|
|
Post by hausmann on May 19, 2016 18:03:14 GMT
Jennifer said something interesting a few posts ago. OK, you ALL said interesting things, but she referred to a topic I was actually discussing with someone recently. You mentioned that we shouldn't expect historical accuracy out of a kid's movie. Fair enough, but why not? What would happen if we told history "as it happened" rather than in a sanitized fashion in children's media or in elementary school? How might things be different, and why don't we do this do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on May 19, 2016 18:07:50 GMT
Answer to question 1: In a time where we have potential presidential candidates talking about making "America great again", our readings for this week consider if America was every really great. BackStory considers the great academic term American exceptionalism, what have we done that make us exceptional? Does our hubris allow us to be closer to god, to judge other civilizations? Winthrop, a puritan, wrote a speech talking about a 'City Upon a Hill', but what does that speech mean, and how have we allowed it to change our views on our society. Starting from the very moment that American civilization started, there has been an air of self-importance that settlers felt. From Winthrop's misguided speech about a 'City Upon a hill' to JFK's speech about how great America is, we have been consistently told that we are god blessed, and we must be great because other countries are watching us. Our democracy, economy, manufacturers and entertainment made us better because we started these first. We were better then other countries because we were unique. We shouldn't have worked and yet we did. As Backstory stats the idea of execeptionalism grew because we defied socialism unlike our counterparts the Soviet Union. It was this hatred of the Soviet Union that grew the idea that America was better, they believed in god, money, and voting, the Soviet Union did not participate in any of those things. So although the idea that America is better first started in the 20th century, it still holds true today for we still believe we are better than anybody and everybody, if only for the fact that we are American and they are not. This idea can even be seen in Greene's reading. The north thinks they are better then the south because they didn't have slaves, and they were welcoming the modern way of life. So for all of our identity as being Americans we have been told that we are great, we are 'exceptional', that we are better then others simply because we are 'blessed' by god, and it is our divine right. The truth is that we are no more great then any other country. As we can see in the speeches that Donald Trump gives, thinking that we are better then anybody is a dangerous mindset, and leads to people treating others with less respect. America is not greater then any other country just because of our rough beginnings, which people do not think about. America is not execptional because god choose us to be, we hold no more power then any other country or any other people. America got its start because our early settlers through a hissy fit over England rules and proceed to run away from home. America was built through the fear of returning to England and the backs off of people who did not want to be here, and who were already here and being killed. Great use of Donald Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again." Following him on social media, I have noted his posts every Sunday about him and his wife Milania attending church, and mentioning how great of a Christian he is. He is notorious for demeaning people of the Muslim religion. Is it a notion that his belief in God is superior than their beliefs? But to your comment about how we must consider if America was ever great--it may not be so if we look back on it, but to our ancestors, it is what they believed. This closeness to God and dependency on Him made them feel as if they would prosper and be successful in the lives. We are meant to be a country founded on the idea of everyone being equal, which is why our Amendments and the Constitution were put in place. But our country faltered through the persecution of Native Americans, the epidemic of slavery, and even our citizens in the Civil War. The American Exceptionalism concept has clouded the minds of so many people and it's unfortunate our country has grown with that concept and how it is even being used as a slogan today. |
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on May 19, 2016 19:47:28 GMT
Response to Question 3:
Considering how large the Eastern seaboard is, it only made sense that different settlements ran into different environments. While several of these environments brought prosperity and a promising future to the settlers, other environments brought harsh conditions for the settlers to overcome. The New England settlements struggled to adapt to the environment than settlements in the south. A large part of this had to do with the fact that there was less stability in their agriculture and crops. Also some of the early settlers that came to New England and New York were already poor. Because the settlement struggled with sustaining crops it also did not help poor families and settlers generate money. This led to what Taylor refers to as a “vicious cycle” of poverty for new settlers.
As stated by Taylor many of the Native Americans used fertile riverine floodplains as a means of growing their agriculture. They reserved the extensive uplands for hunting and gathering. The Native Americans felt closer and more protective of their land than the settlers and respected the land more. However, once the settlers came along they pushed many of the Native Americans out of their settlements and land. These settlers came along and chopped down forests, lay waste to fields in order to grow crops and agriculture, and did not have the same respect for the land that the Native Americans had. Many of the settlers feared the land. This caused many of the Native Americans to become displaced with the land that they once knew and ultimately these Native Americans had to adjust to new environments because they were displaced.
What is very interesting about the settlers’ relationship with the land is that they feared something that they did not understand and yet needed. The settlers understood that they needed the land to survive, however, their initial fear of the land and religious beliefs caused them to misuse the land and damage their first attempts at conquering it. Instead of seeing the land as a blessing as the Native Americans did, they saw it as a threat. Rivers would come and wash away their supplies and even sometimes adults and children. Trees in the forests would collapse from high gusts and kill settlers. Extensive forest fires started by lightning or careless settlers would devour farms, crops, and settlements. While the settlers tried to understand the land that they were trying to dominate, they were unable to understand how it worked and therefore feared the land. However, the settlers were able to grow crops and agriculture in the fields. Soon the settlers began to dominate larger animals and use their pelts and meat to their advantage. Through this steady endurance later generations of settlers were able to enjoy the environment more than the first settlers had. This is because the early settlers had rid the land of the “wild” and the later settlers were there to enjoy its riches.
|
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on May 19, 2016 21:55:46 GMT
Question 1:
The earliest ideologies of this exceptionalism, City Upon the Hill stemed from the Protestantism of Puritan settling in New England. These people believed that God made a covenant with their people and chose them to lead other nations of the world. John Winthrop created the expression City Upon the Hill, experessing that New England should serve as a model community for the rest of the world. Eventhough this view was from a long time ago, the morals of the Protestant traditions carries out to today. Especially with the Puritans' Utopian ideals, where their new society should be a paradise on earth.
American exceptionalism has a unique place in history. The phrase City Upon the Hill is a phrase often associated with exceptionalism. The origin of the phrase intended as a warning to other colonists that we, the Americans have our eyes on them. This term was set out to describe America as since the very beginning, a very special and superior role in the world. To make the people feel that they have a sense of patriot, they would hype up the population saying that the Americans are special and that we "are the way". In the 20th century, we say that we are "special". Americans have a obsession with being special and that they were chosen by God, that we are better than other people from other cultures / countries. In the 20th century, Ford corporation became powerful and his car inventions spread throughout the globe - also, the Americans changed the entertainment industry, making it different and special to us. And then our involvement and victory in saving the world during the WWII war made us feel "exceptional". Our country was found on a set of values which derived from a collection of some of the best and brightest thinkers from the Age of the Enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacksharkey1234 on May 20, 2016 0:41:33 GMT
question 3:
European settlers along the east coast of North America were faced with various environmentally related challenges. The new continent meant that there were a number of new diseases that the settlers were susceptible to, in addition to infecting many native populations with diseases brought from Europe. The settlers also had to adapt to new crops, and acquire the proper techniques for successfully harvesting them, famously depicted by the first Thanksgiving at Plymouth Rock.
The colonization of Europeans in North America also drastically changed the environment, arguably for the worse. North America's vast forests and abundant populations of fish and game were felled, fished, and hunted to exhaustion. Most well known is the disappearance of the buffalo in the Great Plains. European-Americans hunted the buffalo to exhaustion because they only used select portions of the buffalo, whereas the Native American tribes made use of every possible part of the buffalo they killed in order to preserve the population. Alan Taylor writes that the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction because it was seen as a menace to the crops settlers planted, and bears were sought for their meat as well as hides for fur. The large forests were seen as a problem, as they inhibited agricultural growth, and housed species of predators that were dangerous to both livestock and the lives of settles themselves.
However, the American environment proved to be very useful for the settlers once they learned how to interact with it for their advantage. The forests provided ample wood for building purposes, and the streams and rivers were ideal for building mills to power the beginning stages of industrialization. The plentiful populations of wild animals meant that there was always a source for meat in the event that livestock were killed by disease. And most importantly, once the settlers acclimated to the land, agriculture boomed. All across the colonies, from the fertile soils of South-central Pennsylvania, the tobacco rich areas of Virginia and North Carolina, to the vast cotton fields of South Carolina, the soils of North America became the backbone of the colonial economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on May 20, 2016 1:19:58 GMT
Response to Question 1
According to the parallels spoken about in the podcast, “City Upon a Hill: A History of Exceptionalism” the idea of exceptionalism has shifted drastically throughout time. The experts within the podcast touch upon the ideal saying that American Exceptionalism is now viewed as our country being the leader and the one that other countries should strive to be like; being exceptional. In the past exceptionalism was viewed differently; in John Winthrop’s sermon, City upon a Hill, he described our great nation as a target, that colonists were now vulnerable to enemies and should be hesitant before wanting to truly commit. What was once hesitation transformed into elitism. We have considered ourselves the leaders of the free world for a long time because we are the leading nation in booming capitalism and democracy so therefore we believe everyone should be like us but not better than us. Certain actions and ideals in the seventeenth century began this exceptionalist shift in thought.
Superiority and greed are concept that can be seen in Greene’s reading that has been carried throughout time and even into modern society. White people believed that their lives were superior against blacks. They saw them as commodities, property that can be owned and siphoned for money and power. White people were better in their minds and therefore they were to control everything. Slaves were laborers within a mass industry in which their owners made profit. In the earlier times of settlement, the Virginia Company intended on having a “Spanish experience” in America by maximizing wealth and power. The country soon was based off of these ideals which is what John Winthrop saw as detrimental to the country because everyone was watching us. Exceptionalism is driven mainly by superiority and greed and we can still see the effects it has today. This country is seen as a superpower and guard dog of sorts and because of this, we believe it is our duty to make other countries better and more like us. This can either be interpreted as a positive or negative way depending on how you look at it; it was partially the reason behind trying to eliminate Communism, colonization with other nations, and helping out struggling countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisdigi on May 20, 2016 1:28:08 GMT
Question 2 Response:
It is pretty clear that throughout time, whenever people have tried to relocate into an unfamiliar land they are always met with some sort of resistance from the new environment that. There is always some kind of resistance by the land being treaded. This was no different with early settlers in America during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Depending on the type of terrain, different problems arise. In the case of the settlers on the eastern seaboard, it was the vast forest that brought the most hardship. Taylor describes the forest as tempting the settlers with vast resources but was full of predators and traps. The large amount of deer provided settlers with food, however the deer ate the settlers' crops. Parasites also killed crops which lead to famine. The forest again trapped the settlers into an inevitable doom if they should have happened to unknowingly ingest a poisonous plant. Taylor even goes on to state to some degree that man was victimized by his own infrastructure when he described how Henry Bostwick's head was crushed by a water mill.
In White's article, he describes the interactions between Native Americans and the European settlers. Although tensions heightened later the middle of the 18th century that eventually led to war, the settlers, at least in my opinion, didn't experience Native Americans as some sort of hardship that Taylor describes. If anyone experienced some kind of hardship it was the Natives. The influx of new commodities/goods caused the Natives to rely on the settlers. This put the settlers in a high position and enabled them to obtain more power, keeping the Native Americans scrambling to keep up with fast and constantly changing landscape until being pushed west by the settlers.
In terms of hardships endured by the settlers, I think that they accepted and pushed through the challenge because what they saw in the land - that is, what they saw that could be made of it, was too good of an opportunity to pass up. I think humans have been around long enough to realize that danger and hardship are everywhere, but when did that ever stop us? Pretty much never. As human beings we always strive to come out on top, whether that be against an environment, like the settlers in Taylor's writing, or against each other as in the conflicts between the different settling countries and Native Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by micathcart on May 20, 2016 2:16:25 GMT
Question 1
The BackStory podcast, Winthrop’s sermon, and Jack Greene’s Pursuit of Happiness all discuss some American social structures and ideologies from the British colonial period that still exist in American society today. Winthrop’s sermon, titled “City Upon a Hill” has become an American nationalist symbol similar to Betsy Ross. As the BackStory podcast explained, either Winthrop had never published the sermon or it was not worthy of note, as no mention of the sermon is made in primary documents of the time. However, contemporary politicians have used Winthrop’s speech to advance nationalist sentiment and the idea of “American Exceptionalism.” Winthrop’s sermon mostly contains phrases that advocate unity and to obey Christian law, as well as to not “worship other Gods of pleasures and profits.” However, there is one short line that has become a popular quote in American politics; “We shall be seen as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.”
This very frequently quoted (and arguably taken out of context) phrase has been used to represent the United States as being the example set for the rest of the world. When the Nazi’s were trying to conquer Europe, “the eyes of all the people [were] upon us.” When Communism attempted to take over the world, “the eyes of all the people [were] upon us.” The United States sets the precedents for the rest of the world. Since the Second World War The United States has been one of the most dominant roles in international diplomacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on May 20, 2016 3:07:41 GMT
Answer to question 1: In a time where we have potential presidential candidates talking about making "America great again", our readings for this week consider if America was every really great. BackStory considers the great academic term American exceptionalism, what have we done that make us exceptional? Does our hubris allow us to be closer to god, to judge other civilizations? Winthrop, a puritan, wrote a speech talking about a 'City Upon a Hill', but what does that speech mean, and how have we allowed it to change our views on our society. Starting from the very moment that American civilization started, there has been an air of self-importance that settlers felt. From Winthrop's misguided speech about a 'City Upon a hill' to JFK's speech about how great America is, we have been consistently told that we are god blessed, and we must be great because other countries are watching us. Our democracy, economy, manufacturers and entertainment made us better because we started these first. We were better then other countries because we were unique. We shouldn't have worked and yet we did. As Backstory stats the idea of execeptionalism grew because we defied socialism unlike our counterparts the Soviet Union. It was this hatred of the Soviet Union that grew the idea that America was better, they believed in god, money, and voting, the Soviet Union did not participate in any of those things. So although the idea that America is better first started in the 20th century, it still holds true today for we still believe we are better than anybody and everybody, if only for the fact that we are American and they are not. This idea can even be seen in Greene's reading. The north thinks they are better then the south because they didn't have slaves, and they were welcoming the modern way of life. So for all of our identity as being Americans we have been told that we are great, we are 'exceptional', that we are better then others simply because we are 'blessed' by god, and it is our divine right. The truth is that we are no more great then any other country. As we can see in the speeches that Donald Trump gives, thinking that we are better then anybody is a dangerous mindset, and leads to people treating others with less respect. America is not greater then any other country just because of our rough beginnings, which people do not think about. America is not execptional because god choose us to be, we hold no more power then any other country or any other people. America got its start because our early settlers through a hissy fit over England rules and proceed to run away from home. America was built through the fear of returning to England and the backs off of people who did not want to be here, and who were already here and being killed. Chelsea, I like how you made the connection with the presidential race and how all the candidates are focused on making America great again in their own ways but they do not really understand what makes a country "great" as the historians in the BackStory podcast would probably argue, they determine greatness based off of America's version of greatness. American exceptionalism has skewed our views on what is actually considered great because we have had this egocentric idea of the world, how it works, and who is in charge. I think a good place to start scaling back from this idea is to start asking ourselves, "Are we really that great?" and "What makes us so exceptional?" Gabrielle Rabadi |
|
|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on May 20, 2016 18:53:05 GMT
Jennifer said something interesting a few posts ago. OK, you ALL said interesting things, but she referred to a topic I was actually discussing with someone recently. You mentioned that we shouldn't expect historical accuracy out of a kid's movie. Fair enough, but why not? What would happen if we told history "as it happened" rather than in a sanitized fashion in children's media or in elementary school? How might things be different, and why don't we do this do you think? I think it stems from mainly two different issues: 1) we live in a society where we have to be so politically correct that we lose facts, and 2) we "dumb down" so many historical concepts in school, we don't have to talk about the gruesome facts and how everyone screwed up. With our society being so politically correct we have to watch what we even name football teams for fear of offending someone. And honestly by trying to not offend anyone we indirectly offend someone because you can't please everyone...that's just called life. Many people are put off by the fact that there is some fighting in children's movies between the good and the bad, without any gore, so it is understandable that if we told how the Native American and settler interactions actually were many people would be offended by the graphic nature of their many bad encounters. In the school system I think that many people either do not want to talk about the gruesome stories of the interactions or they feel that children do not have the capacity to understand and process this information. If we depicted in schools that the Native Americans slaughtered amounts of settlers and were being "savages", we also need to make a note and teach on the fact that the settlers also went out and massacred camps of Native Americans. But who wants to admit that they screwed up and didn't do the whole diplomacy thing right? Yeah, that's right, no one. If we decided to actually teach what happened through out history I feel there may be a smaller amount of prejudice in the classroom and then out into the world. Kids would actually know the history that they may have family in and it would not be so confusing when there are several different stories for the same event. |
|
|
|
Post by madison on May 20, 2016 20:30:41 GMT
Question 2: When any major step is taken, there will be challenges and conflicts. William White wrote about the conflict between the Native Americans and the European settlers along the eastern seaboard. Additionally the settlers faced challenges like attacks from animals and Native American tribes (who were also attacked by the settlers), no food, and salty or poisonous drinking water, according to Jack Greene. However, this is where diplomacy comes into play. The European settlers used it to their advantage by asking the Native Americans to come to their schools. This tactic was used to create solutions to problems and settle disputes between the two groups of people there. This was one way the European settlers tried to colonize the land. The settlers had many reasons and motivations to colonize the land. The most obvious of all that is they needed somewhere to live now that the Civil War is over. After the war, the settlers were independent for the first time, therefore they were starting from scratch For example, finding ways to make money was difficult. Some thought that agriculture was the right way to go, others sought out easier methods. I agree with the first statement that you made, "When any major step is taken, there will be challenges and conflicts." Every decision will result in some sort of challenge that may occur before or after, and a conflict may deter the decision. The Native Americans needed to find a way to overcome the challenges that they faced, which required some thinking, as does any decision. Once the Civil War ended the settlers needed to find a place that they could call home. This alone is a challenge because they needed to start from nothing to create their home. To creating farms to building shelters and raising livestock. As in todays world everything revolves around money. Most things are not free and that started back in the days as well, which created the need for settlers to make money. I agree that agriculture was a good way to go as it created food for the people and food to sell. |
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on May 20, 2016 21:48:32 GMT
Question 1:
The earliest ideologies of this exceptionalism, City Upon the Hill stemed from the Protestantism of Puritan settling in New England. These people believed that God made a covenant with their people and chose them to lead other nations of the world. John Winthrop created the expression City Upon the Hill, experessing that New England should serve as a model community for the rest of the world. Eventhough this view was from a long time ago, the morals of the Protestant traditions carries out to today. Especially with the Puritans' Utopian ideals, where their new society should be a paradise on earth.
American exceptionalism has a unique place in history. The phrase City Upon the Hill is a phrase often associated with exceptionalism. The origin of the phrase intended as a warning to other colonists that we, the Americans have our eyes on them. This term was set out to describe America as since the very beginning, a very special and superior role in the world. To make the people feel that they have a sense of patriot, they would hype up the population saying that the Americans are special and that we "are the way". In the 20th century, we say that we are "special". Americans have a obsession with being special and that they were chosen by God, that we are better than other people from other cultures / countries. In the 20th century, Ford corporation became powerful and his car inventions spread throughout the globe - also, the Americans changed the entertainment industry, making it different and special to us. And then our involvement and victory in saving the world during the WWII war made us feel "exceptional". Our country was found on a set of values which derived from a collection of some of the best and brightest thinkers from the Age of the Enlightenment.
Reply to Daotran,
I really agree with what you said here and your views on the American way of believing they are special and better than other people. You also associated the phrase city upon a hill with the exceptionalism and I thought that was a good connection as well. Americans sometimes do believe we are better than others and in history that has cost us dearly at times. Other feats have kept us feeling exceptional as you talked about and that is why some people in our country have not changed but a large amount also have and that is something to always remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on May 21, 2016 3:39:39 GMT
I think it stems from mainly two different issues: 1) we live in a society where we have to be so politically correct that we lose facts, and 2) we "dumb down" so many historical concepts in school, we don't have to talk about the gruesome facts and how everyone screwed up. With our society being so politically correct we have to watch what we even name football teams for fear of offending someone. And honestly by trying to not offend anyone we indirectly offend someone because you can't please everyone...that's just called life. Many people are put off by the fact that there is some fighting in children's movies between the good and the bad, without any gore, so it is understandable that if we told how the Native American and settler interactions actually were many people would be offended by the graphic nature of their many bad encounters. In the school system I think that many people either do not want to talk about the gruesome stories of the interactions or they feel that children do not have the capacity to understand and process this information. If we depicted in schools that the Native Americans slaughtered amounts of settlers and were being "savages", we also need to make a note and teach on the fact that the settlers also went out and massacred camps of Native Americans. But who wants to admit that they screwed up and didn't do the whole diplomacy thing right? Yeah, that's right, no one. If we decided to actually teach what happened through out history I feel there may be a smaller amount of prejudice in the classroom and then out into the world. Kids would actually know the history that they may have family in and it would not be so confusing when there are several different stories for the same event. I agree. We have become so politically correct to prevent hurting people's feelings but I have observed and analyzed that by being politically correct, we are actually offending people, just in an indirect way. For example, we are taught to say "African American", not "black people". But from what many people have told me, being called African American actually offends them more, because not all of them are from Africa! (technically, evolutionary wise, we are all from Africa - I'm only talking about couple generations of family roots here). And also, what is wrong with being black? White? Yellow? Purple? Whatever color? Who cares? Why did we decide that a certain color is not a good thing? So by being politically correct, not only do we not please everyone, but it can also give an impression that being a certain way is wrong. Also, we should not be afraid to teach children "gruesome" or "violent" history. I still remember being a kid very vividly. Being told the truth, how the world works never hurt me, it had ever only helped me grow as a person. Children are not as sensitive and weak as people think, if anything, I believe children are much smarter, innovative, intuitive, and insightful than adults! We should teach them real history, and then listen to what they have to say! Keeping children and people in a bubble, away from all negativeness, will only hurt them because we are keeping them from learning, from practicing how to play the true game of life. |
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 21, 2016 14:01:34 GMT
Response to Question 1 According to the parallels spoken about in the podcast, “City Upon a Hill: A History of Exceptionalism” the idea of exceptionalism has shifted drastically throughout time. The experts within the podcast touch upon the ideal saying that American Exceptionalism is now viewed as our country being the leader and the one that other countries should strive to be like; being exceptional. In the past exceptionalism was viewed differently; in John Winthrop’s sermon, City upon a Hill, he described our great nation as a target, that colonists were now vulnerable to enemies and should be hesitant before wanting to truly commit. What was once hesitation transformed into elitism. We have considered ourselves the leaders of the free world for a long time because we are the leading nation in booming capitalism and democracy so therefore we believe everyone should be like us but not better than us. Certain actions and ideals in the seventeenth century began this exceptionalist shift in thought. Superiority and greed are concept that can be seen in Greene’s reading that has been carried throughout time and even into modern society. White people believed that their lives were superior against blacks. They saw them as commodities, property that can be owned and siphoned for money and power. White people were better in their minds and therefore they were to control everything. Slaves were laborers within a mass industry in which their owners made profit. In the earlier times of settlement, the Virginia Company intended on having a “Spanish experience” in America by maximizing wealth and power. The country soon was based off of these ideals which is what John Winthrop saw as detrimental to the country because everyone was watching us. Exceptionalism is driven mainly by superiority and greed and we can still see the effects it has today. This country is seen as a superpower and guard dog of sorts and because of this, we believe it is our duty to make other countries better and more like us. This can either be interpreted as a positive or negative way depending on how you look at it; it was partially the reason behind trying to eliminate Communism, colonization with other nations, and helping out struggling countries. The idea that our country has a "duty to make other countries better" seems to be ever present. I like that you touched upon the positive/negative aspects of the idea. I agree that exceptionalism was in some way behind removing communism and a driver for colonization. What I find interesting is that manifest destiny, colonization, and the efforts to help other nations conflicts with the early formation of the nation and its hesitation of expanding and using colonization after seeing its negative effects from Great Britain. I think of the history of the Panama Canal and how the United States used questionable tactics of gaining the support of Panamanian revolutionaries to then have control of the area in Panama to dig the canal. That exceptionalistic idea was employed in some way to argue the taking over of the area to build the canal. It makes me wonder how america in the years after the revolution would feel about taking over panama to build a canal or extending to the pacific ocean. |
|
Response to jpetonak2's post:
Guest
|
Post by Response to jpetonak2's post: on May 21, 2016 15:35:54 GMT
Response to jpetonak2's post:
I really enjoyed the way you introduced diplomacy into your response because you essentially took the question to the next level. By doing so, you initially acknowledged that such a characteristic in the society was deficient, answering the main proposed inquiry by our professor. You then moved on to explain that when applied correctly, diplomacy “can be a beautiful thing that prevents conflicts and bloodshed.” Meaning, though establishing diplomacy was a challenge between the Native American and European settlers, you referred to as a potential solution mentioned by William White. I thought this was very constructive. Nonetheless, I agree with you in the sense that controlling disputes and tensions was difficult. Not only were political nuances of the essence, but people simply also needed to survive.
|
|
