To the British, the Indians demonstrated a life of "savagery." Referred to as "exhibits," these Indian individuals supposedly lived a barbarous life of killing and cannibalism. This initial impression was false, showing that the invaders had not considered a life other than the one they had wanted, and nor was any other type of life acceptable.
"...not being content only to kill and take away life, but to torment men in the most bloody manner, killing some alive with the shells of fishes, cutting off the members and..."
The above statement was part of the viewpoint obtained of the initial settlers amongst the Indian lands. It also explains the lack of knowledge that the British truly had about the Indians, for these harsh thoughts were created, to support their initial intent of overtaking their lands. Such embellishing thoughts were, in my opinion, only created to rationalize their upcoming deeds.
The stereotyping continues, as the British overcome much of the land, and in time hope to have "peace" with this dementing group of people. Their typical idea of peace, though, was not far from their original intent. Even Jefferson works towards the colonization of the Indian people, making it dire that they live the new way of the land. But the end of todays reading shows a further intent, and that is to simply misplace the Indian people, and to rid them from the life of the newly settled.
All in all, the Indians were looked at as an inferior type of creature. They were different people, lived differently, and supported each other with different means. This "savage" way of life, hunting, "starving," and reliance of nature was undesired and un-accepted, and the Indian desires to not conform was a reason to classify this type of people as something "else."
This initial viewpoint of black, differently cultured individuals from the past time is certainly different today, as the US is a widely diversified and cultural place. But what we do see in popular culture is a still a difference from those of a different decent. Most commonly, we as people classify people as black or white, as if a person is one or the other, or as if there are people of no other culture or background. What could the reason we do this, be? Is it simply because of a color contrast amongst people, or is there an underlying reason that was brought up through generations that was commonly held in the times of invasion and settlement? Obviously, we as people hopefully do not stereotype others in this way, but has the initial concept risen through generations?
While the past discrepancies were supposedly based on differences of living culture, todays are more-so based on color. We often choose to see people as white or black, one or the another, and fail to advise that culture is not like that. Most of us are loaded with differing cultures, originations, and pasts, and we fail to recognize these differences because minor outer differences, color. This happened just the same, in the past. Rather than people being people, minor differences changed the way they were perceived.

It is interesting to consider that racial discrepancies are based mostly off of the color of skin, and not differences in living culture. However, I believe the two tend to walk hand-in-hand. While undoubtedly skin color is the most obvious characteristic of someone, in today’s society skin color is often translated straight into living culture. For example, if you were to take a random poll of people and asked who they thought made up the majority of the lower class in cities…who would they say? It is unfortunate, but public opinion would undoubtedly point to minorities.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree with you that there is too much emphasis placed on skin color. For some, it is to the point in some respects that a new acquaintance is instantly placed in some category based on the color of their skin. Similarities between two people are disregarded simply because one person has a different skin color than another, and therefore is just that, different.
Maybe to clarify my point.. I did not intend my original post to convey the message that I thought the racial discrepancies were based on color. I quote from my post :
ReplyDelete"They were different people, lived differently, and supported each other with different means. This "savage" way of life, hunting, "starving," and reliance of nature was undesired and un-accepted, and the Indian desires to not conform was a reason to classify this type of people as something "else." This initial viewpoint of black, differently cultured individuals..."
While skin color was certainly a difference, the culture was the main factor in the racial discrepancies. Then, perhaps they identified these culture differences with a skin color.
Today however, it seems to be the opposite. People judge eachother by their skin color quite often, sometimes with very little knowledge or care of their "culture." This is the key point I was attempting to make with my post.
I agree with your point about skin color, people seem to be less open to ones cultural background foucus more on classifying people as white or black. I feel that Culture is what runs ones life, and the skin color just happens to come with it. However, in today's society culture does not seem as important as skin color, which is kinda sad.
ReplyDeleteI agree that skin color is often to much the intial judge between people and people put little care of their culture. I also believe that once people start to know of ones culture that becomes more important to some people rather than skin color. If people met someone that said they consider cats as their gods would skin color come into fact as much or would it place a generalization as a whole on all people that "looked" the same?
ReplyDeleteI agree that skin color plays a big role in how people view other people. I think that people judge instantly on what people see on the outside instead of waiting to see how they are on the inside. I believe if everyone waited to judge them until they actually know them, then a lot of more people would get along. I wish people would stop being so judgemental just by everyone's look and learn to get to know people.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that skin color, rather unfortunately, plays a bigger role in our perception of other people. It's really disappointing to think that different levels of pigment in our skin can make such a huge social difference, but as history would have it, it does. I think your point in your last paragraph about classifying someone as being EITHER black or white is a very important one--to abuse a common saying, "it's not a just a black or white issue, it's all the shades of grey in between." Race isn't just a two-sided issue, it's a multi-faceted issue that's been neglected in our nation for far too long. Why is this? Why do we let this fall by the waist side? It is so unfortunate that our nation's history is rooted in many of these racial conflicts...Native Americans, slavery, and now illegal immigration.
ReplyDeleteI agree that skin color is the first thing people think about. When they see someones skin color they may tend to lead toward seeing that person as a typical stereotype of that persons race. Once you meet and talk to someone of a different race you will probably see that the stereotype was incorrect. So maybe had the British gave a honest attempt to get to know the native Americans instead on takings their land things would have turned out better.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. I love what you said about the British settlers' lack of knowledge of the Indians, and couldn't agree more. In fact, Takaki shows us the contradiction in this savage, murderous, cannibalistic (etc...) view of the Indians, as eventually they realized that the Natives really were not so barbarous, and many were actually gentle and kind. Once they came to understand the Natives a bit more, they seemed to have seen them more true nature. Interesting how that works...
ReplyDeleteI also definitely agree with you when you say that they created those false ideas in order to rationalize the way they treated the Native Americans. I think, though I haven't seen all of the blogs yet, that you are the first person to say exactly how I feel about the British view of the Indians as “savage.” You said: “All in all, the Indians were looked at as an inferior type of creature. They were different people, lived differently, and supported each other with different means.” “Savage,” according to the British (at least in this case), equals “different,” which equals “inferior.” I think this is what it all ultimately boils down to.
When you say, “ we as people classify people as black or white,” do you really mean ONLY black and white? Or do you just mean that we tend to classify people into categories? I absolutely agree with the idea that we tend to classify people into racial categories, but I cannot agree when you say that it is merely “black or white...as if there are people of no other culture or background.” Could you possibly clarify that for me? Perhaps it's just me, but I do think that our classifications are a bit more varied than that.
Due to the fact that it is one of the first things a person can see, it is one of the first thing a person comments on. The race of somebody is usually polarized in society; i.e. a person is either white or they are black. Take a swedish person for example, if my brother was dating a swedish girl the first thing would be a black man is dating a white girl. People doesn't say a Jamaican is dating a Swedish girl, and that occurs due to the fact that people would not know thier ethnicity without knowing them so since you can see people's colors without knowing them, a person concludes thier thoughts with what they can see.
ReplyDeleteAlso withing these racial groups there are more classification existing. Due to the fact that the lighter the skin is the more appealing the person is presumed to be, the black community started to categorize themselves with being light skin and dark skin. With these categories appeal is either gained or lost and by placing people in these categories i feel as if this community is trying to find a way in making themselves feel inferior but while doing so they are making members of their own ethnic group feel inferior.
Derrick's post is very strong and offers a nice analysis of the reading. I appreciate everyone's follow up comments as they moved the conversation along. All in all, this is what I want out of blogging activity: a good, thought-provoking post with back-and-forth in the comments. Well done.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion also nicely summarizes our first weeks' work. What began as cultural differences became racial differences. We read skin color and other physical features as "markers" that supposedly tell us something about peoples' souls and minds. While these markers are not real, we invest them with great meaning. Moreover, as Marilyn's comments stress, in the U.S., we emphasize racial binaries (white-black) and have difficulty with indeterminancy. We tend to lump people into one category or the other, even though most of us ascribe to a more fluid sense of identity.
Well done folks!
Sorry! This is David's post, not Derrick's. I got mixed up because they have the same initials and refered to it as Derrick's.
ReplyDelete