http://blog.whps.org/twilson contemplate the past Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:14:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/the-frontier/cherokee-expulsion-of-freedmen/comment-page-1/#comment-819 Kate Morse Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:14:34 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?page_id=713#comment-819 I agree mostly with Carla D. Pratt's point of view. Pratt says that the Cherokee have not learned from their mistakes becasue they are not familiar with their own history.In the beginning, African American and Cherokee shared a beneficial relationship. Pratt herself says, “Early in their history, they adopted a former slave woman of African ancestry into the tribe and exercised their sovereignty to keep her as a citizen of the tribe.” This quote explains the friendly relationship both parties were part of.When the Cherokee bagan to assimilate into European culture, they took on many aspects of it, including language and prejudices towards the African Americans. They believed in the inferiority and enslavement of blacks. In 2007, it was determined by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court that the Treaty of 1866 bound the Cherokee nation. It stated that the African American - Cherokee freedmen are citizens of the Cherokee. however, the Cherokees expelled the freedmen from their society. The Cherokee said that they expelled the African American not becasue of their race specifically, but because they were not Indian. I agree mostly with Carla D. Pratt’s point of view. Pratt says that the Cherokee have not learned from their mistakes becasue they are not familiar with their own history.In the beginning, African American and Cherokee shared a beneficial relationship. Pratt herself says, “Early in their history, they adopted a former slave woman of African ancestry into the tribe and exercised their sovereignty to keep her as a citizen of the tribe.” This quote explains the friendly relationship both parties were part of.When the Cherokee bagan to assimilate into European culture, they took on many aspects of it, including language and prejudices towards the African Americans. They believed in the inferiority and enslavement of blacks. In 2007, it was determined by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court that the Treaty of 1866 bound the Cherokee nation. It stated that the African American – Cherokee freedmen are citizens of the Cherokee. however, the Cherokees expelled the freedmen from their society. The Cherokee said that they expelled the African American not becasue of their race specifically, but because they were not Indian.

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/the-frontier/cherokee-expulsion-of-freedmen/comment-page-1/#comment-818 David Gates Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:22:05 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?page_id=713#comment-818 In my opinion, freedman Cherokee's deserve the same perks and benefits that the "pure Cherokees" have. The ancestors of these freedman's grew up in Indian Culture. They lived in equal or worse living conditions, and went through many of the same hardships as the "pure Cherokees". For example, in the NYtimes article Heather Williams discusses her experience of Indian culture as a freedman. She was a part of an Indian community, the Native American Students Association at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, and Cherokee Nation citizen. She deserves the same as the other Cherokees regardless of her original ethnicity. Growing up and living in Cherokee culture for generations should be enough to consider someone a Cherokee. Many Cherokees are apposed to freedmans receiving the same privileges as them because of their skin color. However, these freedman's experienced Indian culture to its full extent and deserve to be called Cherokees. Despite the Cherokee's sovereignty, they should consider freedmans their own because of the freedmans participation in Cherokee life. In my opinion, freedman Cherokee’s deserve the same perks and benefits that the “pure Cherokees” have. The ancestors of these freedman’s grew up in Indian Culture. They lived in equal or worse living conditions, and went through many of the same hardships as the “pure Cherokees”. For example, in the NYtimes article Heather Williams discusses her experience of Indian culture as a freedman. She was a part of an Indian community, the Native American Students Association at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, and Cherokee Nation citizen. She deserves the same as the other Cherokees regardless of her original ethnicity. Growing up and living in Cherokee culture for generations should be enough to consider someone a Cherokee. Many Cherokees are apposed to freedmans receiving the same privileges as them because of their skin color. However, these freedman’s experienced Indian culture to its full extent and deserve to be called Cherokees. Despite the Cherokee’s sovereignty, they should consider freedmans their own because of the freedmans participation in Cherokee life.

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/2011/10/04/berkin-american-revolution/comment-page-1/#comment-817 Kate Morse Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:34:50 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?p=734#comment-817 One of the myths that was so surprising tome was that all Americans banded together and untied against the British. I think that this idea is a great source of nationalist pride for many people. America has always been based on the idea of fighting against oppression, not matter what the odds. This idea of uniting and standing up together is a core belief in the American way of life. The idea that we came together against an enemy is what allows us to do so now. The American Revolution set a precedent that is an example that people follow to this day. We take great pride in it and commemorate it (incorrectly) every Fourth of July. In fact, there were many Americans who strongly wished to sat neutral - and who could blame them? The British empire was the largest and most powerful on Earth. There was no telling if this revolution would be successful or if it would be crushed like so many others before it. But not only were some citizens hesitant to rebellion, some cheated our soldiers. The shoemakers of America often sold cheap shoes made of scrapped leather that fell apart as soon as you wore them to the soldiers. Farmers sold barrels of flour mostly filled with sand to the soldiers. This raises the question, why was financial gain more important to these farmers than independence and why was this victory so "American" if many did not support it? One of the myths that was so surprising tome was that all Americans banded together and untied against the British. I think that this idea is a great source of nationalist pride for many people. America has always been based on the idea of fighting against oppression, not matter what the odds. This idea of uniting and standing up together is a core belief in the American way of life. The idea that we came together against an enemy is what allows us to do so now. The American Revolution set a precedent that is an example that people follow to this day. We take great pride in it and commemorate it (incorrectly) every Fourth of July. In fact, there were many Americans who strongly wished to sat neutral – and who could blame them? The British empire was the largest and most powerful on Earth. There was no telling if this revolution would be successful or if it would be crushed like so many others before it. But not only were some citizens hesitant to rebellion, some cheated our soldiers. The shoemakers of America often sold cheap shoes made of scrapped leather that fell apart as soon as you wore them to the soldiers. Farmers sold barrels of flour mostly filled with sand to the soldiers. This raises the question, why was financial gain more important to these farmers than independence and why was this victory so “American” if many did not support it?

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/2011/10/04/berkin-american-revolution/comment-page-1/#comment-816 Ted Monyak Thu, 06 Oct 2011 04:36:44 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?p=734#comment-816 One myth that Carol Berkin attempts to dispel is the fact that the British ruled tyrannically. People want to believe this myth in order to justify the revolt against the British, by claiming that the British got what they deserved. These misconceptions are brought about by exaggerations of the significance of British presence in the colonies and taxes imposed on the colonists. In fact, the British were extremely patient during the tumultuous 1760’s and 1770’s, as the rebellious cause gained steam. People also get worked up by the misconceptions that Thomas Paine’s pamphlet entitled ‘Common Sense’ was confiscated and that Patrick Henry was arrested for saying “Give me liberty or give me death!”. These beliefs are false, and even the “shot heard round the world” wasn’t the fault of the British, who were simply carrying out orders to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock on the account that they were storing gunpowder (which turned out to be true). The fact of the matter is, the British were merely victims of their own constitution which they were obligated to follow. The colonists had, prior to the revolutionary fever, been content to be a subject in the British Empire, but once they began to outgrow that state, they rebelled against the idea of serving to support England rather than against the actual English soldiers. One myth that Carol Berkin attempts to dispel is the fact that the British ruled tyrannically. People want to believe this myth in order to justify the revolt against the British, by claiming that the British got what they deserved. These misconceptions are brought about by exaggerations of the significance of British presence in the colonies and taxes imposed on the colonists. In fact, the British were extremely patient during the tumultuous 1760’s and 1770’s, as the rebellious cause gained steam. People also get worked up by the misconceptions that Thomas Paine’s pamphlet entitled ‘Common Sense’ was confiscated and that Patrick Henry was arrested for saying “Give me liberty or give me death!”. These beliefs are false, and even the “shot heard round the world” wasn’t the fault of the British, who were simply carrying out orders to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock on the account that they were storing gunpowder (which turned out to be true). The fact of the matter is, the British were merely victims of their own constitution which they were obligated to follow. The colonists had, prior to the revolutionary fever, been content to be a subject in the British Empire, but once they began to outgrow that state, they rebelled against the idea of serving to support England rather than against the actual English soldiers.

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/2-forming-the-political-nation/comment-page-1/#comment-815 Kyle Langevin Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:19:53 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?page_id=458#comment-815 The podcast provides an insightful perspective on the revolution that contradicts the generic school version, in which Americans rise up as one to defeat the big bad British tyrants. That version of the story is appealing to believe but in actuality the British were extremely reasonable and patient with the colonies. Contrary to popular belief the Colonists were the ones committing crimes and initiating most of the violence. Berlin denounce the myth that all settlers supported the revolution and that many of the settlers were very aggressive at the British stamp distributes and officials: routinely beating, mutilating, and killing the stamp sellers. The podcast provides an insightful perspective on the revolution that contradicts the generic school version, in which Americans rise up as one to defeat the big bad British tyrants. That version of the story is appealing to believe but in actuality the British were extremely reasonable and patient with the colonies. Contrary to popular belief the Colonists were the ones committing crimes and initiating most of the violence. Berlin denounce the myth that all settlers supported the revolution and that many of the settlers were very aggressive at the British stamp distributes and officials: routinely beating, mutilating, and killing the stamp sellers.

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/2011/10/04/berkin-american-revolution/comment-page-1/#comment-814 Linh H. Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:12:45 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?p=734#comment-814 I found that the most interesting myth that Carol Berkin addresses is how the American Revolution was a spontaneous reaction to years of bad treatment from the British and how the British were perceived as tyrannical. People want to believe this myth because it shows how Americans have great pride in our selves and our country. We especially take pride in the people who played a part in making America an independent nation. Because Americans have such a strong belief in our homeland and tend to think highly of our accomplishments in history, we tend to have a false perception of who was considered good and bad in the past. Berkin states in her lecture that the Revolution was not a spontaneous reaction due to years of bad treatment from the British; in fact it was the complete opposite. She states all the violence leading up to the American Revolution was caused by Americans. The Stamp Act was the catalyst to a major uproar from colonists and amplified the perception that the British were tyrants. It was misinterpreted by Americans as an infringement of rights. Berkin states the Stamp Act was actually an assertion of authority that had been laid dormant for a long time and was brought back which had a negative reaction from the colonists. The Sons of Liberty, which Americans now look back on and automatically relate it to patriotic and nationalistic characteristics of America’s past, was in contrast, a gang organized by Samuel Adams, which began attacking British officials. Berkin contradicts the idea that they were symbolic of American heroism by explaining how Ann Holton, a niece of one of the custom collectors, recounts about her uncle being beaten by men who called themselves Sons of Liberty who appealed the Stamp Act. Throughout events in history such as the 1775 British march to Lexington and Concord which has been looked back on by Americans as an unjust act by the British and enforcing taxation laws, the British are viewed as tyrants who exercise unjust authority of the colonists. Berkin contradicts this opinion, explaining how the British are only guilty of trying to enforce laws which were being neglected and taken advantage of by colonists. It was only right for the British to enforce stricter regulations. Berkin’s take on the American Revolution has completely altered my view on the Revolution because I’ve grown up with the belief that the British are to blame for the uprising of Americans but it’s not actually the case. Americans are the ones who actually are responsible for starting the Revolution and the British were their scapegoats that were caught up in the drama. I found that the most interesting myth that Carol Berkin addresses is how the American Revolution was a spontaneous reaction to years of bad treatment from the British and how the British were perceived as tyrannical. People want to believe this myth because it shows how Americans have great pride in our selves and our country. We especially take pride in the people who played a part in making America an independent nation. Because Americans have such a strong belief in our homeland and tend to think highly of our accomplishments in history, we tend to have a false perception of who was considered good and bad in the past. Berkin states in her lecture that the Revolution was not a spontaneous reaction due to years of bad treatment from the British; in fact it was the complete opposite. She states all the violence leading up to the American Revolution was caused by Americans. The Stamp Act was the catalyst to a major uproar from colonists and amplified the perception that the British were tyrants. It was misinterpreted by Americans as an infringement of rights. Berkin states the Stamp Act was actually an assertion of authority that had been laid dormant for a long time and was brought back which had a negative reaction from the colonists. The Sons of Liberty, which Americans now look back on and automatically relate it to patriotic and nationalistic characteristics of America’s past, was in contrast, a gang organized by Samuel Adams, which began attacking British officials. Berkin contradicts the idea that they were symbolic of American heroism by explaining how Ann Holton, a niece of one of the custom collectors, recounts about her uncle being beaten by men who called themselves Sons of Liberty who appealed the Stamp Act. Throughout events in history such as the 1775 British march to Lexington and Concord which has been looked back on by Americans as an unjust act by the British and enforcing taxation laws, the British are viewed as tyrants who exercise unjust authority of the colonists. Berkin contradicts this opinion, explaining how the British are only guilty of trying to enforce laws which were being neglected and taken advantage of by colonists. It was only right for the British to enforce stricter regulations. Berkin’s take on the American Revolution has completely altered my view on the Revolution because I’ve grown up with the belief that the British are to blame for the uprising of Americans but it’s not actually the case. Americans are the ones who actually are responsible for starting the Revolution and the British were their scapegoats that were caught up in the drama.

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/2011/10/04/berkin-american-revolution/comment-page-1/#comment-813 Colin W Thu, 06 Oct 2011 03:01:56 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?p=734#comment-813 One of the myths that Carol Berkin refers to about the American people during the revolution is that all Americans united to fight the British. As Carol Berkins points out, the army of the time was often the group of settlers targeted for getting cheated by the other settlers. Although they were the ones fighting against the British and representing the people of America, they were the ones cheated out of food and resources. I think that people want to believe it because it would show that the settlers came into the battle with a certain unity that would be able to overcome any number of forces the British could throw at them. I think people also want to believe it because it proves that there was no opposition to the revolution; if there was an effort from the colonies, they were going to die trying. This is inaccurate because, as Carol Berkins states, the farmers and other suppliers of goods ripped off the army in order to gain money. Berkins gives examples like farmers selling barrels of flour and filling it half up with sand and shoemakers who crafted shoes that would wear out and fall apart soon after being purchased by the soldiers. This changed my view of the American revolution because I thought the country was on the same page for the revolution and everyone wanted to separate from the harsh ruling of the British. This raises questions about why it was such a big victory if not even everyone wanted to separate and why the farmers and shoemakers were more worried about their money than the future of their country. One of the myths that Carol Berkin refers to about the American people during the revolution is that all Americans united to fight the British. As Carol Berkins points out, the army of the time was often the group of settlers targeted for getting cheated by the other settlers. Although they were the ones fighting against the British and representing the people of America, they were the ones cheated out of food and resources. I think that people want to believe it because it would show that the settlers came into the battle with a certain unity that would be able to overcome any number of forces the British could throw at them. I think people also want to believe it because it proves that there was no opposition to the revolution; if there was an effort from the colonies, they were going to die trying. This is inaccurate because, as Carol Berkins states, the farmers and other suppliers of goods ripped off the army in order to gain money. Berkins gives examples like farmers selling barrels of flour and filling it half up with sand and shoemakers who crafted shoes that would wear out and fall apart soon after being purchased by the soldiers. This changed my view of the American revolution because I thought the country was on the same page for the revolution and everyone wanted to separate from the harsh ruling of the British. This raises questions about why it was such a big victory if not even everyone wanted to separate and why the farmers and shoemakers were more worried about their money than the future of their country.

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/2011/10/04/berkin-american-revolution/comment-page-1/#comment-812 becky hoisl Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:47:51 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?p=734#comment-812 The myth that stuck with me most was the one about Americans uniting together in the American Revolution. I had always just thought of it as Americans banded together against the British people so when I heard in this podcast that this wasn’t exactly true it was something different then what I have previously thought. I found out that some people were for it some against it and some could careless, it really didn’t make a difference to them. In the beginning many people were hoping to stay neutral and didn’t really want to join up with these rebellious people in America because they didn’t know where it was going to lead and how things were going to turn out. They tried to remain impartial by not really getting involved on one side or another. Some American people saw the whole idea of fighting as unproductive because no matter how much they fought someone would always be in charge that is going to impose taxes and they saw no way around that. So they saw it as why bother? As things progressed and this conflict developed, people in America started to join the American side but not for political reasons as many people picture. It was more out of annoyance along with strong dislike and unrest towards the actions of the British soldiers and their behavior that caused people to join up with the American side whether than the beliefs and causes of the Americans rebelling. One huge thing that caused people to switch was the fact that the British army occupied many areas in America which cause huge amounts of unrest and many to switch to the rebellious American side. People had many different motives for choosing one side or another. Everyone was never really on the same page and they were never really unified. This podcast helped me see that even though people want to believe that everyone did unite and get on the same page causing the country to rise up and defeat the British it really didn’t happen like that. Yeah, it’s how many remember this event but it’s not truly how it was. This podcast helped me to realize this when I never really did previously. The myth that stuck with me most was the one about Americans uniting together in the American Revolution. I had always just thought of it as Americans banded together against the British people so when I heard in this podcast that this wasn’t exactly true it was something different then what I have previously thought. I found out that some people were for it some against it and some could careless, it really didn’t make a difference to them. In the beginning many people were hoping to stay neutral and didn’t really want to join up with these rebellious people in America because they didn’t know where it was going to lead and how things were going to turn out. They tried to remain impartial by not really getting involved on one side or another. Some American people saw the whole idea of fighting as unproductive because no matter how much they fought someone would always be in charge that is going to impose taxes and they saw no way around that. So they saw it as why bother? As things progressed and this conflict developed, people in America started to join the American side but not for political reasons as many people picture. It was more out of annoyance along with strong dislike and unrest towards the actions of the British soldiers and their behavior that caused people to join up with the American side whether than the beliefs and causes of the Americans rebelling. One huge thing that caused people to switch was the fact that the British army occupied many areas in America which cause huge amounts of unrest and many to switch to the rebellious American side. People had many different motives for choosing one side or another. Everyone was never really on the same page and they were never really unified. This podcast helped me see that even though people want to believe that everyone did unite and get on the same page causing the country to rise up and defeat the British it really didn’t happen like that. Yeah, it’s how many remember this event but it’s not truly how it was. This podcast helped me to realize this when I never really did previously.

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/2011/10/04/berkin-american-revolution/comment-page-1/#comment-811 Caroline Crafts Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:42:52 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?p=734#comment-811 The idea that the colonists banded together in one big happy group to fight the British is inaccurate. In truth, there were many groups that either opposed, or were neutral in the war. British appointed officials, those with strong ties to England, merchants who profited off trade with England, some prominent lawyers and judges who took vows with England, and others believed that a war with England was not necessary. The belief that Americans were united in their plans of rebellion stems from the idea that the winner writes the history. The revolutionaries won so naturally, they weren't going to highlight the struggles they had to get people to support their mission. As years went on history was simplified to fit into stories and textbooks and the faces of people who didn't want the war blurred into the heroes of the revolutionary war we know today. The idea that the colonists banded together in one big happy group to fight the British is inaccurate. In truth, there were many groups that either opposed, or were neutral in the war. British appointed officials, those with strong ties to England, merchants who profited off trade with England, some prominent lawyers and judges who took vows with England, and others believed that a war with England was not necessary. The belief that Americans were united in their plans of rebellion stems from the idea that the winner writes the history. The revolutionaries won so naturally, they weren’t going to highlight the struggles they had to get people to support their mission. As years went on history was simplified to fit into stories and textbooks and the faces of people who didn’t want the war blurred into the heroes of the revolutionary war we know today.

]]> http://blog.whps.org/twilson/2011/10/04/berkin-american-revolution/comment-page-1/#comment-810 John Roberts Thu, 06 Oct 2011 02:32:32 +0000 http://blog.whps.org/twilson/?p=734#comment-810 Carol berkins brings up numerous good ideas on the myths of the revolution, but I believe the one that was the most important to me was that all Americans united to fight the British. Even though this statement is everything but true, Americans today, knowing so little about the Revolution, think that it is true. This is a very common thought that many Americans today have about the Revolutionaries back in the time of the Revolution. People like to think this way because they want to see American as a nation as a whole, and not having some for, some against, and some that have no opinion. What berkin is attempting to do is to show the different ideas and the different views of the Revolutionaries to show that they weren’t actually all together; they were more against each other. Another myth that Berkin was trying to prove was made up was the fact that Britain gave us unfair taxes and were tyrannical. The reason why most Americans now a day’s believe this is true is because they want to blame their lack of money on the Mother Land, rather than accepting the fact that it was all their fault. Two ideas that the Americans took the wrong way were the Stamp act and the Sugar act. The stamp act was an increase tax on the price of a stamp, and immediately following the Americans started to rebel. So instead of ignoring these rebellions the British immediately removed the tax, no further questions asked. The sugar act also was a way that the British helped the Americans, instead of what it was deceived to be as hurting them. The sugar act thought of in present day was made to crucially hurt the Americans financially, but what it actually did was cut the taxes in half. Most of the stereotypes of the Revolutionary times are actually considered to be myths, like the fact that people thought that the Americans were united at this time, and that the British taxed the Americans unfairly. Carol berkins brings up numerous good ideas on the myths of the revolution, but I believe the one that was the most important to me was that all Americans united to fight the British. Even though this statement is everything but true, Americans today, knowing so little about the Revolution, think that it is true. This is a very common thought that many Americans today have about the Revolutionaries back in the time of the Revolution. People like to think this way because they want to see American as a nation as a whole, and not having some for, some against, and some that have no opinion. What berkin is attempting to do is to show the different ideas and the different views of the Revolutionaries to show that they weren’t actually all together; they were more against each other. Another myth that Berkin was trying to prove was made up was the fact that Britain gave us unfair taxes and were tyrannical. The reason why most Americans now a day’s believe this is true is because they want to blame their lack of money on the Mother Land, rather than accepting the fact that it was all their fault. Two ideas that the Americans took the wrong way were the Stamp act and the Sugar act. The stamp act was an increase tax on the price of a stamp, and immediately following the Americans started to rebel. So instead of ignoring these rebellions the British immediately removed the tax, no further questions asked. The sugar act also was a way that the British helped the Americans, instead of what it was deceived to be as hurting them. The sugar act thought of in present day was made to crucially hurt the Americans financially, but what it actually did was cut the taxes in half. Most of the stereotypes of the Revolutionary times are actually considered to be myths, like the fact that people thought that the Americans were united at this time, and that the British taxed the Americans unfairly.

]]>