First essay for History 201 Fall 2013 edited:
For the first essay, I’ve tried to come up with a variety of options. The paper should be 3-4 pages and it will be due three weeks from today on September 10. One thing to remember on all essays is to provide evidence and CITE your sources. Here are the essay options:
1) What did you take away from the First Nations and First Contact lectures and Howard Zinn's first two Chapters on Native Americans, Columbus, and Drawing the Color Line and discuss the impact of colonization on non-European inhabitants or migrants/immigrants on the Americas. What were the negative effects on native civilizations? What were the positive effects of contact between Europe and the Americas (in terms of the Colombian Exchange)? How did race, gender or class evolve in America in economic and social terms? You don't have to talk about all of these things and you can ask me if you can write about a different aspect entirely, for instance the Mayan Calendar and the technology of time and symbols which mark ritual and sacred time, etc.
2) Discuss the differences between how race and class are approached in the two essays: Wreck of the Seaventure and "Chapter 2: The Tempest" in A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki. Was race or class most important in shaping Colonial America and how do they interact today? Has the very idea of 'Class' become almost synonymous with race (or ethnicity)? The chapter in A Different Mirror begins on page 19.
3) Given the major changes in explanations of how and when human beings came to the two American Continents, do you believe this history or pre-history will hold up in its current form and what theories of first migrations do you believe? Provide evidence and cite what you find in books or on the internet. You can use the First Nations lecture as a source, but find additional sources to back your favored theory on this topic. Make sure and provide evidence and citations.
4) Discuss the Valladolid Debate between Juan Gines de Sepulveda and Bartholome de las Casas in terms of three aspects: 1) Did that debate surprise you that it took place so early in Spanish colonization of the Americas or that it took place at all? (ie. is it surprising there was a substantial debate about the morality and justifications of killing and enslaving Indians and taking their resources?) 2) Who made the better argument in the debate and which points? 3) Do you think the conquistadors or colonial governors learned anything from it? Why isn't there a similar debate in every other colonial power (English, French, Dutch, etc.? For instance, why do you think the English never mounted such a debate until after decades of landing in America when they had access to Las Casas Book as early as 1583?
5) As Americans, we are educated to favor “Lone Nuts” as an explanation for every act of political murder in U.S. history from the attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life on down. Conspiracy Theories have been avoided like the plague by mainstream media and historians since the Revolution. Jackson’s “would be- assassin” was thrown in a mental institution and held for life because he claimed the Rothschild-owned Bank of England had hired him to kill Jackson. Jackson believed it; why don’t we? The establishment of “the lone nut” principle leaves only two possible explanations for political murder: pathological or a convergence of political accidents In other words “the guy was crazy” or “shit happens” – ‘no conspiracies need apply.’ Neither is any amount of evidence allowed into the discussions of mainline News or history on secret societies: no Freemasons, KGC or Illuminati; the subject is simply taboo. Consider this letter from George Washington though:
1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks
"To Revd W. Snyder
Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798
"Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.
"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
"The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
"My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc." [1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks]
In short, Washington believed the Illuminati were here. Jackson believed the Bank of England was out to kill him and so did Lincoln. Why don’t we believe conspiracies are real? The Illuminati is the grand-daddy, so to speak, of all conspiracies. Do you believe they’re real? I didn’t until a few months ago, but now I wonder, and Hollywood is no small part of the reason why, with the proliferation of pyramids, eyes of Horus (people who cover or circle one eye), Reports that neighbors heard chanting coming from Amy Winehouse’s the night she was murdered, Jayzee’s Illuminati line of T shirts, etc. - - the list of cult, esoteric or occult influence goes on. What’s going on here, and don’t just say nothing, Provide some counter evidence if you're going to debunk something and cite it. The history of Europe is one conspiracy from one end to the other. We believe in our immigrant history; why don't we some of these conspiracies and secret societies have followed us here or that they were here in the First Nations of the Americas?