Module 6 – Colonization of Black People

What was the colonization movement?  Was it in the best interest of black people; were black people for or against colonization? 

Initially, I thought that ‘Colonization’ referred to the abolition and integration of blacks into American society.  In truth it was the abolition of slavery, by means of removing freed slaves out of America to other countries such as Africa, the Caribbean or Central America.  According to Foner, “colonization rested on the premise that America is fundamentally a white society (p. 421).”  Many white people saw it as a way to end slavery and they didn’t believe that black people could ever overcome the racial barrier that existed in the US and be fully integrated as equals.  While other’s thought that the removal of slaves from the presence of slave owners gave them the ability to ease their minds towards the evils that they committed towards black people.  

Whilst some black people looked at departing as an opportunity to return to their home lands, a place to spread their Christianity to other African’s, a place of freedom, equality and ability to enjoy rights denied to them in America.  One might think that this was a great opportunity for black people to free themselves from bondage in the U.S.  However, blacks were divided on this issue and a majority of black people were not in favor of colonization.  For many they were not natives to these ‘homelands’ and a return would be to a place of unfamiliarity and a life they were not accustomed.  Additionally, they were not making this choice by freewill, but instead they were being forced into the decision by white men.  Many black people considered themselves American’s and wanted to stay and fight for their rights of freedom and equality that were enjoyed by whites.  A black abolitionist named David Walker when addressing the white readers wrote, “tell us no more about colonization for America is as much our country as it is yours.” (Foner p. 422)

Source:

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!  An American History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc 2009

Module 5 A Hero - The War of 1812

Would you consider a person who fought for the good of the people but didn’t win the war a ‘hero’?  What characteristics or traits sway your decision one way or the other?  Although, I believe each of us decides who and why we consider someone a hero, it maddens me to read about the evils of individuals throughout or history titled as ‘hero’s’ when they had no humanity towards others. 

Zinn for example mentions that Jackson “became a hero of the War of 1812”.  But the comment right before this describes Jackson as “a land speculator, merchant, slave trader, and the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history” (p. 98).  Another comment of Jackson states he was a national hero in a battle in 1814, because he killed so many Creeks with few casualties.  However, this battle was won because of Cherokees support (p. 99).  What about Tecumseh, why is he not mentioned as a ‘hero’?  All Zinn states is, “Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief and noted orator, tried to united the Indians against the white invasion” (p.98).  Zinns choice of words “tried” even makes it appear as though Tecumseh was unsuccessful in his attempt, but this is far from the truth.

Let me share a bit about Tecumseh he was an Indian warrior who played a major role in the fight to protect Indian lands.  He was known as a visionary, military expert, loved and respected even by his enemy and remembered as one of the greatest Indian leaders.  He was born during 1768 the same year as the important treaty of Fort Stanwix between the North American Indians and British Empire for land.  Land issues would continue to shape his entire life right up until his death where he was in a battle to protect the lands of his people during the War of 1812.

As a leader Tecumseh was known for bringing out the best in people and possessed a natural ability to bring people of tribal differences and language together to unite as one.  He stayed true to his convictions and did not take part nor sign the Treaty of Greenville in 1795, which ceased land occupied by Indians to the United Stated.

Tecumseh would later assist the British commander Sir Issac Brock during the Battle of Detroit which is known as one of the most embarrassing attacks on the US.  Tecumseh knew they were outnumbered and he tricked the Americans into thinking they had a larger army by having his warriors running by in a repeating circle.  Detroit surrendered without a shot fired.  Sir Issac Brock was a supporter of the Indians and even stated that Tecumseh was the “greatest military leader of all times” (PBS, We Shall Remain: Tecumseh’s Vision).  Unfortunately, Brock was killed in a battle and the new general was only interested in protecting Canada and withdrew its troops.  Tecumseh responded to this by continuing the battle of Indian land during the War of 1812 where he was killed and mutilated beyond recognition by the Americans.    

These are just brief examples of Tecumseh’s life and upon further study, I’m sure you’d agree that Tecumseh lived a life of honor and purpose with concern for all American Indians.  A ‘hero’ indeed!    

Sources:

PBS video, We Shall Remain: Tecumseh’s Vision; http://video.pbs.org/video/1097943308/

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003

Module 4 - Revolutionary Control by the Elite

What were the methods of control used by the Revolutionary elite to control disobedient and rebellious colonists?  Were the elite successful in their efforts?

In Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States he mentions that although various groups of peoples were incensed against the British, the general enthusiasm for the war was not strong (p. 62).  Later he states that “John Adams had estimated a third opposed, a third in support, a third neutral” (p. 62).  So who was interested in severing their ties from Britain?  In my opinion, those who had the most to gain the elite, wealthy, white men. 

So how did the ‘elite’ get the opposed and neutral parties to join their forces against the British army and keep a balance of control over the rebellious colonists?  They did this by preying on the needs of the disadvantaged, providing illusions of adventure, power, money, status, advancement, possibilities of freedom and the belief that they were fighting for a common good.  Or as one documented instance notes the natural competition of seeing a neighbor no better than yourself joining the Revolution as a person of rank and not just a private soldier made others jump in and join the cause (Zinn 62). 

However, they still had to control the militia and tread carefully because of underlying issues between the rich and the poor which resurfaced as small mutinies throughout the war.  George Washington handled these situations using tactics of concessions such as discharge and furloughs for some and brutality for others.  During one such instance Washington set “an example” where the three ringleaders of the mutiny were immediately tried, one was pardoned and two were shot by firing squads made up of their friends, who wept as they pulled the triggers (Zinn 64).  This to me demonstrates just how much power and control the ‘elite’ had over the people.

I don’t believe the ‘elite’ were forward thinking strategists, but their ability to play on the emotional needs of the people both positive and negative was well utilized to further their efforts and maintain control to their advantage.

The strategy of playing off of the emotional needs of people still exists today.  For example Corporate America being in a position of having a large pool of unemployed people desperate for work they take advantage and sometime mistreat their current work force.  Some companies treat people as dispensable and employees put up with more crap because it is the worse of two evils during this period of instability and high unemployment. 

Source:

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003