The European discovery of the New World is without a doubt one of the most influential occurrences in mankind’s history. The consequences of the Trans-Atlantic exchange so powerfully shook the world that the event is still presenting change after five centuries. As with any historical episode, myths, historical error, and the influence of time surround the affair giving rise to common misconceptions. Two books, Charles Mann’s 1491 and Matthew Restall’s Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest are both concerned with the legends of the Americas discovery and are dedicated to dispelling these myths; however, both differ in premise. At times these works reinforce each other but often are contradictory. Mann’s account is based not only on historical data but also scientific evidence. Mann seeks to prove that the societies of the New World were just as advanced as those of the Old World; Restall, on the other hand, wrestles with the myths of Spanish conquest and the issues that arise in the historiography of these conquests.
Restall is deeply concerned with the subjective nature of the historical narrative and early in his work the author challenges the reader with his thoughts on historical conclusions by asking, “Are our truths really convenient fictions?” Culture, language time, and agenda are all cause for misinterpretation according to Restall. The cruxes of Restalls work are his presentations of primary sources and distortions by secondary sources as well as the nature of some first hand accounts. Both 1491 and Seven Myths reinforce each other by presenting first-hand accounts of conquest encounters but both portray them differently. Mann, while seeking an accurate revision of history, and while applying his new “master narrative” to the conquest, reinforces much of what Restall is attempting to quiet, if not disprove outright. At times, these works assist in a deeper understanding of the subject, but at others, their goals are fundamentally different.
The first of the Seven Myths tackled by Restall is the hagiography of the explorers and conquistadors of the conquest; he focuses primarily on Cortés as an example. Mann discuses the principal conquest of Cortés, the Mexica Empire, as a result not of Spanish military superiority, but instead resulting from the impact of epidemic and Cortés alliance with Moctezuma’s rivals. This is in contrast to the familiar legend of the annihilation of the Mexica by several hundred men. Restall embraces these contributors to Cortés success but is apprehensive to accept these factors as basis for the elevation of Cortés to iconic status. Instead, Restall offers insight into how culture has created the conceptions. Self –promotion, notably through probanzas to patrons, the importance of central Mexico to Spain, divine justification and later, as in the case of historian William Prescott, nineteenth-century notions of imperial ideology that all add up to Cortés the “great man” (Restall, 14-8). Mann seems to project that the “truths” of the conquest result from the victors accounts of the conquest while Restall adds that, when the historiography of the conquest is examined historical anachronisms give “primacy of cause and explanation to a handful of exceptional men” (Restall, 26).
Having established the ordinary nature of conquistadors like Cortés, simply following pre-established routines of conquest (European and Indian), Restall continues to his second and third myths (Restall, 26). “The Myth of the Kings Soldiers” is refuted by Restall with the account of paje and criado Gaspar de Marquina, which is exemplary of the entrepreneurial nature of the conquest. Overall, patronage, opportunity, and competition with other Spaniards drove entrepreneurs to the New World, not soldiers (Restall, 42). “The Myth of the White Conqustador” follows with an array of characters including black conquistadors, such as Juan Garrido and Juan Valliente, as well as native groups, such as the Tlaxcalan faction within the Mexica Empire, as key players in the conquest. Mann does address native faction as critical in both the Aztec and Inka narratives (and most others in keeping with his overarching theme of disease and faction). However, Mann in his tragic tone fails to mention such groups as the Huejotzincans that are not decimated by Europeans domination. Instead the Huejotzincan assist Cortés loyally in further conquest not only that of their rivals, the Triple Alliance (Restall, 49). Mann and Restall would agree that the Spanish were “by no means the sole conquistadors” (Restall, 63). However, racial attitudes have for centuries acted as a pedestal on which to place these myths.
The fourth of the Seven Myths in among the most central to Restall’s thesis, “The Myth of Completion.” This is also, coincidentally, where Mann and Restalls myth-busting become strikingly different. Mann implies that Mesoamerica was a world that all but disappeared after Columbus, “swept away by disease and subjugation” (Mann, 27). Restall embarks upon this myth by specifying seven dimensions of the incompleteness of Spanish conquest. Misconceptions of both total and rapid conquest are countered by the independent Inca state that existed after the siege of Cuzco, an event that is formulaic of Spanish control and not an exception to any rule. Further dispelling the completeness of conquest, Restall points out that rebellion in the empire was common, as in the case of the Araucanians of Chile that resisted Spanish authority into the nineteenth century or Yaqi Myans of the Yucatan until the twentieth century, both being overshadowed by the idea of pax colonial, when in fact Spanish clout in the Americas was routinely challenged (Restall, 72-3). Many native groups lived in relative autonomy inside the Spanish colonial system and also maintained, even if not completely, much of their religion and culture. These misconceptions, Restall illustrates are the result of myths propagated by writings of Franciscans determined to convert the New World, the emergence of imperial ideology, as well as a brutal Spanish reputation, in reference to centuries of reconquista at home in Europe (Restall, 72-6). In contrast, Mann focuses more on the impact of disease and subjugation as opposed to the maintenance of native identity in the face of these forces.
Mann would support, however, that many of these societies were adamant for the perseverance of their culture. Mann emphasizes the intellectual traditions of natives particularly that of the Mexica. These accomplishments were cut short, according to Mann, not having the chance to develop as far as that of the Greeks or Chinese (Mann, 123). The Nahutal accounts of the diplomatic exchange and debate between Mexica priest and Spaniards shows the development of these traditions through centuries of societal rise and collapse by the Teotihuacán and Toltec. It is clear in this account that miscommunication and assumptions by both Spanish and Mexica led to a misunderstanding of each other. What Restall presents about “The Myth of (Mis)Communication” is that the Spanish had no greater understanding of “interhuman communication” than natives. Despite acquiring translators, such as Cortés famed Malinche, and a tradition of advanced literacy, the Conquistadors access to information does not lend credibility to notions of Spanish superiority. Both were foreigners to the other and Spanish-native interaction gave no upper hand to either party. Instead it created a “Double Mistaken Identity” between the two (Restall, 99).
Restalls sixth myth, “The Myth of Native Desolation,” stands in stark contrast to Mann’s work which exerts much effort to emphasize the impact of disease on native populations. Mann’s discourse on the blood types of Indians as well as evidence gathered from as far away from Mesoamerica as Siberia is all part of his claim that American civilizations and their populations were far larger than history has given credit and furthermore halted in development by conquest. While “correcting” this myth, Mann interprets the valuable and productive exchange of cultures that may have occurred in the trans-Atlantic experience as “vanishing [sic] when small-pox came” (Mann, 124). Restall would argue that the evaporation of native culture never occurred, as already made evident in his “Myth of Completeness.” Seventeenth century racial and imperial ideologies illustrate how Europeans “invented America” (Restall, 105). Restall offers art, such as Jan van der Straet’s depiction of naked, innocent, and cannibalistic Indians, as well to demonstrate the racial attitudes that lead Europeans to believe that natives were sub-human and believed that the Europeans were gods. The roots of this legend are found in error of interpretations of native language, Christian justification for campaigns, and the self-confidence of the conquistadors (Restall, 111-5). The vitality of native culture is given plenty of credibility by Restall and in fact “evolved more rapidly and radically in the colonial period” as a reaction to the acceleration of “technologies and demands” (Restall, 129).
The culmination of the Seven Myths is the overarching theme of Spanish superiority. Mann and Restall are both aware that weaponry and horses did play important roles in the conquest but can not be counted as an advantage for Europeans. “God given victories,” in the accounts of countless Spanish such as Gaspar Marquina apply notions of divine intervention to the “Myth of Superiority.” Restall offers anti-mythic examples in this chapter to help better understand the conquest in the face of what Juan de Sepúlveda and others feels is the right to govern “barbarians” (Restall, 131). Disease, native disunity, and weaponry (with emphasis on the sword) are the common anti-mythic ideas held by Mann and others such as Jared Diamond (author of bestselling Guns, Germs, and Steel). Restall also includes the differences in the cultures of war between Spanish and natives which are of importance to comprehending the military success of the conquest. Finally, Restall explains that the superiority complex must be understood in the larger context of the “Age of Expansion.” When examining thousands of years of history, the conquest must be understood as an uneven and unintended exchange that is still incomplete. What seems “uneven” to Indians in regards to the limited resources provided to natives by colonialism and the prevalence of disease in these exchanges in only a brief glimpse into the “gradual globalization of resources” that is still occurring (Restall 145).
Now in closing, what can be taken away from 1491 and Seven Myths? Mann has made his case that pre-European America was cut short in its development in 1492 by unraveling thousands of years of political and social progress. While Mann does not assign blame or specifically or seek to vilify Europeans for their conquest, the elements of his argument reinforce the notion of total conquest. The evidence presented by Mann does challenge notions of stagnant civilization in Mesoamerica prior to 1492 but it is this total conquest that Restall is attempting to falsify. Restall changes how the conquest should be examined in the larger context of world events. To Restall there is no evidence for the annihilation of native culture and in fact, native culture is still a critical piece of Latin American identity. Restall’s epilogue serves as a reminder that history is not perfect and prone to be influenced by our own beliefs. To Restall, objectivity is a goal that can never fully be attained. Restall challenges our study of the events surrounding 1492 as an episode, a piece of something larger that will never fully be finalized. Restall frees us from the historiography of the conquest by appreciating them in this more accurate context. No longer must we be hindered by belief in the uneven exchanges of 1492 nor be held back from objectivity by common presumptuous ideas such as, “God, Gold, and Glory.” The word conquest can only be described as inaccurate in the case of Latin America.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
American and Mexican Culture: the Inevitability of the Texas Revolution
Many scholars have debated the nature of the Texas Revolution and the events that led to the rebellion. Whether or not the conflict was inevitable is at the core of these debates. There are many dimensions of the revolution that must be examined in order to achieve an understanding of the political and social upheavals of the mid 1830s. Although many of these details reveal a Texas population that was loyal to Mexican federalism, even the radical war hawking minority or the so-called land hungry Texans could not have single handedly brought on the rebellion. Instead, it is Anglos attitudes in regards to federalism, racial tensions, and the rhetoric of “liberty” and “tyranny” left lingering in the personas of Anglo Texans that result in the revolutions inevitability.
Since the beginning of the 19th century Anglo filibusterism was prevalent throughout Texas and the Spanish West. The Gutierrez-McGee expedition of 1812, one notable example, resulted in the bloody battle of Medina and a drafted Declaration of Independence in Nachadoches. While attempts to establish independent Anglo settlements in Texas were thwarted by both Spanish and later Mexican governments, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and the Adams-Onis treaty, 1819-21, surrounded the state of Coahuila y Tejas with Anglo claims. The Coahuila y Tejas Immigration Law of 1824 allowed foreigners into the region but recognized and encouraged Spanish as the official language and catholic preference. The Mexican government did feel threatened by Anglo influence and the liberal immigration policy was intended to create a multinational region.
The cultures of Mexicans and Anglos were starkly different. The new federalist government of Mexico drafted a constitution surprisingly similar to their neighbor’s to the Northeast. Most American immigrants to Texas were willing to accept ideals of Mexican federalism that was not much different from that of the United States. Nevertheless, the economic Panic of 1819 had driven many Americans West as well as into Texas. With this expansion came American values that would later be critical influences to the revolution. Along with unique American ideas in regards to property, notably slavery, Anglos brought the American style of individuality and most importantly economic self interest and notions of economic betterment that deluded many Americans in the Jacksonian era. Overall, Anglos saw Mexicans as barbaric and backwards people and often even popish conspirators (De Leon, 100).
Thus, although grievances would later be voiced against Mexico by Anglo-Texians, it is the clash of cultures and loss of Mexican influence that created an air of inevitability for conflict. In 1829 the legislature of Coahuila y Tejas officially prohibited slavery in the region — a decision that did not set well with conceptions of property held by Anglos in Texas. To these settlers slavery was a critical economic resource as well as a nearly divine right to property in the minds of the Anglo immigrants in the region (who were mostly southerners). Tensions would be exacerbated further in 1830 with the passing of the April 6 law. This decree by the Mexican government is analogous to the Stamp Act of the American Revolution. This act encouraged Mexican immigration to Texas, created new tariffs, and forbid immigration by Americans. The abolition of slavery as well as the 1830 restrictions on immigration began to galvanize Anglos against this Mexican so-called “oppression.”
The April 6, 1830 law, the Mexican effort to exert its influence in Texas, in actuality only polarized the Anglo settlers against Mexican government. The restriction of immigration brought increased economic suffering to Texas by limiting capitalistic enterprise and paralyzing immigration (Haynes, 95: Document 8). With the American Revolution in the recent past for Americans, new voices began to rise in Texas proselytizing with rhetoric of tyranny and liberty. Among these voices were William H. Wharton and William Barrett Travis. These individuals were the John Adams and Patrick Henry, so to speak, of the Texas Revolution and both were involved in incidents that escalated tensions with the Mexican government. These radicals had been proponents of Texas independence for some time but were not taken particularly serious by most of the population.
The short lived Freedonian Republic of 1826-27 is indicative of both the Anglo drive for independence and the support of Anglos to the Mexican government. On one hand, Stephen F. Austin volunteered his militia to assist Mexico in quelling the rebellion. However, the leaders of the revolt sought to correct “lawless and repeated outrages” against the “sons of America” (Haynes, 90: Document 5). The radical acts of individuals would again stir controversy in 1832 with the Anahuac incident. Both Wharton and Travis were involved in a confrontation with the Mexican military instigated by the unwarranted arrest of Travis. Shots were fired and, although few in number, casualties taken on both sides. What is more important than the conflict, however, are the Turtle Bayou Resolutions adopted in the wake of the incident. The Turtle Bayou Resolutions voiced grievances with the laws of 1830 as well as those that directly led to the Anahuac disturbance. However, the resolution maintained submission to Mexican authority. Further resolutions by the conventions of 1832-33 resulted in the repeal of the 1830 laws, granted state-hood as well as military protection, established habeas corpus, and reduced tariffs. Resolutions of this kind were common in the Anglo political tradition but were a backhanded gesture in the eyes of the Mexican government. Thus, these political differences along race lines hindered positive relationships between Mexico and its settlers and further advanced the inevitability of conflict by the end of 1832. Despite these hindrances, in early 1834 Mexico repealed the April 6, 1830 law.
The loss of Mexican influence, intensified by political customs, and property issues (both land and slaves) are all important precursors to the revolutions. However, it is not until attempts at re-strengthening the central government by General, and by 1835 military dictator, Antonio López de Santa Anna that a political eruption occurs throughout the federation. Santa Anna’s Plan of Cuernavaca suspended the constitution of 1824, a constitution that federalist leaning Anglos happily supported as loyal Mexican citizens, and sparked various rebellions in several regions of Mexico. Thus, Texas is only one example of many rebellions. Nevertheless, the political environment of 1834 gave the radical positions of Travis and Wharton validity in the hearts of constitutionally minded Anglos and revolutionary support grew. This reigning in of the federation to a more centralized government was a threat to American liberty that Anglo-Mexicans felt they deserved.
Much like the British garrison in New York harbor in the early 1770s, the standing Mexican army in San Antonio became a tyrannical threat to liberty. As tensions increased and with militia forming across Texas, Mexico sent in forces. In Gonzalez the Mexican army sought to seize cannon from could be rebels. While this could have occurred without incident, the arrival of Wharton the evening prior stirred up a rebellious frenzy in a speech reminiscent of the American Revolution. When Mexicans and Anglos exchanged fire at Gonzalez battle lines were drawn and these divisions were formed along racial lines. The “haunting prospect” of rule by Anglos brought years of racial tensions to a head and this so-called tyranny, whether a delusion of the Anglos or a reality, ceased the efforts of both races to exist in a multicultural Texas (Deleon, 104).
The small but significant Battle of Gonzalez is the official beginning of the Texas Revolution and has earned the title “Lexington” of the Texas Revolution. The outcome of the Revolution is well known and in typical historical fashion is distorted by myth-making and legend. While many factors led to the revolution, the altogether dissimilar mentality of Anglos and Mexicans was both the origin and culmination of the drive towards Texas Independence. In the spirit of the era, Americans, that according to Tocqueville “carried constitutions in their pockets,” could not permanently co-exist in a Mexican society. Notions of Anglo-superiority, as well as the legacy of American individualism, were too strong to truly submit to the will of Mexico.
Since the beginning of the 19th century Anglo filibusterism was prevalent throughout Texas and the Spanish West. The Gutierrez-McGee expedition of 1812, one notable example, resulted in the bloody battle of Medina and a drafted Declaration of Independence in Nachadoches. While attempts to establish independent Anglo settlements in Texas were thwarted by both Spanish and later Mexican governments, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and the Adams-Onis treaty, 1819-21, surrounded the state of Coahuila y Tejas with Anglo claims. The Coahuila y Tejas Immigration Law of 1824 allowed foreigners into the region but recognized and encouraged Spanish as the official language and catholic preference. The Mexican government did feel threatened by Anglo influence and the liberal immigration policy was intended to create a multinational region.
The cultures of Mexicans and Anglos were starkly different. The new federalist government of Mexico drafted a constitution surprisingly similar to their neighbor’s to the Northeast. Most American immigrants to Texas were willing to accept ideals of Mexican federalism that was not much different from that of the United States. Nevertheless, the economic Panic of 1819 had driven many Americans West as well as into Texas. With this expansion came American values that would later be critical influences to the revolution. Along with unique American ideas in regards to property, notably slavery, Anglos brought the American style of individuality and most importantly economic self interest and notions of economic betterment that deluded many Americans in the Jacksonian era. Overall, Anglos saw Mexicans as barbaric and backwards people and often even popish conspirators (De Leon, 100).
Thus, although grievances would later be voiced against Mexico by Anglo-Texians, it is the clash of cultures and loss of Mexican influence that created an air of inevitability for conflict. In 1829 the legislature of Coahuila y Tejas officially prohibited slavery in the region — a decision that did not set well with conceptions of property held by Anglos in Texas. To these settlers slavery was a critical economic resource as well as a nearly divine right to property in the minds of the Anglo immigrants in the region (who were mostly southerners). Tensions would be exacerbated further in 1830 with the passing of the April 6 law. This decree by the Mexican government is analogous to the Stamp Act of the American Revolution. This act encouraged Mexican immigration to Texas, created new tariffs, and forbid immigration by Americans. The abolition of slavery as well as the 1830 restrictions on immigration began to galvanize Anglos against this Mexican so-called “oppression.”
The April 6, 1830 law, the Mexican effort to exert its influence in Texas, in actuality only polarized the Anglo settlers against Mexican government. The restriction of immigration brought increased economic suffering to Texas by limiting capitalistic enterprise and paralyzing immigration (Haynes, 95: Document 8). With the American Revolution in the recent past for Americans, new voices began to rise in Texas proselytizing with rhetoric of tyranny and liberty. Among these voices were William H. Wharton and William Barrett Travis. These individuals were the John Adams and Patrick Henry, so to speak, of the Texas Revolution and both were involved in incidents that escalated tensions with the Mexican government. These radicals had been proponents of Texas independence for some time but were not taken particularly serious by most of the population.
The short lived Freedonian Republic of 1826-27 is indicative of both the Anglo drive for independence and the support of Anglos to the Mexican government. On one hand, Stephen F. Austin volunteered his militia to assist Mexico in quelling the rebellion. However, the leaders of the revolt sought to correct “lawless and repeated outrages” against the “sons of America” (Haynes, 90: Document 5). The radical acts of individuals would again stir controversy in 1832 with the Anahuac incident. Both Wharton and Travis were involved in a confrontation with the Mexican military instigated by the unwarranted arrest of Travis. Shots were fired and, although few in number, casualties taken on both sides. What is more important than the conflict, however, are the Turtle Bayou Resolutions adopted in the wake of the incident. The Turtle Bayou Resolutions voiced grievances with the laws of 1830 as well as those that directly led to the Anahuac disturbance. However, the resolution maintained submission to Mexican authority. Further resolutions by the conventions of 1832-33 resulted in the repeal of the 1830 laws, granted state-hood as well as military protection, established habeas corpus, and reduced tariffs. Resolutions of this kind were common in the Anglo political tradition but were a backhanded gesture in the eyes of the Mexican government. Thus, these political differences along race lines hindered positive relationships between Mexico and its settlers and further advanced the inevitability of conflict by the end of 1832. Despite these hindrances, in early 1834 Mexico repealed the April 6, 1830 law.
The loss of Mexican influence, intensified by political customs, and property issues (both land and slaves) are all important precursors to the revolutions. However, it is not until attempts at re-strengthening the central government by General, and by 1835 military dictator, Antonio López de Santa Anna that a political eruption occurs throughout the federation. Santa Anna’s Plan of Cuernavaca suspended the constitution of 1824, a constitution that federalist leaning Anglos happily supported as loyal Mexican citizens, and sparked various rebellions in several regions of Mexico. Thus, Texas is only one example of many rebellions. Nevertheless, the political environment of 1834 gave the radical positions of Travis and Wharton validity in the hearts of constitutionally minded Anglos and revolutionary support grew. This reigning in of the federation to a more centralized government was a threat to American liberty that Anglo-Mexicans felt they deserved.
Much like the British garrison in New York harbor in the early 1770s, the standing Mexican army in San Antonio became a tyrannical threat to liberty. As tensions increased and with militia forming across Texas, Mexico sent in forces. In Gonzalez the Mexican army sought to seize cannon from could be rebels. While this could have occurred without incident, the arrival of Wharton the evening prior stirred up a rebellious frenzy in a speech reminiscent of the American Revolution. When Mexicans and Anglos exchanged fire at Gonzalez battle lines were drawn and these divisions were formed along racial lines. The “haunting prospect” of rule by Anglos brought years of racial tensions to a head and this so-called tyranny, whether a delusion of the Anglos or a reality, ceased the efforts of both races to exist in a multicultural Texas (Deleon, 104).
The small but significant Battle of Gonzalez is the official beginning of the Texas Revolution and has earned the title “Lexington” of the Texas Revolution. The outcome of the Revolution is well known and in typical historical fashion is distorted by myth-making and legend. While many factors led to the revolution, the altogether dissimilar mentality of Anglos and Mexicans was both the origin and culmination of the drive towards Texas Independence. In the spirit of the era, Americans, that according to Tocqueville “carried constitutions in their pockets,” could not permanently co-exist in a Mexican society. Notions of Anglo-superiority, as well as the legacy of American individualism, were too strong to truly submit to the will of Mexico.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Enhancement of History through Film: How Gangs of New York, The Alamo, and Dances with Wolves Enrich the Historical Perspective
Historical films have recently become the topic for much discourse and debate among historians in all topics and fields. Naturally, there are many aspects of the historical film that must be considered when analyzing their ability to recreate the past on the screen. On the surface it would seem that many factors would prevent accurate depictions of the past. However, historians such as Robert B. Toplin and Robert Rosenstone have pointed out that the fallibility, imprecision, or bias of film is not unlike the professional field of historical study. In order to resonate with modern audiences, film of this genre typically must attract viewers by employing narratives that include larger than life characters, conflicts clearly defined by cultural moral absolutes, and broad themes wrapped in sentiment to remain relevant to the viewer.
These historical pictures are staples of the
Hagiography, the elevation of past characters to mythic status, is not unique to film. Rosenstone notes that written history is not “itself something solid and unproblematic” (Rosenstone, 49). Myth and legend are intricate parts of pre-literate ideology but even in the 20th century figures are iconized as larger than life (Hitler or Gandhi, just for example). The earliest historical biopic films of the 1920s and 1930s sought to characterize individuals as heroic while
The acclaimed Dances with Wolves (1990) is easily the most romantic of these films. With its picturesque and rugged setting and backed by an exquisite musical score, Kevin Costner’s star/directed blockbuster uses fiction to reconstruct a glimpse into controversial period in American history. While the three hour epic never mentions topics such as manifest destiny or the infamous trail of tears, a portrait of Anglo western expansion and injustice towards natives is proudly presented. Of course, these concepts are crystal clear to Lieutenant John Dunbar (Costner) who has gone native, so to speak, and whose character is one of the only redeeming qualities of the white race in the film. This presentism, or applying present notions of morals to the past, is no doubt skewed to cast a villainous shadow on the Soldiers of the film while shining a bright beacon of innocence on the Lakota.
In the case of Dances with Wolves two key observations can be made about the narrative. The first is positive, the experience of natives in the historiography of the American frontier has until recently been very negative. Dances with Wolves contradicts the notion of blood thirsty savages (etc.) that have become all too popular in our culture and perhaps correctly illustrates the so-called “real story” of the American West. Thus, Dances with Wolves enriches the history of this topic and seeking to set the record straight, so to speak. On the other hand, the victimization of the Lakota in the film is critical to the conflict of the story. The vile and murderous troops that are hunting the Lakota tribe during the final scene leave the viewer with the impression that the stalking soldiers are immoral. For fairness sake, the ideologies and beliefs of both groups ought to be examined to fully understand the events of this era, both whites and Indians. However, without this moral absolute the dramatic effect and the sympathy gained by the protagonist are lost. It must be remembered that this is the purpose of film. Rosenstone on the importance of empathy in drama states, “the special capabilities of the medium… intensify the feelings of an audience” (Rosenstone, 59). Dances with Wolves is a good example of a historical film that fails to present history in a professional fashion although it almost attempts a proper revision of history.
Martin Scorsese’s Gangs of New York (2002) is easily is by far the most complicated film in this discussion. Scorsese’s elaborate set designs bring civil-war era
The moralities of the Gangs of New York are, in contrast to Dances with Wolves, strikingly complex. The war between the Natives and Immigrants both set the stage for the plot and finalizes the conflict. This war, within the riots, and furthermore against the backdrop of the civil war is a rare example of how a piece of filmic fiction can give insight into broad ideas about an era, in this case, the 1850s and 1860s, as well as develop a fictional epoch in which to insert dramatic action and engage audiences. There are no moral absolutes in this film, at least among the main characters. While any viewer could take a side, the parties involved are revealed to be both good and evil. The Irish Immigrants and Natives are both thieves, the heroic Vallon is filled with “murderous rage”, and the dastardly antagonist is left defenseless in the most emotional scene of the movie in which he admits to the young Amsterdam Vallon, who is plotting to kill him, that he is the son that he never had. Scorsese makes his film so real that audiences are transported to another time, albeit fictional, and allows the viewer to develop historical interpretations, also out of fiction, by avoiding inaccurate depictions of real-life individuals and obscuring any chance for presentism with the complexity of the characters.
Thus, in regards to fiction or accuracy, both are able to portray history in quasi-realistic terms. The objectivity that historical accuracy requires is difficult to achieve in film but when examined carefully even inaccuracies can still be effective to learning. The
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
François-Noël Babeuf
“Society must be made to operate in such a way that
it eradicates once and for all the desire of a man to become
richer, or wiser, or more powerful than others.”
it eradicates once and for all the desire of a man to become
richer, or wiser, or more powerful than others.”
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
black mountains
21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
theres a snake in my
Average Day
Crazy racist survivalist uncle sent this giant squash for seeds next year
Oak trees health on the up
I have a 6 ft snake somewhere
No wonder I ain't got rabbits anymore
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Manduca quinquemaculata
Hornworms, I have read, can be controlled with a mixture of flour and salt. The flour and salt mixture will expand the worm and make him "explode". This morning I found several dried worms on my tomatoes but also wilted leaves and caked salt on plants. I used 1:1 salt and flour but would recommend 3:1 flour to salt.
Spinach at 3 weeks from seed
2nd try at cantaloupe at 1 week from seed
Running behind on the pumpkins but 2 of these should provide many small baking pumpkins for fall.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
almost 90
ripening tomatoes
Sprouting beans and Spinach
Worms ate several limbs of zucchini but producing well
Progress
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Walking on Stoned
"That is well said," replied Candide, "but we must cultivate our garden."
3 bags of mushroom compost = $6
9 sq feet organic mulch = $8
40 spinach seeds = $.95
1 used tire = $0
4 7ft fence post to be split for veggie ladder = $3.50
i spool electric fence wire = $donated
1 box 1 in wood screws = $donated
rocks bricks and gravel from Craigslist or previously removed from garden space = $0
stepping stones found behind shed = $0
- Voltaire
3 bags of mushroom compost = $6
9 sq feet organic mulch = $8
40 spinach seeds = $.95
1 used tire = $0
4 7ft fence post to be split for veggie ladder = $3.50
i spool electric fence wire = $donated
1 box 1 in wood screws = $donated
rocks bricks and gravel from Craigslist or previously removed from garden space = $0
stepping stones found behind shed = $0
total spent today about $17
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
73
"He's singing songs to his sister Sinead, to his children and one that he wrote as an 11-year-old boy - a song that brings up the idea of singing into a beer and how someone's skin looks like that of a heifer. He sounds solemn and intent on finally reaching some of the answers that he's been seeking out for so many long years."
Blood will make you crazy, but your soul will keep you sane.com
Waiting for a response
To: wcsn@wardchurchill.net
From: jacobchaney523@gmail.com
Subject: Contact Form
Name: Joshua Chaney
Email: jacobchaney523@gmail.com
Subject: Message for Ward Churchill
Alternate Subject: navajos and the cold war
Message:
Mr. Churchill
Over the last year I have become increasingly interested in Indigenous Activism and Self Determination. I am a history major at the University of Texas in Arlington and my attention to this subject arose from a research paper last fall on The Trail of Broken Treaties and the Occupation of the BIA, 1972. This summer I am going to submit a paper to the Virginia Military Institute in a contest dealing with any military aspect of the Cold War. I am interested in nuclear testing, its effects on natives, and native miners small role in the eventual "American Victory" of the standoff as a direct result of nuclear superiority and furthermore, the exposure of Native Americans to radiation in the quest for said superiority. I have found some material on Navajo uranium miners and the RECA (1990) but am looking for more information on government/military exploitation (as i am sure there must be) of native groups as miners, subjects of radiation testing, and land rights pertaining to nuclear testing during the cold war era. I have found that research in these areas in difficult because we all know who write the history books and I could really use suggestions for reading and research. If you know of anything pertaining to this issue a response would be greatly appreciated. I understand you are busy, and will be seeking council from my own professors as well, but I really thought "what the fuck... ill just ask Ward Churchill."
Best
Joshua Chaney
TX
cgiemail 1.6
From: jacobchaney523@gmail.com
Subject: Contact Form
Name: Joshua Chaney
Email: jacobchaney523@gmail.com
Subject: Message for Ward Churchill
Alternate Subject: navajos and the cold war
Message:
Mr. Churchill
Over the last year I have become increasingly interested in Indigenous Activism and Self Determination. I am a history major at the University of Texas in Arlington and my attention to this subject arose from a research paper last fall on The Trail of Broken Treaties and the Occupation of the BIA, 1972. This summer I am going to submit a paper to the Virginia Military Institute in a contest dealing with any military aspect of the Cold War. I am interested in nuclear testing, its effects on natives, and native miners small role in the eventual "American Victory" of the standoff as a direct result of nuclear superiority and furthermore, the exposure of Native Americans to radiation in the quest for said superiority. I have found some material on Navajo uranium miners and the RECA (1990) but am looking for more information on government/military exploitation (as i am sure there must be) of native groups as miners, subjects of radiation testing, and land rights pertaining to nuclear testing during the cold war era. I have found that research in these areas in difficult because we all know who write the history books and I could really use suggestions for reading and research. If you know of anything pertaining to this issue a response would be greatly appreciated. I understand you are busy, and will be seeking council from my own professors as well, but I really thought "what the fuck... ill just ask Ward Churchill."
Best
Joshua Chaney
TX
cgiemail 1.6
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Faces of Nationalism
The term Nationalism was not coined until the late 19th century when it became one of the many advancing ideologies of the era. In the century before, the nation was beginning to be perfected in Europe, and these new nations gave the individuals inside of these nations a sense of identity that was tied to race, homeland, and sometimes even religion. Nationalism was made possible on a wide scale by many factors including industrialization and education but was catapulted by the events of the French Revolution. Nationalism also proved to have both positive and negative effects depending on its implication in a particular region.
Nationalism was made possible and attractive in different ways in different nations. At its roots, during the French Revolution, nationalism took an individualistic demeanor based on the basic rights of man.[1] The famous slogan of the revolution, “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”, is patriotic and nationalistic. This slogan represents the liberal approach to nationalism.[2] Liberalism and nationalism were both serious threats to the conservative governments of Europe. As liberal as the republic was, it eventually repressed so called “enemies of the state” to preserve the nation. This is why the French Revolution is often considered early liberalism, nationalism, and totalitarianism. It is important to note that these ideals were spread across Europe by the Napoleonic Empire.
A century later in England the Industrial Revolution ushered in a new era of Nationalism, a economic driven state. In Brittan constitutional values were valued and so was the individual. Laissez-Faire economics freed the state to focus on social reform required due to working and living conditions in the increasingly populous cities. [3] This reform created a new kind of state that cooperated and jockeyed for position with its citizens. This liberal relationship between state and citizen is representative of the most western nationalist sentiments, a kind of social contract between the two entities. In the 20th century liberalism became a strong opponent of Nationalism.
The legacy of empire, including that of France, was a significant force in igniting nationalism. The Napoleonic empire spread French ideals of the nation and revolution across the continent. Also Europe had witnessed a popular uprising that overthrew a powerful government, this was critical in inspiring the revolts that took place in the early 19th century. The Austrian-Hapsburg empire contained multiple ethnicities under the same rule, ethnicities that disagreed on many domestic interest. Nationalist uprising led by Giuseppe Mazzini in Italy led to revolts with the aim of forming a Italian nation bound together by Italian tradition. Resentment to Austrian rule over Italians eventually did lead to a unified Italy some years later. Peasants in other Austrian territories embraced nationalism along with liberal ideals of freedom. Identity derived from ethnicity closely coincided with freedom from domination. While these revolts in both Italy and Germany failed, nationalism and liberalism were strong allies in the uprisings, thus the popularity of socialist ideologies in central Europe. Italy and Germany’s path to unified nations in the 1870‘s eventually used war to build the state and muster national pride.
Many groups of people emerged from these revolts as new and prideful nations such as Belgium and Greece. Napoleons empire inspired national feelings out of resentment to their conquerors. This is the kind of nationalism that was inspired in Poland who was mercilessly divided between other nations and dominated by Russia. Adam Mickiewicz, the father of Polish nationalism writes:
I love a nation, and my wide embrace
Presses the past and future of the race.[4]
Mickiewicz is crying out to his fellow poles to recognize that, despite dominated by other more powerful nations, they are drawn together by a unique language, set of traditions, and the land they are tied to.
With Europe divided into sovereign nation-states, the 20th century saw nations with a sense of pride and common culture. Imperialism was birthed from this patriotism which led to total war between nations; WWI. The pride that war had granted Germans on the path to unification, unification that surged with nationalism, instigated a gruesome conflict. This is obviously one of the negative world-scale outcomes of nationalism. Nationalist sentiment across Europe instigated total mobilization towards the wars efforts.[5] Arthur Rimbaud’s poem Asleep in the Valley demonstrates the paradox between the brutish tactics and wages of war in the age of industry, nationalism, and so called progress:
Feet among the flags, he sleeps, smiling how
A sick child might; he takes a nap.
Gather him close, Nature, rock him, He’s cold…
In his right side, two red holes. [6]
At the turn of the Century, nationalism made one of its most dramatic marks on the world in Russia. Nationalism in Russia took shape in a collective manner. The Bolshevik party, which overthrew the provisional government that had been instituted by the abdication of Czar Nicholas II, embraced the communist theories perfected by Karl Marx. Marx preached that the history of all society is centered around class struggle.[7] In Mother Russia, private property was abolished and the communist sentiment permeated through society, even into the family. Russian writer Alexandra Kollontai wrote that the structure of the family has changed throughout the course of history and that the family is derived from the epoch of servitude and domination. The family was no longer necessary in Nationalist-Communist Russia.[8] This stresses how dramatic the nation became in post WWI Russia.
Nationalism in Russia embraced the communist-collective ideal while nationalist sentiment in the West tended to favor liberal nationalism. In the 20th century this difference would emerge as the Cold War between the East and West. Nationalism between the French Revolution and the October Revolution in Russia took on many faces, embraced different aspects and ideologies, and appealed to different groups of citizens in different ways.
[1] Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (France), 26 August 1789.
[2] Hunt, Lynn, et al., Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures, Vol. II: since 1500, 3rd ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009), 588.
[3] Hunt, 674.
[4] Mickiewicz, Adam. Forefathers Eve: Polish Romantic Drama. Cornell University Press, London. Pg. 103.
[5] Hunt ,800-806.
[6] Aurthur Rimbaud, Intro by Martin Sorrell. Collected Poems: Asleep in the Valley. Oxford (2001). Pg. 57-58
[7] Marx, Karl et al. The Communist Manifesto. London: Verso, 1998.
[8] Alexandra Kollontai. Selected writings of Alexandra Kollontai, Allison & Busby, 1977.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Virtual Revolutions
The world post-WWII looked radically different than the world before the war was waged. The era of European domination had been violently ended by Hitler’s devastation of
Morals and Ideology were both in a serious state of flux in the decades after the war. As fingers were pointed, a new kind of virtual revolution was brewing. French writer Amié Césaire expresses paradoxes of oppression in civilization. Césaire argues that civil abuses such as slavery or even mere taxation are the result of colonization and Western surrealism.[1] While colonialism was much more of an issue during the First World War, Césaire’s philosophy is still relevant to those once under European abuse and still under its influence; those nations and peoples that were crying for assistance. The Europeanization of “lesser” nations, in Césaire’s opinion, was no less of a struggle for equality than a civil-revolution of a race or the fight for women’s suffrage etcetera.[2]
Equality of powers was a new idea, and can be seen as a continuation of individual equality, that to this day has yet to be accomplished. Césaire raises questions about the fate of man-kind and its duality of nature. Césaire seems to suggest that oppressors and the oppressed are inevitable beings as a result of human nature. The forces that brought about European “progress” are the same natural obstructions to the real possibility and potential of progress that ought to be manifested in equality.[3] Society has been “thingified.” [4] Some things are simply just the way that they are and the capitalistic system needs these sometimes ugly things to thrive; and that the system of capitalism, that is now perhaps to big to fail, is an unstoppable machine.
The rational for the equality of man and its nations is sound enough for most but post-war thinking pushed questions of equality into an existential realm. Césaire’s problem with human nature is also seen in the works of another French writer Simone de Beauvoir. In The Second Sex Beauvoir makes comments on many aspects of society from gender roles to religion and makes the case that the advancement of society as well as the hindrances of equality are based on the primordial concept of “Others.” Beauvoir’s existential attitude attempts to explain the stratification of society is the result of the ego, and that this ego is what gives man-kind the ability to strive for progress and reaction.[5] Both of these writers remark on the progress of the 19th and 20th centuries and then turn to the hypocrisy of man in general, but more specifically to the unavoidable human disposition that defines man.
Both Beauvoir and Césaire argue that moral and just freedom must be based on equality. Furthermore, equality will require more than the courage of leaders as in the revolutions of previous generations.[6][7] It will take a conscious awareness of the duality of mans every action. To these authors this was a hope that’s audacity could only be spread intellectually since, although conceptualism of the past has fallen to scientific truth and revolutions have been commonplace since history immemorial, these revolutions have failed to produce anything more than new systems of repression. Instead new media and focus on human conditions could reshape thinking.[8] Beauvoir uses the proletariat experience as an example.
These behemoth systems of repression, so to speak, gained momentum both in the East and West after the war. The fate of these societies however, differed drastically. The clean-conscious of western thinking in regards to repression of thinking are biased. This can be seen in such examples as McCarthyism.[9] In the post-war Era attempts were made to control expression in defense of both Western democracy and communism in the East. However, it is not unfair or biased to note the brutishness and violence of the Russian political sphere that had sucked up satellite states as a barrier to the West.
In the more free-thinking west, civil-disobedience could gain significant ground unlike in the more oppressive
These writers were plagued by the inability to voice dissent especially in the Soviet-bloc. Revolts after the death of Stalin in
Ketman fills the follower with pride while participating in a system that one would normally not show support. Miłosz, in an almost satirical essay on Ketman, explains that the air of non-dissent was stifling to spontaneity and relaxation.[13] Ketman is a coping mechanism to appease the powerless. The machine that has been alluded to in this essay is the Soviet state. A revolution could not mobilize in these oppressive conditions. Contrary to the powerlessness just stated, Miłosz also suggest that Ketman changes an individual and that oppression, or rather intellectual repression, only fuels the flame that desires artistic and ethical freedom. Miłosz comments that repression in the form of Ketman is contrary to common sense.[14] In the day-to-day experience of Russian citizens and the states subjects in the bloc, this common-sense or intellectual pride must be swallowed. This self-deception can only be tolerated by the individual in a collective society where his silence is responsible for a greater-good. This is what was expected of inquiring minds during the Cold-War.
While conditions were less harsh East of the Iron Curtain post-Stalin, a free thinking socio-political voice was not exercisable due to non-violent repercussions. The system of self-repression that Czesław must participate in for survival was more lenient in the following two decades. Václav Havel, a Czech dissident, was able to find a voice by the late 1970s but explains that one could loose respect, work, or property for dissidence.
In the generation after the war existential philosophy articulated an exposé of society. Intellectuals of the period observed powerful systems of government that were based on the conflicts of human duality; finely tuned machines that used ideology through mass culture and media to maintain order and influence. One system, while flawed and often in tension with its citizens, tended to embrace mans natural desire to be free; while the other repressed the thinking of its individuals for the so called “new faith.” [18] In either case the system, so to speak, had permeated every facet of society and a radical revolution that could have been possible just a few decades before was now either unachievable or because of mass rhetoric irresponsible. Writers like Césaire, Beauvoir, Miłosz, and Havel were aware both of this tension and of the human conditioning that had made it possible. Furthermore, these minds drew upon mans instinctive nature as the cause for both freedom and oppression in the most modern society. Finally, these thinkers proclaim that in order for change, if it is even a possibility or even a responsible desire; there must be an existential revolution and a dismantling of ideology.
[1] Césaire, Aimé, and Robin Kelley. Discourse on Colonialism.
[2] Césaire, Pg. 46.
[3] Césaire, Pg. 54.
[4] Césaire, Pg. 42.
[5] Beauvoir, Simone, and H. Parshley. The Second Sex (1949).
[6] Beauvoir, Pg. 16.
[7] Beauvoir, Pg. 6.
[8] Hunt,
[9] Hunt, Pg. 890.
[10] Entry on Césaire found in: Lawall, Sarah, and Maynard Mack. The Norton Anthology of World Literature.
[11] Hunt, 906.
[12] Hunt, 896.
[13] Miłosz, Czesław. “Ketman.” From The Captive Mind, pp. 51-56. (1951-52). Pg. 56.
[14] Miłosz, 53.
[15] Havel, Václav. “The Power of the Powerless.” Essay from Open Letters, pp. 168-174. (1979). Pg. 169.
[16] Havel, Pg. 170.
[17] Havel, Pg. 173.
[18] Miłosz, 51.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)