patriarchal structured beliefs. However, it is obvious with her inherent education and capability that she has equal, if not more, value. I personally believe that Bradstreet was quietly pushing for female rights and that her poetry was a form of satirical emotional expression.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Jonathan Edwards

Sanne Bergh
Eng48A
Journal for Edwards
Nov. 22, 2011

Author Quote
"Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost (426)".

Internet Quote
"Edwards hoped that the imagery and message of his sermon would awaken his audience to the horrific reality that awaited them should they continue without Christ. The underlying point is that God has given humanity a chance to rectify their sins. Edwards says that it is the will of God that keeps wicked men from the depths of Hell. This act of restraint has given humanity a chance to mend their ways and return to Christ"

Brief Summary
Edwards wanted to warn potential sinners of the possible torments of hell. He wanted to actualize God's wrath and scared people out of sinning. He essentially stated that if an individual were to reject God, they would burn in Hell and would not enjoy it, to say in the least.

Reaction/Response
My first reaction, being 100% Atheist and Liberal, is that Edwards is borderline crazy. It's almost as if he was setting the stage for all the religious nuts who isolate themselves in the Bible Belt. However, that is a personal bias. Yet, I believe that his approach to preaching is extremely effective. He is preaching in a manner that people use today; the "fear-factor". He's scaring people by telling them if they do anything God says is wrong, they would suffer. However, I believe when he uses the word "slippery" he's saying that anyone could sin. It could come knocking on the door at any moment and there's no escaping. Although, an individual could "slip" without their consent. For example, a person would slip on a banana peel. What if a sinner were to sin, without their knowing? Would they go to Hell and suffer through all of this torment that Edwards so vividly describes? He is saying that there is no leeway and that God will punish, and it will not be pleasant. It seems a bit harsh to me. Specifically being "inclined with their own weight" suggests that every person is responsible for their own actions and that no person can avoid the wrath of Satan. Although, sin isn't always in the hands of an individual and the concept of sin is ambiguous. Additionally, the fear-factor that Edwards uses seems to be a cop-out in the attempt to convert people to Christianity. The sermon was used to enlighten people and to promote the word of God. The negative definitely out shined the positive. People essentially avoided sin to avoid Hell. What about Heaven and all of it's glory?

Jefferson's Blood, PBS Documentary

Sanne Bergh
Eng48A
Journal for "Jefferson's Blood Documentary"
Nov. 22, 2011

Author Quote
"Almost from the beginning he has been a symbol, a touchstone, of what we as a people are--someone invented, manipulated, turned into something we Americans like or dislike, fear or yearn for, within ourselves."

Internet Quote
"Now, the new scientific evidence has been correlated with the existing documentary record, and a consensus of historians and other experts who have examined the issue agree that the question has largely been answered: Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children, and quite probably all six. The language of "proof" does not translate perfectly from science and the law to the historian's craft, however. And the DNA findings in this case are only one piece of a complicated puzzle that many in previous generations worked hard to make sure we might never solve".

Brief Summary
The Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings affair brought about much controversy because of the customs of the 18th century. Thomas Jefferson was not able to give Sally Hemings affection the same way he were to give a white woman. The emphasis lays truly in the inconsistency and contradiction in Jefferson's character.

Reaction/Response
It is interesting that Sally Hemings' children were considered black under Virgina law. The affair almost represents a shame that embodies the entire humanity of the white man. We bring Africans over, we force them to work, we give them little rights, and father children that we do not claim as our own. They were not humanized to people like Thomas Jefferson; a man who claims all men are created equal, even after he has fathered six mixed-race children. Although, perhaps to Jefferson, the affair with Sally Hemings could have been an experiment. Perhaps he was simply attesting the notion that "all men are created equal" and was testing law with his slave children. The children were almost completely white, and maybe Jefferson wanted to simply see what would happen. Although cruel and unsupported, maybe in Jefferson's mind he thought he was creating a more equal nation by going against the status quo and indulging in his "African Vixon". Thomas Jefferson was supposed to be a progressive man who was ahead of his times. It's terrible that he was forced to live by the customs of the 18th century and was "forced" to segregate his slaves. However, I find it weak and small-minded of him to do so due to the fact that he was actually exposed to a slave-free nation that fostered progressive thinking and behavior (Paris, France). As a Southern aristocrat and a man who should have actually lived by the principles that he preached, he did not practice the art of moral value. The Hemings' family identity brought about a great burden because the children struggled with the idea of "choosing" a race.There was no identity for mixed race in a time when you have "one drop" of African blood, you were automatically African.