Description
In your response post to another student (min: 200 words), please compare/contrast what you have written with what the other student has written by answering this question: "How are the regions similar and how are the regions different?"
- my essay
Samuel Adams would have defined freedom as natural rights where American colonists are entitled to all the essential, inherent liberties, inseparable rights, and subject privileges born in Great Britain. Adams, through the son of the liberty movement, opposed the new taxes that were enacted by Thomas Hutchinson as that was the greatest oppression for the people of American. Adams wanted people to have freedom of worshipping and respect to human life was paramount during his time as he witnessed the American second revolutionary.
Further, on day to day basis, freedom to Adam meant allowing people to live equally, and for fair distribution of resources in the country. For Adam, freedom did not imply the oppression the colonial masters subjected to the colonist; instead, it was through representation into their political leadership to allow them to participate in the decision-making process (Chapter 3 p.63). However, Adams faced civil institutions challenge that hindered him from the concept of freedom as they were the ones used in defining the nation’s religious culture and forms an understanding of how people ought to behave. Cultural planning faced an epistemic challenge because behavior and institutions from colonial gave people freedom of worshipping, and they feared that any they which was right was a sin leading to punishment from God. Most parts of the country, especially North America, did not define freedom as political. Instead, they considered it a social status where undermining their rights as equal to slavery to live.
On the other hand, Adams perceived taxation without representation as a threat to freedom. Adams tries to alleviate the new tax policy by organizing the sons of the liberty movement, which opposed the law ("Coming of the American Revolution: Stamp Act" par 3). Further, Adams created liberty for others, where he elected into a political position to represent people and fight against extreme taxes subjected to them. Samuel Adams never denied people their freedom, and he was at the forefront of ensuring everyone is treated equally and even enacted human rights acts.
Works Cited
"Coming of the American Revolution: Stamp Act". Masshist.Org, 2019, http://www.masshist.org/revolution/stamp.php#.
Chapter 3. "CHAPTER 3 Imperial Reforms, Colonial Protests, and the War That Created a Nation, 1750-1783". Pdf, vol 1, no. 1, 2019, pp. 50-79.
- During the French and Indian War, the Conestoga Indians were able to acquire land around the Pennsylvania area when they allied themselves with the British, after signing the Treaty of Easton (P. Scott, et. al,. Pg. 52). Other tribes have allied and supplied the French with guns and more forces, which made it more difficult for the war to end. Even after the war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris 1763, the British had to defend the Pennsylvania area from the other tribes that allied with the French (P. Scott). The Conestoga gave a friendly greeting to the British with gifts of food and clothing (Franklin, Benjamin. A Narrative of the Lake Massacre). To further establish a peaceful agreement with the British, the Conestoga entered a Treaty of Friendship with the first Proprietor, William Penn (Franklin). It would appear that the Conestoga have earned their freedom when they assisted the British during the war, and in return, they are given land to live on and interact with others.
William Penn would later assigned land for the Conestoga to live on, when settlers started to move in and to avoid any conflict (Franklin). This was an excellent choice because the Conestoga were non-violent and didn't want to start any more wars. Other tribes showed resistance to colonists based on the teachings of Delaware (Lenni Lenape) prophet Neolin and the leadership of Ottawa war chief Pontiac (P. Scott). Pontiac was against European culture and wanted to expel Europeans out of their land, which led to Pontiac's War (1763 - 1766). Even after Pontiac's War ended, race relationship between Indians and whites remained poisoned on the frontier (P. Scott). This was different with the Conestoga because they lived peacefully among their white neighbors and the Treaty of Friendship was never violated. In fact, their White Neighbors loved the Conestoga for their peaceful inoffensive behavior (Franklin).
The Conestoga society continued to grow, and every new governor and descendant of the first Proprietor was welcome to the Province (Franklin). It all changed when fifty-seven men from a Frontier Township came to eliminate the remaining Conestoga's tribe. The group of men possibly did this to reclaim whatever goods the tribe had and reclaimed the land (Franklin). The magistrates of Lancaster went out and gathered the remaining Conestoga's tribe members into town for better security against any further attacks (Franklin). The attack could be linked to the creation of the Proclamation Line, which is a borderline that runs along the Appalachian Mountains to prevent bloodshed and another costly war with Indians (P. Scott). Although the Conestoga were protected, however, the Frontier men heard where the remaining Conestoga were located and came to finish them off (Franklin). The Conestoga were given freedom for assisting the British during the French and Indian War, and given freedom to live on the land. But, now it was taken away from a neighboring town that didn't agree (Franklin).
Work Cited:
Benjamin Franklin, A Narrative of the Late Massacres, in Lancaster County, of a Number of Indians, Friends of this Province, By Persons Unknown. With some Observations on the same. (Philadelphia, 1764).http://explorepahistory.com/odocument.php?docId=1-4-26.Accessed 17 October 2019 .
P. Scott. et. al., U.S. History Chapter 3: Section 3.1 Openstax. Edited by John Mack.
- floating atleast 200 words
When we look at laws sometimes (mistakenly) we think that laws are objective and are created outside of a historical context. But this is not true -- laws are created by human beings in power and they frequently reflect the biases (known and/or unknown) and prejudices of the people making the laws.
Why? To answer this we must remember that the goal of most laws is COMMUNITY ORDER, not individual freedoms. And since people are blinded by their own ignorance, most often the laws seek to protect the community of which the lawmaker is a member from communities of which he is not a member. The Black Codes discussed in your textbook are a classic (and tragic) example. (See http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/black-codes/ for more information.)
As the textbook has made clear, in American history, most laws have been "made" by wealthy white men and thus protect white men of property. And since historically white men of property have seen minorities (including African Americans and non-compliant women) as threats to social order and personal prosperity, the laws they created are biased against African Americans, non-white immigrants, and women and prejudiced in favor of wealthy white men.
The historical consequence of this is that for most white Americans (particularly those that belong to the middle and upper classes) the law and law enforcement personnel are seen as being "on their side" WHEREAS for many/most African Americans and other minorities the law and law enforcement personnel as often seen as a threat to personal freedom. This is extremely significant in today's society. When most white people hear that a police officer has shot something, they assume that the police officer is in the right and the person must "have been doing something wrong." However, when most non-white people hear the same story, they assume that the police officer was acting inappropriately and their sympathies are with the person shot. NOTE that these assumptions are held BEFORE the story is heard or investigated. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/12/20/study-shows-deep-racial-division-when-it-comes-to-attitudes-about-cops-but-its-driven-by-experience/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.864d0f8343ba
Why do these basic differences exist? The answer is found in the history we have been studying this Unit.
This is a VERY important insight to understand if we are going to understand the flow of American history and the social problems that confront us today.
My floating post questions are as follows:
Do we see in the assigned chapters white Americans utilizing the legal (and political) system to deprive women, African Americans, Chinese immigrants, Native Americans, and others the freedom and opportunities they enjoy? How? Give specific examples.
If we properly answer these questions, we will see remarkable similarities between the political and legal maneuverings of whites to oppress both minorities and the poor. This observation then leads to additional important questions:
How is the interpretation of "violence" different between that used by the wealthy and powerful AND that used by the poor and oppressed? As we have seen in this Unit, the wealthy and powerful have frequently used violence to limit the opposition of minorities and the poor. (Examples include the KKK, the violence in Seattle against the Chinese, the massacres of Native peoples, etc.) How is this violence "interpreted" and judged by the media and general public? Then think about the violence adopted by the oppressed who (when pushed the edge) respond by fighting for their rights and freedom? How does their contemporary society interpret and judge this violence? (Hint: what are native peoples called when they respond in violence?) The differences that are apparent in this discussion point to fundamental issues in US history (that continue to influence us to this day). When does our society condone violence? When does it reject violence? What role does racial prejudice play in this distinction? Etc.