|
|
Post by Jenai on Oct 18, 2015 2:36:54 GMT
Anyel states, "Howard Zinn is saying that the idea that all the colonists were united was a myth," and i completely agree with that statement. A quote from the book states, "I am forced to get my living by the labour of my hand; and the sweat of my brow, as most of you are and obliged to go thro' good report and evil report, for bitter bread, earned under the frowns of some who have no natural or divine right to be above me, and entirely owe their grandeur and honor to grinding the faces of the poor..." I take this quote as showing how all of the colonists being united was in fact a myth. This person says that there are people above him and with unity there is noone above you you are equal. Anyel also said, "The revolution itself was mostly an attempt to protect and grant high ranking colonist positions instead of an attempt to benefit the colony as a whole, after all if you were not a white male of high economic status you weren't even allowed to have a say in the issues being faced by the country," which is a very important statement. I agree completely. The revolutionary movement to me just divided the population the lowest of the economy was together and the highest of the economy. The lows didn't have a say whatsoever which is still kind of like today we all have the same rights but not really. I also agree with Breanna when she said that the British monarchs were like the elite because of the affects they had on the colonists.
|
|
|
|
Post by rdoughty on Oct 18, 2015 3:06:36 GMT
I do agree with what Zinn and many others have said about there not being a 'united people,'like what others have said the idea of there being a 'united people' was practically nonexistent because such a small group of people, rich, White males, had the only say in nearly everything. This can furthermore be taken into the point of view of the superior colonists having the same power as the British monarchs, only these groups had the power and thus leaving everyone, Indians, Blacks, women, out of the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rdoughty on Oct 18, 2015 3:14:14 GMT
People tend to listen and agree with people of wealth and political power because they think they are right due to their prosperous circumstances. I agree with what Emily said about people leaning towards other that have the power. And the fact is that it is so true because these people had no say or power to speak their mind so many would often follow the the ones in power due to their own lack of circumstances compared to those people of wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by Maryam Gibson on Oct 18, 2015 3:24:13 GMT
I agree with the statement Zinn said about the revolution being a myth. America and the people within were never united. There was always a group of people that were know as "the best" while the others were looked down upon. Race and class played a huge part in this. Some had no properties and could not vote. However, those who were upper class did not have to worry about a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sely217 on Oct 18, 2015 3:28:42 GMT
I agree with Zinn's statement that the myth of the Revolution was that it was on behalf of a united people. Zinn states, "Some Americans were clearly omitted from this circle of United interest drawn by the Declaration of Independence: Indians, black slaves, women (72)." America was not united. In fact, a conflict of poor against rich sparked riots. Poor men were oppressed by rich. Members of high ranking jobs consisted almost entirely of middle and upper classes of colonial society. The propertyless could not vote. This included blacks, women and Indians. "All men are created equal" was aimed at men with wealth and power. If you lacked either quality, you were not a part of the "united people." I do agree but disagree with Zinn's statement that the myth of the Revolution was on the behalf of a united people because as Emily states america was not united. It was the higher class and those in authority who had control over those who did not have wealth nor power. I believe that the united people did not adress people of different backgrounds as a whole but it addressed those people who were successful in their efforts to become united but they also had the means to see it through. Women, slaves, indians, the list of people who had no say in colonial times were the people who were apart of these states. I believe that Zinn means the united people are those who were in the higher class and who had their own interests in mind rather than the interests of others. Therefore, like Emily also stated those that lacked wealth, or the means to make it to that upper class were not considered the united people. I don't believe the white upper class men should be called united people because they are only uniting themselves which has been done already and can be done. United people should be of all background, race, and "class rank". It was easier for them I think, to start a revolution when they were all on the same page with what they wanted to do and what they can get from it. Why bring in the others they don't matter as much? That to me is a problem, that the united people had to be just white upper-class men with their own incentives in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by MaryamGibson on Oct 18, 2015 3:28:32 GMT
I agree with the statement Zinn said about the revolution being a myth. America and the people within were never united. There was always a group of people that were know as "the best" while the others were looked down upon. Race and class played a huge part in this. Some had no properties and could not vote. However, those who were upper class did not have to worry about a thing. I agree with the quote that Jenai stated and her comment on it. If you claim to be united with others that means that you are all one with each other and nobody should be treated any differently. |
|
|
|
Post by sely217 on Oct 18, 2015 3:32:37 GMT
I agree that the elite in the Colonies were the equivalent to the monarchy in England. When Zinn says the myth of the Revolution was that it was on behalf of a united people, as he implies throughout the chapters we've read, he gives reference to the obscured voices of poc's, women, etc. and them not having a significant representation in the outcomes of the Revolution, I think. However as Fizza said and I agree, unification was a byproduct of the Revolution, as these opressed people found some footing in fighting to have themselves be seen as relevant and whatever other causes they may have (had). Therefore it may not have "been on behalf" or started with unification but ultimately during and after the Revolution, there was a brief coming together in fighting England and thereafter. Some people are arguing that Zinn is correct because there isn't a TOTAL unification but unfortunately that just isn't very feasible. I agree with Mercedez pertaining to the unification as a byproduct of the Revolution because some people did follow suit in what was being fought for and the fight against England even if they weren't getting the proper representation. They saw an opportunity and decided to join the fight. However, some things cant pertain to everyone and that creates an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by summer on Oct 18, 2015 4:01:16 GMT
America hasn't and will never truly be united. So I agree with Zinn. There's always some battle that you have to fight that'll somehow lead to "equality". Rich vs poor. Race vs race. Women vs men. Etc. Back then, if you were a rich white man that followed the religious law, you were of most importance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenesis on Oct 18, 2015 4:11:14 GMT
I completey agree with Zinn. In a time of mass confusion and a fight for power and titles, the Founding Fathers created a foundation where they could easily manipulate the less knowledgable economically and in other divisions. Now this doesn't go to say that they were completely conniving, because who wouldn't want to get ahead, but it was tyranny none the less. If anything, the subtle act of monarchy that the Founding Fathers displayed is even more tyrannous than what any British men could have done because they crippled their own people due to differences in race, gender, and economic state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenesis on Oct 18, 2015 4:20:38 GMT
America hasn't and will never truly be united. So I agree with Zinn. There's always some battle that you have to fight that'll somehow lead to "equality". Rich vs poor. Race vs race. Women vs men. Etc. Back then, if you were a rich white man that followed the religious law, you were of most importance. I agree with Summer. Diversity always tends to disunify instead of bringing people together hence why America still has not overcome the terrors from slavery and women rights. We still see prejudice today just as it was back then when religious, white men dominated politics. |
|
|
|
Post by summer on Oct 18, 2015 4:24:43 GMT
People tend to listen and agree with people of wealth and political power because they think they are right due to their prosperous circumstances. I understand your point. Back then, that's what people did because that was the only option they had or so they were persuaded to believe. I don't think it applies to present day though. People always question the "people of wealth and political power", we've grown and learnt that we can talk back. We can post anything of social media and get it trending in seconds(starting a protest/movement). We've seen the videos of people questioning cops about the law and them knowing their rights. Also nowadays people can get wealthy by doing almost anything. That's when people stop caring for the wealthy and politically powerful. When anyone and everyone can become that. |
|
|
|
Post by fghddh on Oct 18, 2015 5:18:50 GMT
I agree with Zinn in the sense that "Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may." because it is pretty much saying tyranny will happen and it is still tyranny even if it comes from a lesser known source. I agree with it wholeheartedly because tyranny happens a lot but in forms a lot less harsh. For example, when you ask a parent why and they respond because I said so. That is a form of tyranny right there. Yes it is not as bad as a monarchy but it is still the same thing. I feel as if Zinn was under the impression that "the united people" were tricked or manipulated into believing a myth because they believed it was a revolution but not much changed. It was just better hidden from you and disguised as something else, something "united".
|
|
|
|
Post by fghddh on Oct 18, 2015 5:21:42 GMT
I agree with the statement Zinn said about the revolution being a myth. America and the people within were never united. There was always a group of people that were know as "the best" while the others were looked down upon. Race and class played a huge part in this. Some had no properties and could not vote. However, those who were upper class did not have to worry about a thing. I slightly disagree with you on the fact that they werent united. They were united just not with everybody else. They had their own cliques and congregations just like much of society now. |
|
|
|
Post by Swaheeli on Oct 18, 2015 5:32:40 GMT
I would have to disagree. People were definitely not united in the sense that a rich white man was completely different from a man with nothing to show for. I feel as if the poor were persuaded by the upperclass men purely because of the fact that they had no voice and eventually they just gave into all of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swaheeli on Oct 18, 2015 5:45:21 GMT
America hasn't and will never truly be united. So I agree with Zinn. There's always some battle that you have to fight that'll somehow lead to "equality". Rich vs poor. Race vs race. Women vs men. Etc. Back then, if you were a rich white man that followed the religious law, you were of most importance. I agree with Summer. Diversity always tends to disunify instead of bringing people together hence why America still has not overcome the terrors from slavery and women rights. We still see prejudice today just as it was back then when religious, white men dominated politics. This is a great point. I feel as if we will never reach a point where we can all just be united. Racial equality will always be hard to come across seeing how some people will always believe they're superior. People will never let go of slavery and will always bring up women rights. Even today, as Jen stated, we witness prejudice everywhere. |
|
