The Indians were destroyed by the Europeans. Due to the lack of Indians people and histories gained the little knowledge that missionaries, traders, explorers, and colonists. Many of these people had skewed the information whether they spoke about the Indians as overly kind or totally barbaric. The European explorers came and “took over” the Indians. The Europeans were Christian and many of them had moral character. The Europeans tried to make themselves feel better by telling everyone that the Indians who they attacked and destroyed were not acting in moral conduct, were totally barbaric, or just roamed the land instead of inhabited the land. By making the Indians different from the Europeans they did not feel as bad or were in the wrong for wiping out almost an entire race.
Many histories have studied the documents, location, and lifestyles of the Indians. One historian claims that the Indians just roamed the land and were not real farmers. While another disproved that statement by saying that in one incident between the Indians and Europeans the Europeans were survived the winter only because of the food and crops that the Indians gave them. This proves that the Indians farmed and maintained the land. Another historian stated that in order for a man to get married he must kill and scalp and enemy. This was also disproved because if every man killed an enemy the population would eventually be extirpated. These ideas were the common accepted ideas for a long time. These “barbaric” and false ideas helped the Europeans feel “ok” about taking land from the Indians. Furthermore, if the Indians are ignored people begin creating false statements about their culture and the way they live. Just like these ideas mentioned previously.
The Europeans and the Indians could be compared to the white and black in the American society. The Europeans felt they were supreme over the Indians therefore, they tried to convert or change the Indians into what they felt was right. The whites felt that they were supreme to the blacks. This gave them the right to have more opportunities and to kill the blacks. Throughout history people or cultures have attacked and destroyed people who are different then them, whether it’s because they feel supreme over them or don’t like the difference. If a group of people feel that they are the most advanced or right they are willing to fight against those who are “less supreme.” Examples include the Indians and the Europeans and the whites and the blacks. One common theme is that they treat other people different because feel supreme and right.
These ideas have caused a great friction among people. We look and act different around people who are different from us. Many times we try to help and teach them our advanced way of life even if they don’t want it. We also try to explain why and how they are different spreading stories and ideas that eventually become taught and accepted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Autumn--
I just wanted to applaud this serious attempt to discuss the often difficult questions of diversity and accountability. Individual responses to difference have deep and lasting consequences, and these are often critical motivators in history.
This idea you wrote about fits right in with the idea from class about the "arena of history and morality". It is by removing individuals (or groups) from that arena that people are able to achieve the psychological state of ease that you wrote about.
Conversely, it is an individuals ability to stay rooted in their own history and morality that allows them to resist this abstracting point-of-view. This, in fact, is the history of surviving minorities, where a deep appreciation and identification with personal history empowers people to resist nearly overwhelming force.
Good work, and continue to think about these issues.
You did a really good job at incorporating a summery of the reading into the idea of "the arena of history and mortality".
Good work Autumn =)
Post a Comment