In today's discussion with Vince, we came upon a conclusion.
(pinky to mouth)
Our conclusion was how we were going to approach our PROJECT!
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA''
We decided to create two seperate photo blogs, one for the loyalist and one for the patriot. On the photo blogs, we will be expressing the life and conflicts of each party. Under each picture will be a caption of the event in the view of the loyalist and the patriot.
http://www.costumecraze.com/TRAD07.html
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
MIDTERM PRACTICE 2
“Fear [sic], and Liberty are consistent . . . . And generally all actions which men do [sic] in Common-wealths, for fear [sic] of the law, are actions, which the doers had liberty to omit […]. Liberty and Necessity are Consistent [. . .]. [B]ecause they proceed from their will, proceed from liberty; and yet, because every act of man’s [sic] will, and every desire, and inclination proceeds [sic] from some cause, and that from another cause, in a continual [sic] chain [sic], (whose first link in the hand of God the first of all causes,) they proceed from necessity.”
- Thomas Hobbes
Ever wonder why you can't have certain things by them self or why you can't have something without something else being a part of it? These are questions that everyone has had some point in their life. This is because some things come in a package whether you like it or not. This is the point Thomas Hobbes made hundreds of years ago. Hobbes view was that fear is consistent with liberty, with liberty also being consistent with necessity.
Thomas Hobbes states that fear and liberty are consistent because in a Common-wealth, men are fearful of the law, but they also had the option to admit to it. When men have all the liberty they want, they are most fearful of what could possibly happen to them. In early colonization of the New World, man could chose not to join the common wealth, but in making this decision, it would make him more fearful of the other men who could possibly take his land. By being part of the common wealth he has less freedom, but is protected by the others in the common wealth. This is a common scene today in American society. For example, teenagers have the choice to obey or disobey laws and regulations. When they decide to stay out past curfew, they have to be more fearful of their consequences. When they obey their parents orders and come home at the time given, they don't have to worry as much about being punished. I highly agree and understand this concept, being a teenager myself, and know that it is impossible to have one without the other.
Hobbes also makes the point that liberty and necessity are consistent because man's will, desire, and inclination comes from his need to do it. Man would not have any of the above mentioned if it wasn't needed in the first place. There's no point in having a skill or thought if it's never needed. If a skill or thought was never needed in the first place, it wouldn't have been created. An example of this in American society is the relationship between children and their parents. If a child of the age sixteen or higher were to be emancipated, technically they would be able to do as they wish freely. Along with their new found freedom comes the responsibilities of paying for their own necessities. I know first hand how to be granted more liberty, means the responsibilities have to increase. At home if I want the freedom of my curfew being extended and being able to use the car to go places, the responsibilities have to increase, such as preparing diner, taking initiative without being told, etc.
In essence, all three, fear, liberty, and necessity are consistent with each other. The decision is up to each individual person, but every decision they decide affects the next.
- Thomas Hobbes
Ever wonder why you can't have certain things by them self or why you can't have something without something else being a part of it? These are questions that everyone has had some point in their life. This is because some things come in a package whether you like it or not. This is the point Thomas Hobbes made hundreds of years ago. Hobbes view was that fear is consistent with liberty, with liberty also being consistent with necessity.
Thomas Hobbes states that fear and liberty are consistent because in a Common-wealth, men are fearful of the law, but they also had the option to admit to it. When men have all the liberty they want, they are most fearful of what could possibly happen to them. In early colonization of the New World, man could chose not to join the common wealth, but in making this decision, it would make him more fearful of the other men who could possibly take his land. By being part of the common wealth he has less freedom, but is protected by the others in the common wealth. This is a common scene today in American society. For example, teenagers have the choice to obey or disobey laws and regulations. When they decide to stay out past curfew, they have to be more fearful of their consequences. When they obey their parents orders and come home at the time given, they don't have to worry as much about being punished. I highly agree and understand this concept, being a teenager myself, and know that it is impossible to have one without the other.
Hobbes also makes the point that liberty and necessity are consistent because man's will, desire, and inclination comes from his need to do it. Man would not have any of the above mentioned if it wasn't needed in the first place. There's no point in having a skill or thought if it's never needed. If a skill or thought was never needed in the first place, it wouldn't have been created. An example of this in American society is the relationship between children and their parents. If a child of the age sixteen or higher were to be emancipated, technically they would be able to do as they wish freely. Along with their new found freedom comes the responsibilities of paying for their own necessities. I know first hand how to be granted more liberty, means the responsibilities have to increase. At home if I want the freedom of my curfew being extended and being able to use the car to go places, the responsibilities have to increase, such as preparing diner, taking initiative without being told, etc.
In essence, all three, fear, liberty, and necessity are consistent with each other. The decision is up to each individual person, but every decision they decide affects the next.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Bacon's Rebellion Essay
Why was Bacon's rebellion important on how Native Americans were treated? Many different factors contributed to the outcome of the rebellion. The conflict of race in Bacon's Rebellion was accredited to the colonists believing they were superior.
Bacon never failed to publicize his views on the Indians. “ ‘[We must defend ourselves] against all Indians in generall, for that they were all Enemies.’ This was the unequivocal view of Nathaniel Bacon…”5 His approach to the situation is all wrong, causing the whole rebellion to be unorganized. If he would start by approaching the situation that way, then it should be expected and known that he was going to unjustly murder many Indians. He had already stereotyped all Indians to be immortal creatures, or as he would put it, “Enemies.” Nathaniel Bacon states himself, in the declaration he wrote in 1676, “For the prevention of civil mischief and ruin amongst ourselves while the barbarous enemy in all places did invade, murder, and spoil us, his Majesty’s most faithful subjects.”6 It is a common trait of his to undermine what caused the Indians to begin these attacks, but focus on the attacks themselves and not give any information about the role he played in the Indians rebellions. This leads one to believe that Bacon constantly embellished the truth. If this is the case, then he can’t be accredited for conveying the truth. Bacon’s murders show no sympathy or connection to the Indians, which can demonstrate how he seen them as inferior or immortal because he can kill them with it having no effect on him, regardless of whether they were friendly or not. It seems he didn’t make the attacks personal. He just knew that he was going to retaliate against Indians, and that was all that mattered to him. The cause of the whole situation at Thomas Mathews’ plantation also confirms how natives were treated. The situation explains how the colonists didn’t see the Indians as equal because they would try to short end them or not give them the decent respect they would give to their fellow colonists. This shows they feel they are superior to the Indians.
The whole rebellion was based off retaliatory actions. The colonist were frustrated with many things during the time, and the coincidental raid by the Doeg Indians on the plantation of Thomas Mathews, gave colonists reason to vent their frustration.1 The dispute began in July 1675, over the unfortunate nonpayment of some of the tribe’s items obtained by Mathews, which resulted in the deaths of several Doegs.1 The Native Americans had a legitimate reason to raid Mathews’ plantation. He can’t expect to just obtain objects from them without paying for them in some sort of way. A group of men mistakenly charged the Susquehannocks with the outrages of the Doegs.1,2 This only enflamed the whole situation because the Susquehannock chiefs were killed during a flag of truce by the Maryland and Virginia militia, which only gave the Indians the right to retaliate by killing many planters in Virginia.3 The Indians have all the right to do what they did. If anything, the Virginians should have been understanding of the Indians actions. Not to forget that, “Berkeley had worked to establish peace with the tribes and successfully negotiated a settlement in which lands east of the Blue Ridge Mountains were reserved for the white settlers. However, during the 1640s and 1650s, the burgeoning population began to spill over into Indian lands west of the mountains.” 4 The Indians have every right to attack the colonists and all their attacks were justified with legitimate reasons. The colonists came over to their land, and were fortunate enough that the Indians didn’t run them out of their land when they first arrived. The Indians were very generous with letting the colonists occupy some of their land. But as with most cases, the colonists became greedy and tried to take advantage of the Indians by starting to cross the border into Indian territory. This was the Indians land, and of course they’re going to do whatever they can to defend and protect the little bit of land that wasn’t occupied by the colonists, it’s only realistic. That is a means of survival implanted within all of us. The Indians were already irritated because of the violations of the treaty, and to make the situation worse, colonists were retaliating on whatever tribe they could, not necessarily basing their retaliation on what that tribe did to them.
Bacon discovered the tribe of friendly Mannakins while in the wilderness.2 They were cordial towards each other until the third evening when one of Bacon’s men was killed by a shot from the side of the river the Mannakins were on. “Bacon stormed the fort, burnt it and the cabins, blew up their magazine of arms and gunpowder, and, with a loss of only three of his own party, put to death one hundred and fifty Indians.”2 This wasn’t smart on his behalf. He wasn’t sure if the Mannakins were responsible for the murder of his man. It could have easily been Berkeley and his men, but because he already had it set in his mind that mostly all Indians were “bad,” he assumed it was them and retaliated. It also wasn’t one of his better judgments because the Mannakins were one of the friendly tribes. By killing off one of the friendly tribes, his actions probably made other friendly tribes turn against him, making his task even harder. Bacon also, “at the head of a thousand men, marched against the Pamunkies, killing many and destroying their towns,” and, “surprising the Appomattox Indians,…burnt their town, killed a large number of the tribe, and dispersed the rest.” Bacon killed ruthlessly as if these people he were killing weren’t actually people, but animals. Out of all the accounts, his actions toward the Occaneechee Indians had the most effect on me. Bacon and his followers, “…marched to a fort held by a friendly tribe, the Occaneechees, and convinced them to capture warriors from an unfriendly tribe. The Occaneechees returned with captives. Bacon’s men killed the captives. They then turned to their ‘allies’ and opened fire.”5 This act of Bacon’s displays his passion to retaliate against all Indians. He really wasn’t in touch with his emotions or sympathetic to any other race other than his own. Bacon lacking those common human characteristics puts him in a category of his own, which could actually justify his actions because it had no effect on him. Even though I totally disagree with the actions of Bacon and his men, I will admit that his strategy in this attack of the Occaneechees was brilliant on a sinister level. Although all the attacks may not be in the same order in the sources, the sources don’t fail to sugarcoat his devious ways.
Bacon’s Rebellion didn’t really have a real resolution. The resolution was that once Nathaniel Bacon died, the rebellion fizzled out. There was no one that stepped up to replace him and keep the spirit of the rebellion alive. Bacon was one of the few extremely passionate and brave enough to lead the rebellion that most during that time thought about, but never carried through. This illustrates the end of the rebellion was destined to happen soon because if people were still fully devoted to the rebellion, then it wouldn’t have ended just because the leader died, someone else would have replaced him and carried out his legacy. Once the rebellion ended, peace was somewhat restored back to the Chesapeake society. Of course there were still some outbreaks, but none as largely a scale as in the rebellion. Indirectly, these accounts could have contributed to the African slave trade largely coming to the southern colonies of North America. With all the Native Americans dying of foreign diseases and the attacks by the Virginians, the colonists needed a new group of people for purposes of agriculture. Hence, the Africans coming to America.
The topic of Bacon’s Rebellion highly relates to what happens today in American society. When I was in eighth grade I had a similar experience to the Native Americans, just without the mass murders. A couple of my friends and I experienced a teacher that seemed had no reason to treat us the way she did. She had been rude to us on numerous occasions so we weren’t very partial of her. One specific day, she made a comment that was directed towards us, using the words, “those light brights.” This really angered us because she used the term in a derogatory sense, which was confusing because she was African American as well. She would put us through hell and make us go the extra mile, doing more than most students. As human beings, we felt disrespected and returned the favor using the theory, if you respect me, I’ll respect you. There was never a real resolution. When we moved onto high school it ceased, only because we didn’t have to see her on a day-to-day basis. Even to this day when I see her, she still isn’t very fond of me. Having experienced that, when I hear of someone rebelling, the first question that comes to my head is what caused them to do those actions?
Bacon's Rebellion was the first of its kind and set the stage for many similar situations in the future. Race wasn't an important issue before the rebellion, but after, it caused tension between races, leading into what is now racism.
1 Pike, John E. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm 2000-2007.
2 Love to Know, Inc. http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great%20_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_I/nathaniel_dj.html 2002-2003.
3 National Register of Historic Places. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/jamesriver/gentry.htm
4 Avery, Steve.http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h521.html 2002-2005.
5 WGBH Educational Foundation. www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html 1998,1999.
6 Bacon, Nathaniel. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5800 1676.
Bacon never failed to publicize his views on the Indians. “ ‘[We must defend ourselves] against all Indians in generall, for that they were all Enemies.’ This was the unequivocal view of Nathaniel Bacon…”5 His approach to the situation is all wrong, causing the whole rebellion to be unorganized. If he would start by approaching the situation that way, then it should be expected and known that he was going to unjustly murder many Indians. He had already stereotyped all Indians to be immortal creatures, or as he would put it, “Enemies.” Nathaniel Bacon states himself, in the declaration he wrote in 1676, “For the prevention of civil mischief and ruin amongst ourselves while the barbarous enemy in all places did invade, murder, and spoil us, his Majesty’s most faithful subjects.”6 It is a common trait of his to undermine what caused the Indians to begin these attacks, but focus on the attacks themselves and not give any information about the role he played in the Indians rebellions. This leads one to believe that Bacon constantly embellished the truth. If this is the case, then he can’t be accredited for conveying the truth. Bacon’s murders show no sympathy or connection to the Indians, which can demonstrate how he seen them as inferior or immortal because he can kill them with it having no effect on him, regardless of whether they were friendly or not. It seems he didn’t make the attacks personal. He just knew that he was going to retaliate against Indians, and that was all that mattered to him. The cause of the whole situation at Thomas Mathews’ plantation also confirms how natives were treated. The situation explains how the colonists didn’t see the Indians as equal because they would try to short end them or not give them the decent respect they would give to their fellow colonists. This shows they feel they are superior to the Indians.
The whole rebellion was based off retaliatory actions. The colonist were frustrated with many things during the time, and the coincidental raid by the Doeg Indians on the plantation of Thomas Mathews, gave colonists reason to vent their frustration.1 The dispute began in July 1675, over the unfortunate nonpayment of some of the tribe’s items obtained by Mathews, which resulted in the deaths of several Doegs.1 The Native Americans had a legitimate reason to raid Mathews’ plantation. He can’t expect to just obtain objects from them without paying for them in some sort of way. A group of men mistakenly charged the Susquehannocks with the outrages of the Doegs.1,2 This only enflamed the whole situation because the Susquehannock chiefs were killed during a flag of truce by the Maryland and Virginia militia, which only gave the Indians the right to retaliate by killing many planters in Virginia.3 The Indians have all the right to do what they did. If anything, the Virginians should have been understanding of the Indians actions. Not to forget that, “Berkeley had worked to establish peace with the tribes and successfully negotiated a settlement in which lands east of the Blue Ridge Mountains were reserved for the white settlers. However, during the 1640s and 1650s, the burgeoning population began to spill over into Indian lands west of the mountains.” 4 The Indians have every right to attack the colonists and all their attacks were justified with legitimate reasons. The colonists came over to their land, and were fortunate enough that the Indians didn’t run them out of their land when they first arrived. The Indians were very generous with letting the colonists occupy some of their land. But as with most cases, the colonists became greedy and tried to take advantage of the Indians by starting to cross the border into Indian territory. This was the Indians land, and of course they’re going to do whatever they can to defend and protect the little bit of land that wasn’t occupied by the colonists, it’s only realistic. That is a means of survival implanted within all of us. The Indians were already irritated because of the violations of the treaty, and to make the situation worse, colonists were retaliating on whatever tribe they could, not necessarily basing their retaliation on what that tribe did to them.
Bacon discovered the tribe of friendly Mannakins while in the wilderness.2 They were cordial towards each other until the third evening when one of Bacon’s men was killed by a shot from the side of the river the Mannakins were on. “Bacon stormed the fort, burnt it and the cabins, blew up their magazine of arms and gunpowder, and, with a loss of only three of his own party, put to death one hundred and fifty Indians.”2 This wasn’t smart on his behalf. He wasn’t sure if the Mannakins were responsible for the murder of his man. It could have easily been Berkeley and his men, but because he already had it set in his mind that mostly all Indians were “bad,” he assumed it was them and retaliated. It also wasn’t one of his better judgments because the Mannakins were one of the friendly tribes. By killing off one of the friendly tribes, his actions probably made other friendly tribes turn against him, making his task even harder. Bacon also, “at the head of a thousand men, marched against the Pamunkies, killing many and destroying their towns,” and, “surprising the Appomattox Indians,…burnt their town, killed a large number of the tribe, and dispersed the rest.” Bacon killed ruthlessly as if these people he were killing weren’t actually people, but animals. Out of all the accounts, his actions toward the Occaneechee Indians had the most effect on me. Bacon and his followers, “…marched to a fort held by a friendly tribe, the Occaneechees, and convinced them to capture warriors from an unfriendly tribe. The Occaneechees returned with captives. Bacon’s men killed the captives. They then turned to their ‘allies’ and opened fire.”5 This act of Bacon’s displays his passion to retaliate against all Indians. He really wasn’t in touch with his emotions or sympathetic to any other race other than his own. Bacon lacking those common human characteristics puts him in a category of his own, which could actually justify his actions because it had no effect on him. Even though I totally disagree with the actions of Bacon and his men, I will admit that his strategy in this attack of the Occaneechees was brilliant on a sinister level. Although all the attacks may not be in the same order in the sources, the sources don’t fail to sugarcoat his devious ways.
Bacon’s Rebellion didn’t really have a real resolution. The resolution was that once Nathaniel Bacon died, the rebellion fizzled out. There was no one that stepped up to replace him and keep the spirit of the rebellion alive. Bacon was one of the few extremely passionate and brave enough to lead the rebellion that most during that time thought about, but never carried through. This illustrates the end of the rebellion was destined to happen soon because if people were still fully devoted to the rebellion, then it wouldn’t have ended just because the leader died, someone else would have replaced him and carried out his legacy. Once the rebellion ended, peace was somewhat restored back to the Chesapeake society. Of course there were still some outbreaks, but none as largely a scale as in the rebellion. Indirectly, these accounts could have contributed to the African slave trade largely coming to the southern colonies of North America. With all the Native Americans dying of foreign diseases and the attacks by the Virginians, the colonists needed a new group of people for purposes of agriculture. Hence, the Africans coming to America.
The topic of Bacon’s Rebellion highly relates to what happens today in American society. When I was in eighth grade I had a similar experience to the Native Americans, just without the mass murders. A couple of my friends and I experienced a teacher that seemed had no reason to treat us the way she did. She had been rude to us on numerous occasions so we weren’t very partial of her. One specific day, she made a comment that was directed towards us, using the words, “those light brights.” This really angered us because she used the term in a derogatory sense, which was confusing because she was African American as well. She would put us through hell and make us go the extra mile, doing more than most students. As human beings, we felt disrespected and returned the favor using the theory, if you respect me, I’ll respect you. There was never a real resolution. When we moved onto high school it ceased, only because we didn’t have to see her on a day-to-day basis. Even to this day when I see her, she still isn’t very fond of me. Having experienced that, when I hear of someone rebelling, the first question that comes to my head is what caused them to do those actions?
Bacon's Rebellion was the first of its kind and set the stage for many similar situations in the future. Race wasn't an important issue before the rebellion, but after, it caused tension between races, leading into what is now racism.
1 Pike, John E. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm 2000-2007.
2 Love to Know, Inc. http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great%20_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_I/nathaniel_dj.html 2002-2003.
3 National Register of Historic Places. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/jamesriver/gentry.htm
4 Avery, Steve.http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h521.html 2002-2005.
5 WGBH Educational Foundation. www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html 1998,1999.
6 Bacon, Nathaniel. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5800 1676.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
ARGs
I think ARGs were created by people who had too much time on their hands. If everyone were always busy, they wouldn't have time to search for clues that seem never ending. However, it is a creative game because once one starts to play it becomes an addiction to figure it out or it'll just bother them until they do. My question about ARGs is what makes people create them.? I think you had us read this because we will soon be, if not already, part of an ARG. An ARG might impact me because it can be a form of educational learning, rather than the traditional learning of a classroom. With all the commotion that's going around, it seems an ARG has already came to life within this school. I know today a certain student received a message about a professor on the main campus. He found the professor on the staff directory and said something about the professor was moving to the east coast. A while ago I noticed the posters up around the school mentioning that a woman was missing and if we had any information about her whereabouts, to email the name given on the poster. Now thinking about it, I wonder if these two events are connected. I guess I can say that I don't have a life as well because I feel intrigued to further explore this possibility.
Arts of Democracy
I was an active participant in negotiation just last night. I decided last week that sometime this week I would workout. I was procrastinating, but realized I wouldn't be able to do it for the rest of the week because of my work schedule, so last night was the night. My mom told me to go straight home after school to clean the house and I obeyed her order. Around 6pm I called her and asked her if she'd like to go for a run when she came home. She said she'd think about it and talk to me about it when she got home. By the time she came home it was already dark and she was hesitant about going. She thought I was up to something at first because I was so persistent about going. She didn't want me to run around the neighborhood by myself and she really didn't want to take me to the park either. Finally, I convinced her to take me to the park. The first park we went to, she complained was too dark so she wouldn't be able to see me. I used reverse psychology by saying that we should go home, but she said if I had her driving around, I was going to run. We went to another park down the street and it was dark as well. But at this park, she said she would stand by the baseball field to watch me run. I was satisfied, more so than her, because I ran, and she because she could see nothing could happen to me.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Free Write on Community Service Day
I liked the community service we did on Friday. I wish we had more of them in the year rather than just one. It was a great opportunity for us to bond with our group members while having fun as well as giving back to the community. I enjoyed working with Lisa(group member). She's an interesting character! Lol. But we had fun working together. I think our playfulness while being productive made it a much more enjoyable experience (even though we did most of the work! Lol*Inside Joke*). She laughed at me when I almost fell but that was okay because I laughed harder when she almost fell a little later. She shouldn't have spoke so soon. But we did the manly work cutting down the blackberry bushes with those little 'ol nail clippers they gave us. They could have at least given us a chainsaw considering the size of the bushes. When we stood in them they went to mid-thigh. I would say I was very dedicated considering the sacrifices I made with the bush's thorns continuously poking me.
Summary of History Readings
Paragraph 1 "They Say": a summary of the three history author's ideas (this paragraph should show an understanding of Chapter 2, TS, IS)
In the first document, Anton Montecino complained about how the Spaniards had no right to unjustly do what they did to God's people. Greed, lust, pride, and envy are no justification to destroy innocent people over gold. In the second document he explains how St. Peter's was appointed by God to be in charge of all mankind. So therefore, all people must obey him. The Church is the ruler of the kingdom and all people must abide by its rules. If people abide by the rules, they will be given gratitude for conforming to them. But if they choose not to obey, they and their families will be damned and it will be seen as their fault because they chose not to. In the "Destruction of the Indies," Bartolome de Las Casas explains how the Americas were filled with patient and submissive people, unlike the Spaniards. When Spaniard first arrived, they only killed animals in the wild, but soon transformed to killing twelve million people over the course of forty years. The torturing was encouraged by the Lords.
Paragraph 2 "I Say": your response to the ideas put forth by the authors of the history readings
I agree with Anton Montecino on his position in his first document. I believe it is wrong how the Spaniards greed for gold drove them to act so unjustly on the native peoples. People should treat others the way they want to be treated. I doubt the Spaniards would appreciate it if people came over to Spain and tortured and enslaved them. The Spaniards were in the wrong for trying to conquer them in the peace of their own homes. I also somewhat agree with his position in his second document. I feel that people should obey who God appoints because he is the highest authority. If St. Peter is appointed, then the people are demanded to listen to him as well. I think it is going a little far when he says the people that choose not to obey will be damned and enslaved, along with their families. It is understandable that if people don't abide by the rules, they will be enslaved and damned. But I think it is going too far when their families will get the same punishment, when they had no say in the decision. I feel the people who chose not to agree should be punished individually. In "Destruction of the Americas," I feel that the innocent killings were unethical on behalf the Spaniards because it seems like they took pride in what they were doing.
In the first document, Anton Montecino complained about how the Spaniards had no right to unjustly do what they did to God's people. Greed, lust, pride, and envy are no justification to destroy innocent people over gold. In the second document he explains how St. Peter's was appointed by God to be in charge of all mankind. So therefore, all people must obey him. The Church is the ruler of the kingdom and all people must abide by its rules. If people abide by the rules, they will be given gratitude for conforming to them. But if they choose not to obey, they and their families will be damned and it will be seen as their fault because they chose not to. In the "Destruction of the Indies," Bartolome de Las Casas explains how the Americas were filled with patient and submissive people, unlike the Spaniards. When Spaniard first arrived, they only killed animals in the wild, but soon transformed to killing twelve million people over the course of forty years. The torturing was encouraged by the Lords.
Paragraph 2 "I Say": your response to the ideas put forth by the authors of the history readings
I agree with Anton Montecino on his position in his first document. I believe it is wrong how the Spaniards greed for gold drove them to act so unjustly on the native peoples. People should treat others the way they want to be treated. I doubt the Spaniards would appreciate it if people came over to Spain and tortured and enslaved them. The Spaniards were in the wrong for trying to conquer them in the peace of their own homes. I also somewhat agree with his position in his second document. I feel that people should obey who God appoints because he is the highest authority. If St. Peter is appointed, then the people are demanded to listen to him as well. I think it is going a little far when he says the people that choose not to obey will be damned and enslaved, along with their families. It is understandable that if people don't abide by the rules, they will be enslaved and damned. But I think it is going too far when their families will get the same punishment, when they had no say in the decision. I feel the people who chose not to agree should be punished individually. In "Destruction of the Americas," I feel that the innocent killings were unethical on behalf the Spaniards because it seems like they took pride in what they were doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)