Notes on 'Never Ending War'

Why does there always need to be war? From small things like departmental debates on how to conduct outreach, to larger debates dealing with breaking old ways and abolishing slavery, people just can't seem to compromise. Imagine the world without war. Cliche hippy talk, I realize this. But humor yourself, entertain me, and just imagine a world where we'd actually learn to compromise. Is it because of sin that our minds fail to realize all the solutions? Is it that we are so close-minded that we have and will always fail to see more than just our own side as the only option? What would the world be like without the stubborn attitudes of those who just won't cooperate?

I can tell you one thing: we'd have a lot more people on this earth, more than the project seven billion by the end of this year. Perhaps, as sick as it sounds, population control has to do with the necessity of wars (along with disease, mutations, malnutrition, etc.) In a perfect world, we'd have all the food our hearts and bellies could ever desire, no disease-carrying protists and insects, wonderful weather year round, and people that had the immediate action of compromise rather than raising fists or signing parchments that agreed to a however-many year long battle to fight it out.

All of these wars, something that seems so necessary in history classes, all seem to blend into one big mess to me. They're all the same, all about the same general idea, no matter how 'remarkable' a certain battle was. It doesn't matter to me who valiantly marched into battle single handed or did something totally taboo that no one would have thought any soul could muster. People are still dying everywhere on one side or another. And who is to say who is good and who is evil? Especially with the Civil War, we think now, with our modern, liberal and very politically correct minds that slavery was horrible and inhumane and I would never partake in something as cruel as that. But really, do you know that? Do you have any clue what you would or would not have done back then if you didn't have the knowledge you have in today's era? Then possibly, your opinion might alter, you might side with the South's decision on keeping slavery. Things are always relative in the cases of good and evil, it seems, especially in war.

But let me be frank: death will always be evil. You are stealing away a life, the worst of human crimes. Is it because of money, because you couldn't work things out diplomatically, or at least you thought? There has got to be a better solution than blood shed. I still have hope.

Slavery

Our readings this week on personal accounts of slavery in those who experienced it first-hand reminded me much of what I wrote my report on. Of course, the general idea was the same, and many of the slaved had indeed been abused. Interestingly enough, only some of them were willing to share it. The class was under the impression that these people didn't want to share with the entire world what had happened to them. Why? Perhaps they were ashamed, perhaps they didn't want others to peek too far into their memories and their history. But then, there were others, particularly one man that I had read about, that said they had it a lot better, although he didn't mention the comparison. In fact, he spoke nothing about beatings or abuse whatsoever. He was a cattle and horse rancher, a favored one at that. He had worked to deliver 200 horses over from Mexico to Texas with four other men...in a hail storm. Lucky for him, he managed to make sure that each and every horse had made it over the border to his master, and for that, he was given a new saddle. It was hardly ever mentioned where the slave's owners would give them presents, let alone brand new equipment. This goes to show that perhaps he was actually telling the full truth. Perhaps there was some good and generosity within the world of slavery, as odd as that sentence sounds. No, slavery will never be a good thing, but to show that there were people that showed genuine kindness to their workers goes to show the shining light in a world of darkness. Perhaps, in dark times as we, America, and many other countries are facing in our and their own problems, that we too, should look for the light, and live happily in reminder that there will always be some good.

"Happiness can be found, even in the darkest of times, if only one remembers to turn on the light."

- Albus Dumbledore

Apologies

I've found outstanding reasons as to why I'm apologizing. I haven't been keeping up with this blog as much as I should, mainly because I don't like 'required' expression. I don't find myself putting forth genuine effort in this blog, especially when I lack muse to write about such findings or 'interests'. Its even gotten to the place where I don't want to come back to this blog, for I find myself writing only one hundred words or so, in comparison to what I should be writing. And what with working part-time and attending school full-time, I don't always have all the time in the world to dedicate to such a blog. I will attempt to be better at this, but I doubt my muse will land on the world of history and stay for any extended period of time. For this I apologize.

Westward Expansion

Ah, the beautiful land of California, and the rustic southern wonderland of Texas. Both of these states are defining factors and contributors to what foreigners imagine the Unite States to be. Can you just imagine what we'd be without them? Many people that I've talked to from other parts of the world always romanticize the idea of living in California, figuring that it would be their go-to location if and when they could ever move over to the States. But the way we obtained the area wasn't the most righteous of systems, but to what cost? We knew were going to win the battle for the states, and the Mexicans knew that they were going to lose, but still, they continued to fight, and we continued to slaughter them, and all for chunks of land claimed to be filled with prospect and hope, take for example, the gold ore found in California.

Many flocked to go and strike rich in California, return home to their families and become successful in their area of expertise along with the bit of fortune they earned when they went panning for gold. This, like many other issues, was just another romanticized idea of what people wanted to believe would happen. Instead, there was a mass amount of suicide rates, death from the dangers of mining, and don't get me started on those dead by illness. Men couldn't return home to their families, as they had earned little to nothing, and what they did earn, they gambled away. Some people got in quarrels between races over who had the say-all for where they could pan or what they found.

It was a real mess, like many other facets of the formations of this country, yet in the end, when we think of California, we don't think of the devastation of the Gold Rush. Instead, we think of sunny skies, never-ending beaches along the coast, lush flora and fauna, and warm climates. To a point, do you think we still have the romanticized ideal of what we wish a place to be? Are we, and fellow foreigners, holding onto that illustrious hope of beautiful lands abroad to ease their reality, when and if they ever do make it over here? What will they do when the realize its not all what the advertisers say it was?

The Arrogance of the Southern States Pre-Independence from Britain.

Arrogance, I could also use other, more profane, words to describe how I loathe the character of the whites in the mid to late 18th century in South Carolina. Note, this doesn't not directly correlate with the lecture from this week, but I felt the need to post this in my blog on the Formative Period of America, as it certainly pertains. The (rather God-awful) book I'm reading currently, The Hanging of Thomas Jeremiah, is in reality an essay on the abuses of slaves by white slave-holders and the Patriots of the South nearing the Revolution. But I shall go on into more detail of the book in my analysis.

I must point out though, that it absolutely frosts my cookies that these people are so indignant that they feel they can rule over everything. It seems like they have some law set up, but most of the time, they just do whatever they feel like. Certain members of their government and active political parties such as the Patriots brainwash even their own citizens of South Carolina to make them believe whatever they see fit. They will punish innocent men just to show other slaves that rebelling would not be a good idea. Did they really think that if the slaves were going to rebel that they'd shake in their boots because the radical parts of government decided to hang a few slaves? Hello! They'd been doing that for ages, and that wasn't going to stop the slaves.

And this whole idea of Protestant Christians against the Catholics, or the Christians who thought it was okay to have slaves because the Bible said so was ridiculous. Did they not realize that was more than a century ago when they had them? And they didn't all treat them like the scum of the earth either. Many people in the Bible respected their slaves, and there is no mention of any such treatment as the atrocities that the Southerners showed to their own slaves.

How is it that you can consider a slave a piece of commerce and merchandise but you can put them to jury as a human? If an apple tree did not grow as much fruit as the others around it would you hack it to the ground, would you burn it? This simply does not make sense. You cannot attempt to consider them both. It causes many problems and mix-ups, where its up to a few individuals to choose the fate of these people.

South Carolina seemed to be the heart of the radical patriot acts in the South, and it also seemed to show the most instability in governmental actions and ethics. There was quite a mix of people towards the turn of the century, but this only made South Carolina delegates even more crazed. Things were falling apart, and they were panicking. Radical groups panicking is never a good thing. They choose to act upon their emotions, and cause serious damage. I'm not at all surprised the Civil War occurred. It was a surefire way to attempt to put these crazed official back into reality, and make them pay for their 'hellish deeds' they so accused others of doing.

Andrew Jackson: Good or Bad towards progression?

Andrew Jackson, seventh president of the United States of America. Strong, stubborn, bull-headed, and powerful. He wasn't one to mess with, and would make sure a job would get done and get done just how he wanted. But that didn't always end in good measure. For example, one large fact that he's rather infamous for was his way of handling the Natives. Instead of trying to work with them (I can't blame the Natives for not wanting to work with the American people at this point, I wouldn't want to either if I were them), Jackson decides to 'relocate' them for their own good, which we all know is a load of crap. The American citizens wanted their land, and instead of fighting wars over it, Jackson made it clear to the Natives that they would have to leave their homeland and everything they knew to Oklahoma, to start anew. This not only caused thousands of people to die along the journey there, but was it ever considered that there could be other Natives living in Oklahoma that didn't want to give up their own land to share with these foreign natives? Surely not, or perhaps, maybe, but it wasn't taken too seriously by Jackson, as he had hardly any concern for these people once they marched off of his own property which he could then use for his own domestication and uses for expansion, never mind what any other people thought.

In my opinion, Jackson didn't really do much good for the United States in the areas of accepting diversity. Imagine if all presidents were like him! Our allowances of such a diverse level of populous that we currently have would be severely decreased. I wouldn't be surprised if we still had slaves and only white folks could live in safety in America. Thank goodness other leaders came into play with other opinions on how to rule.

Forming a New Nation

After reviewing such topics as the 'branches' or bias of a collection of opinions and choices available to the congress in the late 1700's and early 1800's when our country broke free from British rule and decided to start up a land and nation of their own, I've collected data and general facts about these two groups. They were called the Federalists and the Antifederalists. For example, the Federalists focused on a strong, central government, and wanted to gain revenue from the debts they had made during the Revolutionary war by taxing Alcohol and putting high tariffs on products. The Antifederalists on the other hand were against a strong central government, had the 'agrarian ideal', believed local representation was the best choice, and decided that that as farmers (which most of them were) they would vote for their own best interest, and will improve where it is most needed.

Although there was an inkling of republicanism, the 'Republican' party had yet to assemble in the way they are today. In addition, there was no 'Democratic' party either. To me, it seems that the Federalist party would advance to become mainly what is considered the Republican party these days, at least for the most part. Made up of wealthy people who want to charge high taxes for making up debt seems to be quite prevalent in today's society as well. That being said, it would be natural to call the Antifederalists the Democratic party. They're generally more peoples' choice based, which also seems to be a general thought process of today's society, with the people as the main focus.

Personally, I've chosen not to join a political party, unless you'd like to group Independents together. I have yet to find the sense in voting for someone because they're on the same 'side' as you. Was it like this as well in the past as it is now in the present? Will it be like this in the future? I believe we should take everyone at face value, let them present their issues of concern and concentration, and evaluate from there. These prejudices have built walls around our society, and I'm nearly positive they would have back then as well. There's my five cents.

Cruelty of many Faces

Now we all know the story of how the British taxed the colonists so heavily that they weren't making a profit off of their work nor were they hardly even scraping by. And then, after the people had enough of that, we brought the pain on the British and joined together, took a long hard trip through the wilderness in the middle of winter, sacrificed a lot of our men to poor nutrition and ill health, but then we decided to cross the Delaware river in mid December, attack the opposing side in their drunken stupor, and eventually we overcame British rule by kickin' their butts.

But that story makes it sound like the Americans didn't do anything out of the question, or at least questionable. But as a matter of fact, there were certain colonists who, in my own opinion, took their suppression a little out of hand. Not all of them were involved in these radical groups, or more commonly known as mobs, but still, this doesn't weaken the impact of what was performed.

Yes, I understand that the British had the best military in the world, that they had the best equipment and weapons, and the colonists only had clubs or very weak guns and such to fight in combat. I also realize that the British were unfair in charging the colonists for their own debt that tripled over the Seven Years War, but that doesn't mean that acting out in violence that causes personal harm or death is acceptable. I still believe that there could have been non-violent to go about protesting instead of tar and feathering people, burning and beheading effigies of certain members of Parliament or tax collectors, and then coming after them, destroying everything in their way.

I know that many people think that since I wasn't there, I wouldn't really know the answer to this, nor do I have evidence that it would have worked, but I do believe in violence as a last resort. Did the think to all join in as one united force and protest these people? They could have surrounded Parliament and protested, either silently or verbally, but they didn't need to lead to such extents to end up in a British Massacre. Maybe we wouldn't look as glorious as we Americans now perceive our history to be, but if it did work, and we still had Washington to lead the small army across the Delaware River, and we did successfully overrule the British rule, would that change the way we handle situations now? Would we turn to protests and non-violent action before we thought of punching someone in the face?

I know this is a stretch and a half, but its food for thought. These small bits of history, if only they were changed or erased, could they make a difference today?

Misconceptions and Preconceptions

The French and Indian War had been quite a befuddling notion to me before I took this class. Heck, any history class I've been in has always led to confusion as to what really happened. The professors (most of the time) seemed to start up on a rant about what they thought it was about, and their view on it, mumbling on and on about something that turned out to be nothing about the original concept. This may explain why my strong suit has not been in my History classes.

Interestingly enough though, I find it relieving and enlightening to find out interesting facts about this war, especially through the simplest of things such as its name. Despite my childhood favorite PBS show, Liberty Kids, I still had failed to understand who was on who's side. I had figured that the French and the Indians were against each other, and somehow the British and the pioneers and settlers were coming in for the fight as well. I have found out through lecture though, that my conjecture was not even the slightest bit right. According to our history lecture, it was the British's point of view on the war, and chose to exclude their name in the title. They also excluded the people of which originated from Britain; the settlers. Still, the name sounds vague, and is often confused (but considering the British, they may have wanted it that way.) Instead I found out recently that it were the French and the 'Indians' that worked together to fight the British for more of the unclaimed, or previously claimed land. An interesting way to word the title of a great war, though, as if excluding yourself from the title would show less blame on your part.

That's just one misconception that I've had fixed and figured in my mind. With all luck, there will be more misconceptions and preconceptions reversed and set right in the lectures soon to come.

A New View of Natives

Savage warriors, sans civilization and order, brutal, vicious, and especially dangerous.

The previously thought notions of Native Americans shows stark contrast to the actual state of these groups of people. Before the Europeans came to the New World in 1492, when Columbus walked onto the shores of North America, these people had lives and complex cultures all to themselves. There wasn't just one kind of Native, in fact there were five main groups, each stationed in different parts of this country. And with each group, came individual strong points, from agricultural to architectural to spiritual. Each culture had their own 'governmental' system, their own source of nutrition, whether it were bison like those of the Great Plains Culture or dried fish and acorns from the Pacific Coast culture, each group was truly unique.

And although some groups did indeed have certain sacrificial customs, this didn't make them especially dangerous or savage. Just like the Jews of the Middle East in the times of pre- and post- Jesus' walk on earth sacrificed animals at the temple, these people would sacrifice objects and creatures as well. Religions varied from area to area, mostly depending on what the culture relied on the most heavily. Take for example, the Iroquois, who were a highly localized sub-culture of the Eastern Woodlands. Their spirituality was centralized around agriculture, more specifically, Harvest, which had certain times of years dedicated to the celebration and feasts of such.

The Natives had the ability to fight and defend their land that their ancestors had been living on for ages and ages, but this didn't mean that they were savage beasts who would kill anything that stepped on their land. Instead, as the Columbian Exchange mentions, it was an exchange of ideas and goods for the most part. This meant that someone must have been able to tarry onto their land without getting killed. These people were curious about other cultures and ideas, and knew the system of barter and trade. They were willing to learn and utilize other foreign skills and goods. It was when they felt that there was a threat to their culture and people that they fought back, as any sane human would. Imagine someone trying to come after you or your family, threatening to kill you. Would you not do whatever you could to protect your loved ones and yourself? Or would your rather stand there and let them go about their business? The answer is clear; protecting your society and the things you love the most would obviously be the most logical idea.

In short, I want to stress that the Natives that have usually been portrayed as animalistic human beings were so much more than that, and were highly socially structured, agricultural experts, and curious humans. It is pivotal to show this because we have to see these people in a different light than previously thought if we wish to make sure that we do not assume such in the future, and repeat the rather infamous part of the colonization of America.