Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:52 pm Post subject: Jan. 9th reading- "Natural Philosophy and Racial Idiom&
Hey all, just starting out the thread for tonight's reading. I haven't done the second one, but I have some thoughts on the first and will post again after I do the second.
There were some moments in this reading where I found myself confused about what exactly Chaplin was trying to say, but what I followed I really agreed with. She clearly pointed out to me the incredulousness of the idiom that the English applied to Indians about "declaring that the natives lacked physical ability to thrive in their own homeland..."(63) is pretty non-negotiable, and an excellent description of how crazy an accusation that is. On the last page, she says "...that the body was a site for the construction of identity; racial identity was a logical if unintended outgrowth if earlier understandings of corporeal differences among people." is striking to me because it makes bodies seem "natural" for they are not shaped by human control, and the racism/social ideologies that one body is inferior to another seems very human-constructed and not based in reality of nature, therefor identity is "constructed" to use her word, not contrived naturally. Now that I write this out it seems obvious...but the distinction feels important to me when considering the origins and effects of race in humanity.
Her definition of race..."signifies a fixed set of bodily traits, purportedly specific to national or ethnic groups and transmitted through procreation..." feels rooted in science and without social influences, which made me wonder what my/your definition of race might be, after reading tonight's reading.
I got a little upset while reading the second one, not because I don't agree with Chaplin, but it's just the fact that the Europeans immigrants were so ignorant and some of their thoughts were just plainly ridiculous. It's understandable that it would take a while to notice what you have done to the new environment, but it took them 2 (or 3) centuries to finally realize that a lot of epidemics "migrated" to America with them (p.7. Before that they just believed that the death of the Native Americans was caused by God because he chose to support the invaders (p.75). They also assumed that their body constitutions were different and that comparing to Europeans’ bodies, Native Americans’ were built much weaker and they went on guessing since they weren’t even adapt to the “native” diseases (which were actually carried by the Europeans from the Old World), they probably weren’t really native either, meaning that the Native Americans probably just got there a bit earlier than them Europeans and this was why they were swept away in the plague (p. 7. I agree with the point that Native Americans might be originally from some other countries and migrated there before the Europeans, but it’s just it almost feels like the Europeans were finding excuses to make their invasion sound better. This is what upsets me.
While doing this reading, I found myself getting angry at the Europeans because of the accusations they made about Native Americans and them being inferior and weaker than them. They were drawing conclusions on false evidence. When reading tonight’s reading, I remember something I said on one of the first days of the class. I talked about how people have natural tendencies. On page 248 of Natural Philosophy and Racial Idiom, one tendency this reading brought to my awareness is that humans naturally want to be superior and even when race was not a “thing” the English hold the mindset of them being superior. The last paragraph of p. 248 says, “Second, the contrast between English vigor and native mortality revealed the physical inferiority of the latter in the place of their nativity.” Going along with this point, on the top of page 2030, Chaplin says that the “English colonists began to assess bodies as superior and inferior even before the eightieth century.” Because of this mentality, the English used only what they observed to be true about Native Americans and their mortality rates based on the diseases they contracted to add to Europe’s ego.
I'm with Eli on this one - it was frustrating to keep reading about how Europeans felt superior as a group than Native Americans, especially in health. The author of the second reading went on and on (very repetitive) about how Europeans felt as though they were stronger and better at developing life in the "New World" than Native Americans, who seemed to fit the characteristic "innocent" that we discussed in class today. The second reading especially described the lack of power that Native Americans had in land development in addition to fighting disease. What bothered me the most was a quote on page 82. "Although English speculation about disease defined a racial idiom within the discourse of natural philosophy, it was not yet a fully developed form of racism." From both readings, I got the point that many Europeans stereotyped Native Americans as a whole. I felt as though the author made a complete contradiction at this point after making some strong arguments previously that showed the feeling of "high power" over the Natives among many Europeans.
"but it’s just it almost feels like the Europeans were finding excuses to make their invasion sound better" -Mingwei I definitely agree with you here, this is exactly what the Europeans were doing. It's frustrating to see that so many Europeans blindly agreed with the propaganda that not only made it seem like colonization was acceptable but that it had to insult an entire culture in the process, deeming their bodies inferior, and constructing Race around selfish and dehumanizing principles.
The first section of reading I think is much more controversial and fit for the discussion than is second reading, which while it is very interesting, is more factual type stuff that is not really open for debate.
With that being said, The quote by Bernard Romans at the beginning of the reading stood out to me, and I have to say that while I don’t agree with agree with him, I definitely see where he’s coming from. In my opinion, Native Americans and “Modern” Americans certainly deserve different titles, and not only that but they NEED different titles. “Native Americans” and “Americans” (which is the official demonym for people living in the United States) are far to similar, for even though both peoples hail from the same land, they do not share cultures, nor do they come from the same backgrounds. “Americans” should refer to those who came from America. Which is tricky because even though the country we live in today does not hold any original (Native) American values, we are still Americans by technicality.
The name: “The United States of America” is simply not fitting, as it implies that Americans have created a union of states, yes, but it does not specify which Americans. English colonists are just as much American as are the Native indigenous populations who migrated to North America via the Bering Strait. The only problem is that these two different divisions of Americans don’t have enough separation in title.
As part of Expos II, I had to study a form of cultural criticism and I chose postcolonial criticism. Postcolonial criticism studies and analyzes places that have generally been colonized and influenced by European culture and power. Often in these texts display misconceptions, myths and false images about a certain group of people. As said in the Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms, these myths often "justified Western exploitation and domination." I thought this had much pertinence to what we were reading and I thought you might like it.
Quite contrary to the harmonic whine that I portrayed before, this reading came as the most favorable one among what we’ve read so far (though it was somewhat confusing). It was interesting to see the beginning/rise of the racism, though Chaplin said “it was not yet a fully developed form of racism.” (82) In the beginning, the colonists were reluctant to be affected by American climate, trying to avoid American products including water. (I thought this is quite an overreaction, and even viewed as if the colonists didn’t want to adjust into America.) Soon they “found it a matter of necessity of to eat the local produce” (71) and flourished well in America’s nature. Although failed to find the reason (Natives’ lack of immunity blah, which was discovered later, I believe?), the colonists found their physical superiority over Native Americans’.
“Only during the early 1700s did colonists begin to admit that some diseases, such as smallpox, were foreign entities introduced to America.” (7 Until then, the Native Americans’ high suffrage rate of disease seemed the proof of their inability to fit into America; hence the colonists thought that colonists have the “right to be considered truly indigenous” (81), which is quite far-fetched opinion. Oh well, maybe they needed justification their invasion.
I was disturbed by the fact that Europeans felt superior to the Native Americans. However, I understood their reasoning behind their superiority. They lived in a time period where they didn't know why/ how Native Americans were dying and vice versa. The idea that two groups of people can be susceptible to the same conditions/ diseases and have one group die would naturally give someone the impression that they're "better off" than say the group of people who died. This scenario can be seen through Darwin's theory of evolution where he states that only the strongest and fittest will survive. I didn't appreciate that the Europeans didn't want to associate themselves with the Native Americans and the fact they made a point to distinguish themselves from the Natives in their writing.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:52 pm Post subject:
Since I have not been able to read the second part, yet, I will just address the interesting materials that I found in the first part.
I have to say, I really agree with both GyoungHeui and Naya on what they say. Like GyoungHeui, tonight’s reading is actually the most interesting one we’ve read so far because Chaplin discusses race in such a different way that I did not expect to see. Like what Naya said, Chaplin seems like discussing race in a definition that is more toward how body is constructed than social influence. Like a quote on page 62, Chaplin says that “English settlers’ interest in their own bodies and their use of native bodies as a physical contrast were significant.” I think this quote fully address what Chaplin is saying throughout the whole reading (even I have not finished yet, that is the big picture I see).
I also think Kandice’s connection between Darwin’s theory and how the colonists thought they were superior was interesting because Darwin’s theory is also based on physical contrast between one and another. Therefore, I think Kandice connection between Darwinism exactly fits in what Chaplin is trying to say.
This reading was a lot more difficult to go through than in readings past. I realized how underdeveloped science was at the time of European occupation in America. I found it interesting how most Europeans saw themselves as "a seasoned colonist as altered person, one who had endure local hazard in order to remain in the New World." Additionally, a quote that captivated me was how "Colonists saw epidemics as expected features of American nature, not as recent alterations, and blamed the Indians for their own mortality." This quote struck me for many reasons. How were colonist's seeing the American Nature? Were the Indians essential component of that nature, or were they the opposite? Additionally, do we have the capacity to see racism as being born out of environmental conditions?
The reading got me angry when I see how stupid European people were. They brought the disease and swept out huge population of the indigos Americans in few hundred of years without realizing, and "declaring that the natives lacked physical ability to thrive in their own homeland."(p.63) and used this as a evidence saying that whites are inferior than Indians. But I found it is a little bias to see everything in a modern perspective, after reading naya’s post, “it makes bodies seem "natural" for they are not shaped by human control.” In the old times people were not really able to explain things scientifically. And Europeans are influenced by Christianity, so it is not surprising to see that they relate unexplainable things to God. And passionately I believe that it is human nature to believe their own race is inferior than others.
Knowledge and Science are very important!!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. Before that they just believed that the death of the Native Americans was caused by God because he chose to support the invaders (p.75). They also assumed that their body constitutions were different and that comparing to Europeans’ bodies, Native Americans’ were built much weaker and they went on guessing since they weren’t even adapt to the “native” diseases (which were actually carried by the Europeans from the Old World), they probably weren’t really native either, meaning that the Native Americans probably just got there a bit earlier than them Europeans and this was why they were swept away in the plague (p. 7
