peck o' corn questions

    

3.       Why wasn’t Frederick Douglas aloud to read?
Fredrick Douglas was black. It's simply how the world felt that blacks should be able to add to society, and since they believed that they couldn't add, there was no need in teaching. More importantly, slaves were not aloud to read in fear that they would become smart enough to see freedom and demand it. Since Fredrick Douglas was a slave, even though he didn't work in the fields most of the time, he was not aloud to be taught to read. p.9

4.       Why were slaves viewed as child like.
Slave owners though of slaves as lazy, irresponsible, and juvenile, which are qualities of children, as to morally justify the enslavement of them. This idea helped the owners to believe that if they hadn't enslaved them, they would just die anyways because they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves. p.4
5.       What is the difference between how southern and northern blacks were treated? In southern society, blacks could be enslaved and be forced to work for no money. In northern society, they couldn't be forced to work for no money, although the odds of a black person finding a well paying job, or any job for the matter was slim to none.

Assimilation or resistance?

Although I believe that resistance is the more self-righteous and valiant action,  I'm sure that, with respect to the thoughts of the individual and not the community, assimilation is the right choice in the Cherokee's situation. For economical reasons and with assimilation, their economy can grow with the white's support of industry and trade. The assimilation also provides the natives with the understanding that whites have with currency. The natives did indeed lose many aspects of their culture, but with the whites advancements, they were able to learn how to read and write on their own language; consequently, their culture and history could flourish in way that it never could before. It also provided the Cherokee with the knowledge and means to create a democracy. Their leaders learned in white colleges which provided them with the resources to successfully communicate with the whites.

Now bring back the idea that we are looking at the individual cherokee's feelings, if they have natural instincts like the humans I know, love is precious. When you love something or someone, I understand "you are willing to fight for it", but the person you love, do you really want them to fight? Is a life the way you were raised worth sending yourself and your children to war? At a social standpoint, resistance will most likely create turmoil within the tribes, but also destroysa friendship that could have been harvested between the whites and natives. The leaders would become leaders because of their war experience and skill in fighting. With this mentality, how will native culture prosper anyways if it's directed to fight before create. And of course, the war would create destruction of tribes and families, lending no stability to a growing economy.

It is evident that assimilation is the logical thing to do. With passion in the hearts of the natives, I understand why some wanted to fight for their freedom. The whites were like an epidemic that would either kill you off or wound you as to never rehabilitate. The natives were morally sound for fighting, and if their spirituality rewarded morality or said that there was no after life, it was understandable that they would fight. But this is the community mentality. So here is exactly what I believe. If a leader was looking out for people, if a leader was looking out for love, or a leader was looking out for family, they would try to assimilate and look for peace. If a leader was looking out for the people and their way of life. including their heritage and future as a civilization, then they would resist.

The Tempest in the Wilderness questions

3. I think the question is supposed to be how do the English view the natives differently in Virginia than in New England. I'm going to answer this question even if what was actually written is correct.
~The English in Virginia came to Jamestown to die. Just before they were surely going to die, the natives brought them food and support. Also in Virginia, there is a lot of fertile land and an abundance of land for the English and Natives so they don't compete for the same spot. Because there isn't an immediate and dire need for competition, they get along fine and don't have skirmishes early on. The Virginians believe that the Natives can be reformed from there non-christian ways and should be taught and worked with.
In New England, the arriving settlers found cold shores and small amounts of really fertile land. The fertile land, that is fertile do to the natives' farming techniques, is occupied by the natives and can only slightly be used by the English. I believe that the English wanted to kill the natives off for their land. To morally justify this, the English probably decided that they are naturally evil and can't be reformed so they must kill them off. In doing so the English will gain their land! This just demonstrates how the New Englanders treat the Natives like savage, satan worshipers, and the Virginians treat them like savage, satan worshipers, who might learn to worship God.


8. What did the puritans fear from the Natives?
~The English feared many things about the Natives and about the new world. They feared them because they lived in the wilderness and in puritan society, the wilderness meant hell and the devil. They also feared them because, although it is obvious that the English won at some time because I am not of native decent, they could lose to them in a battle or full scale war.


17. The settlers were afraid of becoming Indians, how could  this happen and how could it change the English?
~The English believed that the Natives worshiped the devil. They feared that, if overcome by the natives, they would also be overcome by the devil. This would be a very scary thought in a puritan community's minds.