"No More Peck 'o Corn" Questions

Q: What was Frederick Douglass theory for how to break a slave?

A: Douglass thought that to break a slave, "you must make a thoughtless one... He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery. The man who takes his earnings must be able to convince him that he has a perfect right to do so. It must not depend on mere force - the slave must know no higher law than his master's will. The whole relationship must not only demonstrate to his mind its necessity, but its absolute rightfulness." This basically means that to break a slave, you have to convince them that what is being done to them is right. They can't believe that anything going on around them isn't how it should be, nothing is wrong with the fact that they have their pay taken away, that they have no rights, etc.

Q: Why wasn't Frederick Douglass aloud to read?

A: Douglass wasn't aloud to read because Hugh Auld - like most slave-owners/white supremacists believed back then - believed that if he started reading books then he would begin forming his own thoughts about the world. As he put it, "Learning will spoil the best nigger in the world". If Douglass began to read, then he would see the problems with slavery and why it was wrong, he would likely rebel against the Auld's and refuse to live as a slave.

Q: Why were slaves viewed as child-like?

A: The blacks that were viewed as child-like were actually mainly those who were free in the North. However, they were not free from the same terrible racial discrimination that slaves received in the South. They were seen as "immature", "indolent", and "good-for-nothing" as it says in the reading. One thing whites used to justify this was the study of Dr. Samuel Morton. Morton concluded that the skulls of whites being larger than black showed the difference in intelligence between the two, even though the skulls were those of white criminals. Whites really used everything they could to justify their discrimination against blacks, even though there was never any factual scientific evidence to support their case, if there was one little thing that was different between the two, they used that as some justification to say that whites were better than blacks.

Assimilation or Resistance?

I believe that resistance would be the best option for the Indians/Native Americans. A political point for resistance has to do with their land, assimilation won't save it. The Cherokee are a prime example, they assimilated to a large measure, and eventually even crafted their own constitution based on that of the United States, unfortunately, they were forcefully dispossessed shortly after. A social reason for resistance is the culture of the tribes being retained, assimilating basically meant totally giving up all of the culture of you tribe that had been with them for hundreds of years. Losing the culture to these tribes is like losing their identity and who they are, seeing as culture was so important to Native Americans. An economical point for resistance also has to do with land, if you resist, then you can retain your land and at least attempt to guard it further. They would have likely had to deal with more assaults by the U.S. but with the land, they could have retained something that could give them an advantage in resisting, plus you can retain valuable resources to your people.

Assimilation on the other hand would be the worst option for the Indians/Native Americans. A political point for this is by assimilating, you are kind of succeeding to the U.S. and doing what they want you to do. Yes, you're surviving, but you are in a way playing their game, not making them play yours, and that puts them into a position to be able to take advantage of you. A social point for this is the exact opposite of the positive point for resistance, it's the loss of your culture. Assimilating meant giving up your culture, and one would think that that would be a gigantic thing to give up for these tribes, by assimilating, they were essentially giving up who they'd been as a tribe and individuals for hundreds of years. An economic point for this is that assimilating didn't really save your land, people like the Cherokee assimilated to a great extent, but sadly, were still dispossessed. It also meant having to adjust to the different ways of life, like farming instead of hunting and gathering.

My final thoughts on the reasons for why resistance would be a better option for Native Americans than assimilation is that these tribes were fighting a losing battle in the fight to keep their land, so assimilating to keep your tribe alive means giving up your culture and your way of life just so your tribe moves on, and you still lose your land. I would rather go down fighting and retaining who I am and who my tribe is than assimilate and lose everything that you once were as a tribe and a person.

3 history questions: Indians/Native Americans and the English

Question #1: Why were the natives and Irish treated like savages?

Answer: They were treated like savages because they lived in huts mainly and without such any metal or metallic substance, only wood. They also move around a lot and never stayed in one place. They had less of a problem with sexuality and sex than the English, in fact, they didn't really have any problem with it. The English thought that the Indian women were like skanks basically because of the way they were "prostituting" themselves to the English men. The Irish were similar with their lack of "civilized" homes and constant jobs within the community, they were also seen as being lazy. The Irish were also seen as savage because of the violence they showed by fighting back against the English when they were attempting to - and eventually did- colonize Ireland. Finally, the Indians were also treated like savages due to their lack of clothing, which appalled the English.

Question #2:  Why did the relationship between the English and the natives change over time?

Answer: At first, the relationship between the two peoples was not bad. They were fairly cautious of each other but none the less they traded and had a fairly stable relationship. But the differences between them were so great that their relationship grew worse and worse over time and the sides' aggression became more heated towards one another.

Question 3: The settlers were afraid of becoming Indians, how could this happen and how could it change the English?

Answer: They thought that if they become "lying wretches", lazy wretches, indulgent to their children, and there was no family government around them that they would become Indian. This could change them because they thought that being Indian was to be a devil-worshiper and someone who worshiped nature (what the English/Europeans thought of as representing evil, hence the devil). This would mean that they would lose their entire goal of trying to "civilize the land" and most likely lead to direct failure on what they were trying to do in America.