I find it interesting that Michael-Guillaume Jean de Crevecoeur's pen name was, "J. Hector St. John. He chose a more English sounding name than a French one. His definition of who an American is is interesting. Although I don't believe that Americans are defined as European or a descendent, I can agree with his overall view that Americans become part of this melting pot of cultures and that it's inevitable. However, if someone of a different ethnicity is born into another country, that idea isn't limited to just one country or one people. How could that group be so unique?
"Majorities, or those who psychologically feel themselves to be majorities, don't really need to organize, and nowhere else in colonial America were such groups established by English people." I enjoy how the author points out that there are just some things groups of people were so convinced of, even though in the actual truth of it all is not true.
The idea of, "race relations" seems so obvious yet it's only obvious when it's read first. Relations can be good or bad but it doesn't mean they don't exist. It's sad that the Indians helped the English ultimately survive in the New World but nothing good came out of it. When I read, "Indians cease being Indians", it reminded me of the reading we did for homework and than discussed in class last week about. If my culture in any way became an endangered species of any sort, I'm not sure how I'd handle it. I'd probably learn the culture and language as best I can and pass it down t future generations even though they might not feel a direct relationship to it.
Whether or not a black person was a slave, free, or in between, they were still a prisoners to oppression.
"...most Americans had never seen a Catholic, which perhaps made them all the more frightening when they didn't begin to come a couple of generations after"
This statement makes Catholics look like a rare unicorn.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Chapter 4: Other Europeans in Colonal America
As much as I like history, I honestly don't know much about European history and certain ethnicities are from geographically. It's interesting to read about it! The population statistics of the 18th century are a bit incomprehensible for me just because most areas/states were dominated by English people.
Germans
The British effort to assist the German Rhinelanders was a galant effort, but obviously not everyone saw it that way. It makes sense that the London poor of that time protested because even though they were poor, they were still British citizens. I can understand how it would feel for your coutry to basically tell you that you're not worthy of aid and that you're the lowest of the low. The government probably should have thought that through. Also, I like how the author included the part about the origins of the word refugee since it didn't exist until about 70 or so years after this conflict.
I find the ideology of indentured servitude somewhat demeaning as a person, espeically since the owners couldn't or wouldn't gurantee a better life after his/her term of service and/or most of the work was too arduous to live through. I like how the author states the historical process of my view:
Scotch Irish
Is the story of the Seaflower a significant one in American history? I'm unsure since I've just heard it for the first time reading this book. According to our book, out of 106 passengers, 46 starved to death and the other 60 survived by eating their bodies. So many stories in history document cannibalism since it's such taboo. In this case, it was taboo but also a necessity to remain living. Cannibalism is a noteable subject as long as there is historcial or cultural significance. News within the last 6 months about cannibalism (or zombies) in America don't show me much significance; it just kind of makes me fear my safety not only with people on drugs (whether I know they're on drugs or not) and safety with people in general.
Scots
Sometimes when I read this book, I feel a bit dumb since the author uses so many terms I'm not familiar with. This rarely happens with me which makes this so surprising! I've had to reread so much to understand at least conceptually where the author is going with the amount of detail he provides. I don't know if I'm not well versed in European history or if he's just that detailed. I don't know if I'm supposed to know all this detailed information already or if I'm supposed to be in the process of learning it. For example, I wasn't sure what "Teutonic" meant so I continued to read on to see if he gives some sort of explanation. He does give one, but I'm unsure of what highlands or lowlands have to do with the explanation of where "Teutonic" comes from. Whenever I read now, I refer between the book and my dictionary application to make sure I understand what I'm reading.
Irish
It seems that the Irish have been persecuted as a group throughout American history. Is it because of them as an ethnicity or because of the majority's religious affiliations? Regardless, the Irish had support for the patriotic cause of the Revolutionary War. Although the history of the United States can be seemingly prejudiced, it's nice to see different groups of ethnicities from different parts of the world pull together during moments of instability.
Welsh
So would the Welsh be a sub-ethnicity of Britain? Or a British ethnicity? I want to full understand concepts like this so I have a full understanding of what I'm reading. Anyway, the Welsh language in America is another language added to the list of languages/cultures either forgotten or mixed into the Melting Pot that is America. I know they author viewed America as a mosaic, but some elements of cultures are just melted into American culutre instead of a different piece of a mosiac.
Dutch
I honor the proper use of the term, "epic" since in today's culture, the meaning of epic is diminished by using it to describe something that is unique to a person's life instead of defining something that is truly epic.
French
When there are cultures (like the Cajuns) that accept other cultures (like non-Cajuns)without much opposition, I appreciate it. I'm not saying traditions or culture should be depleted in any way; it's just nice people can recognize when cultures are evolving. It's what the United States is built on! Each ethinicity should have different cultures and people of other ethnicities should accepot and cherish it. On the flip side, it makes me somewhat sad when I learn of people trying to define who Americans are like the use of Cajun French in schools during the WWI era.
It took me many attempts to understand who the Huguenots were. Through reading the beginning of their part, I understood they were French but why are they a separate group? The Huguenots were a Calvinistic communion of France/French protestants but it started to make me wonder how religious groups become ethnic groups. I suppose the use of "Huguenots" is like how Pilgrims and Puritans were and how Jews are now. I agree that the Huguenots had traditions and cultures, but there has to be a more accurate term than "ethnicity". Perhaps I take the use of ethnicity too narrow-mindedly.
Spanish
I like how within the first sentence of the Spanish part, the author states the Spanish established the first successful European colony. English settlements are often thought of as the most important settlements in early American history (I had this idea also). We often forget how much Spanish influence there is in early America, although it is becoming more evident today wit the Mexican population in America. I was told in my intercultural class during the summer that the percentage of Mexican people in the U.S. is equal (more or less) to the black population. Even if many of these people are from Mexico rather than Spanish settlements in the U.S. itself, the Spanish influence throughout North and South America has remained strong since the beginning of Spanish colonies.
Swedes
Sweden of the 17th century is a prime example of the phrase, "Strike while the iron is hot". It seems they had the power to establish long term influence in America, but it just didn't happen that way. Again, some European residue has become synonymous with American culture, just like the log cabin.
Jews
Another group defined by their relgious background that is seen as an ethnicity. Again, I agree that Jews have their own traditions and culture in their religion, but where they come from geologically has a significance of who these people are as a group, even if they're orthodox.
Germans
The British effort to assist the German Rhinelanders was a galant effort, but obviously not everyone saw it that way. It makes sense that the London poor of that time protested because even though they were poor, they were still British citizens. I can understand how it would feel for your coutry to basically tell you that you're not worthy of aid and that you're the lowest of the low. The government probably should have thought that through. Also, I like how the author included the part about the origins of the word refugee since it didn't exist until about 70 or so years after this conflict.
I find the ideology of indentured servitude somewhat demeaning as a person, espeically since the owners couldn't or wouldn't gurantee a better life after his/her term of service and/or most of the work was too arduous to live through. I like how the author states the historical process of my view:
For one thing, the system of indentured servitude, with its feudal overtones, was simply no longer consonant with the ideology of American life, although we must note that it lasted, on an ever-diminishing scale, until at least 1830, more than fifty years after the Declaration of Independence. (74)I like how he demonstrates how indentured servitude didn't last but I don't like how many commas are in this sentence. Maybe there is a way to be more concise without giving too much information all at once. I find myself rereading much of the book for this reason. I understand the necessity for detail but sometimes it seems it's not written in a way that is efficient. It's that or I need to work on my reading comprehension.
Scotch Irish
Is the story of the Seaflower a significant one in American history? I'm unsure since I've just heard it for the first time reading this book. According to our book, out of 106 passengers, 46 starved to death and the other 60 survived by eating their bodies. So many stories in history document cannibalism since it's such taboo. In this case, it was taboo but also a necessity to remain living. Cannibalism is a noteable subject as long as there is historcial or cultural significance. News within the last 6 months about cannibalism (or zombies) in America don't show me much significance; it just kind of makes me fear my safety not only with people on drugs (whether I know they're on drugs or not) and safety with people in general.
Scots
Sometimes when I read this book, I feel a bit dumb since the author uses so many terms I'm not familiar with. This rarely happens with me which makes this so surprising! I've had to reread so much to understand at least conceptually where the author is going with the amount of detail he provides. I don't know if I'm not well versed in European history or if he's just that detailed. I don't know if I'm supposed to know all this detailed information already or if I'm supposed to be in the process of learning it. For example, I wasn't sure what "Teutonic" meant so I continued to read on to see if he gives some sort of explanation. He does give one, but I'm unsure of what highlands or lowlands have to do with the explanation of where "Teutonic" comes from. Whenever I read now, I refer between the book and my dictionary application to make sure I understand what I'm reading.
Irish
It seems that the Irish have been persecuted as a group throughout American history. Is it because of them as an ethnicity or because of the majority's religious affiliations? Regardless, the Irish had support for the patriotic cause of the Revolutionary War. Although the history of the United States can be seemingly prejudiced, it's nice to see different groups of ethnicities from different parts of the world pull together during moments of instability.
Welsh
So would the Welsh be a sub-ethnicity of Britain? Or a British ethnicity? I want to full understand concepts like this so I have a full understanding of what I'm reading. Anyway, the Welsh language in America is another language added to the list of languages/cultures either forgotten or mixed into the Melting Pot that is America. I know they author viewed America as a mosaic, but some elements of cultures are just melted into American culutre instead of a different piece of a mosiac.
Dutch
I honor the proper use of the term, "epic" since in today's culture, the meaning of epic is diminished by using it to describe something that is unique to a person's life instead of defining something that is truly epic.
The nation of the Dutch - the Netherlands - was forged in the epic struggle between the Protestant Hollanders and the Catholic Hapsburg Empire in the late sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth... (88)Whenever I hear of American presidents, I never think of their ethnicity and just label them as American. Martin Van Buren and the Roosevelts obviously have an ethnic background (Dutch) but these names are synonymous with "American".
French
When there are cultures (like the Cajuns) that accept other cultures (like non-Cajuns)without much opposition, I appreciate it. I'm not saying traditions or culture should be depleted in any way; it's just nice people can recognize when cultures are evolving. It's what the United States is built on! Each ethinicity should have different cultures and people of other ethnicities should accepot and cherish it. On the flip side, it makes me somewhat sad when I learn of people trying to define who Americans are like the use of Cajun French in schools during the WWI era.
It took me many attempts to understand who the Huguenots were. Through reading the beginning of their part, I understood they were French but why are they a separate group? The Huguenots were a Calvinistic communion of France/French protestants but it started to make me wonder how religious groups become ethnic groups. I suppose the use of "Huguenots" is like how Pilgrims and Puritans were and how Jews are now. I agree that the Huguenots had traditions and cultures, but there has to be a more accurate term than "ethnicity". Perhaps I take the use of ethnicity too narrow-mindedly.
Spanish
I like how within the first sentence of the Spanish part, the author states the Spanish established the first successful European colony. English settlements are often thought of as the most important settlements in early American history (I had this idea also). We often forget how much Spanish influence there is in early America, although it is becoming more evident today wit the Mexican population in America. I was told in my intercultural class during the summer that the percentage of Mexican people in the U.S. is equal (more or less) to the black population. Even if many of these people are from Mexico rather than Spanish settlements in the U.S. itself, the Spanish influence throughout North and South America has remained strong since the beginning of Spanish colonies.
Swedes
Sweden of the 17th century is a prime example of the phrase, "Strike while the iron is hot". It seems they had the power to establish long term influence in America, but it just didn't happen that way. Again, some European residue has become synonymous with American culture, just like the log cabin.
Jews
Another group defined by their relgious background that is seen as an ethnicity. Again, I agree that Jews have their own traditions and culture in their religion, but where they come from geologically has a significance of who these people are as a group, even if they're orthodox.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Chapter 3: Slavery and Immigrants from Africa
Of course the slave trade benefitted the British Empire. The owners of these businesses utilizing slaves made substantial product from free labor. I wonder how significantly compared to the rest of the British colonies' incomes. I also wonder what the US would be like if slaves from Africa weren't brought over. Would Africans have thought to explore the seas? When would have Africans migrate to America? What sort of response would they have gotten from the Natives and the settlers? Would the African population be as plentiful as today's population?
Yesterday I was watching Governor Romney's speech at the Republican National Convention. Perhaps I had a bit of prejudgment before I even watched it, but I tried to be unbiased overall. One of the things that stuck out to me was how he generalized who the American people are. It's true; the United States is a land of immigrants but there are other ways people came to live here. He forgot to mention the people who have taken asylum as refugees from their home countries. He forgot to mention the people whose ancestors came unwillingly as slaves. I believe if you're making a speech to appeal to the citizens of the United States, you should be as politically correct as possible and include all of its people.
It is incredibly unfortunate that the history of the first generation of slaves in the 17th century of America are lost. It is important because they were the first ones taken from the homeland and shaped the way their owners would treat the waves of slaves to come. As with anything, the first time is always the most difficult time. The slaves as well as women of the 17th century were illiterate. Africans were considered savages and animal-like while women were considered unintelligent and only suited for home life. These people were still people with thoughts and emotions that are largely lost with time.
Our book tells us that the African people came from matriarchal societies for the most part. Many of the Native American societies did too. Both these matriarchal societies lost those values and practices through the European patriarchy. The Europeans thought it was ridiculous that women had the ability to control agriculture or anything that has to do with the public realm. In response, the Europeans imposed their culture people these peoples to "civilize" them amongst other things. It makes me sad because perhaps women wouldn't have suffered under adversity as much through the years and they would have seen as equal citizens. Even today, women are still fighting for equal rights.
Yesterday I was watching Governor Romney's speech at the Republican National Convention. Perhaps I had a bit of prejudgment before I even watched it, but I tried to be unbiased overall. One of the things that stuck out to me was how he generalized who the American people are. It's true; the United States is a land of immigrants but there are other ways people came to live here. He forgot to mention the people who have taken asylum as refugees from their home countries. He forgot to mention the people whose ancestors came unwillingly as slaves. I believe if you're making a speech to appeal to the citizens of the United States, you should be as politically correct as possible and include all of its people.
It is incredibly unfortunate that the history of the first generation of slaves in the 17th century of America are lost. It is important because they were the first ones taken from the homeland and shaped the way their owners would treat the waves of slaves to come. As with anything, the first time is always the most difficult time. The slaves as well as women of the 17th century were illiterate. Africans were considered savages and animal-like while women were considered unintelligent and only suited for home life. These people were still people with thoughts and emotions that are largely lost with time.
Our book tells us that the African people came from matriarchal societies for the most part. Many of the Native American societies did too. Both these matriarchal societies lost those values and practices through the European patriarchy. The Europeans thought it was ridiculous that women had the ability to control agriculture or anything that has to do with the public realm. In response, the Europeans imposed their culture people these peoples to "civilize" them amongst other things. It makes me sad because perhaps women wouldn't have suffered under adversity as much through the years and they would have seen as equal citizens. Even today, women are still fighting for equal rights.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Americas: A Hemispheric History
The concept of America really intrigues me since everyone has such a diverse perception of what it is. Most people internationally refer to America as the United States even though the Americas are North and South America. It would be like using the term Asians but only referring to China. I can understand why Canada or the like would be frustrated that they are within the Americas but not considered Americans in the way they would want to.
I like how Martin Waldseemuller's regret became the name of 2 continents! I would imagine that would be like naming your kid, "Harry Baals" and Harry becoming someone important... oh wait that did happen!
Columbus does have to credit of "discovering" the New World but only from the Eurocentric viewpoint. Imagine if they had a respect for the indigenous people and used their name in an English translation, "Turtle Island". Turtle Island derives from the Iroquois's creation story which involved women creating the world and relying on the turtle as a safe haven for her children. I originally learned this in Women's History because it was showing the significance women had in Native American culture.
I enjoy how this reading emphasizes how everyone who originally thought another land existed was basically brushed off due to ridiculousness. Eratosthenes's revolutionary thought and mathematics perhaps wasn't deemed insane but certainly unbelievable. Over a thousand years later, even Columbus himself didn't believe there was a New World! He thought he landed in India and called the natives Indians. The New World is full of ill-named things: America for a man who didn't "discover" America and Indians for a people who weren't Indians at all.
I like Jefferson's phrase of "all America, North and South". His phrase is more accurate than of people's speech today. People now are supposed to be more educated and such, yet Jefferson fully recognized in that instant that "America" wasn't just the United States.
Interestingly enough, I know a few Japanese South Americans. I met them all through Foothill College where there are many international students. I could tell this one guy wasn't from the US. When I heard him speak, I couldn't identify his accent when he was speaking English. I was very surprised since I have a keen ear for Asian accents. Then I learned his name: Gustavo Nakamura. I later asked him why his name was Gustavo and he told me how his family migrated to Brazil to escape poverty in Japan. It's nice that Japanese people can be accepted as Brazilians. Of course they suffered through prejudice in the beginning, but after about 100 years of habitation in South America, they're fully accepted. Here in the US, people still aren't accepting Asians as Americans in many cases. Asian people have been in the US since the early 19th century and yet they still suffered incredible amounts of hatred even from the government. It's only within the last century that Asians were granted the right to become citizens of the United States. Even to this day, many people think I'm a foreigner because of how I look. Yes, this also happens in the Bay Area.
The term, "Pan American" is interesting. I understand the approach it's taking but I am struggling to find when I would ever use that term unless it's in an academic setting. Instead of referring to my ethnic identity as "Asian American", would I accurately refer to myself as "Asian North American" or "Asian United State's citizen"? Perhaps I'm too stuck to "Asian American", but none of those other terms comfortably roll off the tongue. What is the solution?
Okay, honestly, the 2nd chapter of this is somewhat boring to me. Even the author says, "...the truth about the peopling of the hemisphere is disappointingly undramatic." I understand all this is building up to modern American history, but it feels so painstakingly slow! I'll try to summarize what I've read to show that I've read it at least:
Thousands of year ago, the first generation of modern humans in the Americas were hunters. Evidence was found to suggest that these people started farming later on with tools and began the hunter-gatherer culture. It is unclear how they figured out how to farm, with potatoes being one of the first results. Because of agriculture, people stopped being nomadic and became settlers since they controlled their own food instead of hunting until the animals are gone. With agriculture, civilizations are born. The Olmecs were the first Mesoamerican civilization that laid the ground work for other civilizations to come. The 3 staple foods of the Native Americans flourished: maize, beans, and squash. These civilizations are considered more advanced than their Pre-European counter parts.
I like how Martin Waldseemuller's regret became the name of 2 continents! I would imagine that would be like naming your kid, "Harry Baals" and Harry becoming someone important... oh wait that did happen!
Columbus does have to credit of "discovering" the New World but only from the Eurocentric viewpoint. Imagine if they had a respect for the indigenous people and used their name in an English translation, "Turtle Island". Turtle Island derives from the Iroquois's creation story which involved women creating the world and relying on the turtle as a safe haven for her children. I originally learned this in Women's History because it was showing the significance women had in Native American culture.
I enjoy how this reading emphasizes how everyone who originally thought another land existed was basically brushed off due to ridiculousness. Eratosthenes's revolutionary thought and mathematics perhaps wasn't deemed insane but certainly unbelievable. Over a thousand years later, even Columbus himself didn't believe there was a New World! He thought he landed in India and called the natives Indians. The New World is full of ill-named things: America for a man who didn't "discover" America and Indians for a people who weren't Indians at all.
I like Jefferson's phrase of "all America, North and South". His phrase is more accurate than of people's speech today. People now are supposed to be more educated and such, yet Jefferson fully recognized in that instant that "America" wasn't just the United States.
Interestingly enough, I know a few Japanese South Americans. I met them all through Foothill College where there are many international students. I could tell this one guy wasn't from the US. When I heard him speak, I couldn't identify his accent when he was speaking English. I was very surprised since I have a keen ear for Asian accents. Then I learned his name: Gustavo Nakamura. I later asked him why his name was Gustavo and he told me how his family migrated to Brazil to escape poverty in Japan. It's nice that Japanese people can be accepted as Brazilians. Of course they suffered through prejudice in the beginning, but after about 100 years of habitation in South America, they're fully accepted. Here in the US, people still aren't accepting Asians as Americans in many cases. Asian people have been in the US since the early 19th century and yet they still suffered incredible amounts of hatred even from the government. It's only within the last century that Asians were granted the right to become citizens of the United States. Even to this day, many people think I'm a foreigner because of how I look. Yes, this also happens in the Bay Area.
The term, "Pan American" is interesting. I understand the approach it's taking but I am struggling to find when I would ever use that term unless it's in an academic setting. Instead of referring to my ethnic identity as "Asian American", would I accurately refer to myself as "Asian North American" or "Asian United State's citizen"? Perhaps I'm too stuck to "Asian American", but none of those other terms comfortably roll off the tongue. What is the solution?
Okay, honestly, the 2nd chapter of this is somewhat boring to me. Even the author says, "...the truth about the peopling of the hemisphere is disappointingly undramatic." I understand all this is building up to modern American history, but it feels so painstakingly slow! I'll try to summarize what I've read to show that I've read it at least:
Thousands of year ago, the first generation of modern humans in the Americas were hunters. Evidence was found to suggest that these people started farming later on with tools and began the hunter-gatherer culture. It is unclear how they figured out how to farm, with potatoes being one of the first results. Because of agriculture, people stopped being nomadic and became settlers since they controlled their own food instead of hunting until the animals are gone. With agriculture, civilizations are born. The Olmecs were the first Mesoamerican civilization that laid the ground work for other civilizations to come. The 3 staple foods of the Native Americans flourished: maize, beans, and squash. These civilizations are considered more advanced than their Pre-European counter parts.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Prehistory: Pacific Seafarers and Maritime Culture
I would consider myself someone who lives on North America's coast even though I'm a bit inland. I, nor anyone I know, regularly frequents the ocean (at least not directly). Therefore, the topic of seafaring and coastal settlement aren't of great interest. The water is usually too cold for activity!
I remember learning about Homo erectus when I was in the eighth grade. They were the first humans to stand up right and to walk largely bipedal. It makes sense how they could bethe first to migrate across waters with simple rafts.
It's impossible for me to truly understand that humans have been using the ocean as transportation for 800,000 years ago. I find it sad that a lot of this evidence is being lost due to raising sea levels.
I enjoy that people find seafood as nutritional as animals found on land. More people I know eat meat more often than seafood. I don't eat chicken, beef, lamb, or pork so I'm glad that this is more accepted because now almost all restaurants have either one vegetarian option or a seafood one!
Haplogroup D populations:
Honestly, this packet is somewhat boring to me, but the evidence of human migration from different populations genetically and from different locations is pretty interesting. I perceive life before modernity was very difficult to survive through especially if these people were migrating into truly untouched lands that were ruled by nature.
I find that Native American technology is quite ingenious. Perhaps their designs were as sophisticated as they were because it was essential to their lives. Just for argument's sake, the direct use of bodies of water for me are recreational; for them, it was a way of life.
I remember learning about Homo erectus when I was in the eighth grade. They were the first humans to stand up right and to walk largely bipedal. It makes sense how they could bethe first to migrate across waters with simple rafts.
"It now appears that the Northwest Coast route opened a millennium or two earlier than the ice-free corridor and that the diversity and richness of coastal ecosystems after the LGM may have created a 'kelp highway' that facilitated a maritime migration from notheast Asia into the Americas. A coastal route around the Pacific Rim - a linear entirely at sea level, and without major geographic barriers - featured similar types of shellfish, fish, seabirds, sea mammals, and seaweeds, as well as terrestrial plants and animals from adjacent landscapes."I had to reread this multiple times to understand what this additional theory was communicating. I think I've been so tied to the Land Bridge theory that was ingrained in my mind as a child.
It's impossible for me to truly understand that humans have been using the ocean as transportation for 800,000 years ago. I find it sad that a lot of this evidence is being lost due to raising sea levels.
I enjoy that people find seafood as nutritional as animals found on land. More people I know eat meat more often than seafood. I don't eat chicken, beef, lamb, or pork so I'm glad that this is more accepted because now almost all restaurants have either one vegetarian option or a seafood one!
Haplogroup D populations:
- 9,200 year old skeleton found in On-Your-Knees-Cave on Prince Wales Island, Alaska
- Chumash Indians of the Santa Barbara Coast
- another population on the coast of Ecuador
- a population in Southern Chile
- prehistoric sites in Tierra del Fuego
Honestly, this packet is somewhat boring to me, but the evidence of human migration from different populations genetically and from different locations is pretty interesting. I perceive life before modernity was very difficult to survive through especially if these people were migrating into truly untouched lands that were ruled by nature.
I find that Native American technology is quite ingenious. Perhaps their designs were as sophisticated as they were because it was essential to their lives. Just for argument's sake, the direct use of bodies of water for me are recreational; for them, it was a way of life.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Chapter 2 - English Immigrants in America: Virginia, Maryland, and New England
I got really distracted reading this chapter. I ended up in a Facebook argument about social pressures on Asian women in America. I definitely won.
Virginia Dare, the first recorded child born of European settlers. If the Roanoke colony were to endure, I wonder if she would have ever realized what her birth symbolized. I like the mystery surrounding the Roanoke colony. The first time I remember hearing about it was through a TV show called Supernatural. In this episode, the protagonists try to save a city in modern day America from a deadly virus that ultimately turns humans into killing machines. "Roanoke" is craved into a post on the street corner. I suppose the writers wanted to theorize that the people of that colony vanished due to a mysterious disease.
If 2/3 of the original 108 colonists were dead within the first year its establishment, less than 40 people were inhabiting Jamestown. I couldn't imagine living in a town with 108 people, much less 40 since the other 78 are dead. Every beginning is rough, but the outcome thus far has been plentiful.
I didn't realize Britain was sending convicts to America. I always thought people were running away from Europe to escape political/religious prosecution or just for a better financial gain. Was Europe and/or Great Britain becoming too populated for housing their own convicts? According to the reading, there were more deaths than births during that time in London so maybe they had their hands full dealing with that. Plus the government didn't need to house them long term or even feed them. They just needed to send them on a boat 3,000 miles away. As I was reading that passage, I thought to myself, "I thought they sent them to Australia." Apparently, the author thought the same since the next line was about "Australia as the new dumping ground."
When I first heard the term as a child, I couldn't grasp the idea of what an indentured servant was. I think I understood these people were sort of like slaves but not at the same time. After reading a letter from an indentured servant in America to her parents in Europe, it made me realize the harsh reality of it all. Reading the letter, I felt Servant Sprigs was a bit a drama queen but I realized her life must have been so hard that she needed to exaggerate it through the letter so her parents received a clear, concise picture of what her life was like. She needed clothes, food, money; anything you could think of. She was begging her parents.
A travel time potentially between 8 to 26 weeks? No thank you. I have trouble with a 5 hour flight as is. First world problems.
Virginia Dare, the first recorded child born of European settlers. If the Roanoke colony were to endure, I wonder if she would have ever realized what her birth symbolized. I like the mystery surrounding the Roanoke colony. The first time I remember hearing about it was through a TV show called Supernatural. In this episode, the protagonists try to save a city in modern day America from a deadly virus that ultimately turns humans into killing machines. "Roanoke" is craved into a post on the street corner. I suppose the writers wanted to theorize that the people of that colony vanished due to a mysterious disease.
If 2/3 of the original 108 colonists were dead within the first year its establishment, less than 40 people were inhabiting Jamestown. I couldn't imagine living in a town with 108 people, much less 40 since the other 78 are dead. Every beginning is rough, but the outcome thus far has been plentiful.
I didn't realize Britain was sending convicts to America. I always thought people were running away from Europe to escape political/religious prosecution or just for a better financial gain. Was Europe and/or Great Britain becoming too populated for housing their own convicts? According to the reading, there were more deaths than births during that time in London so maybe they had their hands full dealing with that. Plus the government didn't need to house them long term or even feed them. They just needed to send them on a boat 3,000 miles away. As I was reading that passage, I thought to myself, "I thought they sent them to Australia." Apparently, the author thought the same since the next line was about "Australia as the new dumping ground."
When I first heard the term as a child, I couldn't grasp the idea of what an indentured servant was. I think I understood these people were sort of like slaves but not at the same time. After reading a letter from an indentured servant in America to her parents in Europe, it made me realize the harsh reality of it all. Reading the letter, I felt Servant Sprigs was a bit a drama queen but I realized her life must have been so hard that she needed to exaggerate it through the letter so her parents received a clear, concise picture of what her life was like. She needed clothes, food, money; anything you could think of. She was begging her parents.
A travel time potentially between 8 to 26 weeks? No thank you. I have trouble with a 5 hour flight as is. First world problems.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)