1. With your group you are going to talk about our large topic (Cultural Encounters and Frontiers) and how it can be tied to the two most recent readings we have done. What MESSAGE ABOUT cultural encounters and frontiers do these two selections communicate? Not just that they show cultures encountering one another, but detail out a specific message about the encounters that they show. Please use textual evidence in your argument.
Post your group's answer as a reply to this post and make sure all of your names are listed in the text of the reply.
Once your group has discussed the topic "Frontiers and Cultural Encounters" and tied these two authors to it (and written it with textual evidence as a reply to this post), work on your own to answer this question as a second reply to this post:
2. Do you think either of these (de las Casas’ and Equiano’s) accounts changed the audience? How? Why yes or no? If no, what could they have done to more affect their audience?
Aim for around a paragraph, making sure to answer all of the questions and connecting them to each author
Both stories show cultural encounters where whites show cruelty to Native Americans and Africans. In the Native American story that Bartlome De Las Casas wrote, it states, "And they committed other acts of force and violence and oppression which made the Indians realize that these men had not come from Heaven." The white men appeared great and heavenly at first, but thought of Themselves as superior to the Indians and treated them very poorly. Not only were the Indians abused by the whites, but Africans were as well around this time. In Equiano's autobiography, he wrote, "...one of them held me fast by the hands, and laid me across, I think, the windlass, and tied my feet, while others flogged me severely." The white men tried to calm Equiano down, but when he refused and wouldn't eat the eatables they offered, they beat him harshly. Both of these stories share the message that when a race or country think they are superior, they do their best to abuse the "inferior" race.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Brandon Trevor
DeleteSpencer, Teddy, Joseph
ReplyDeleteEarly Europeans exploring the world enslaved the people that were found there. The Europeans did this because they thought that they were superior to the other races. In the Relation, Bartolome De Las Casas said, This was the first land in the New World to be destroyed and depopulated by the Christians, and here they began their subjection of the women and children, taking them away from Indians use them and ill use them..." This quote shows that the Spaniards took over what is now known as Haiti and Dominican Republic and enslaved or used the people for themselves. The enslavement and mistreatment of native peoples is also seen in Olaudah Equiano's narrative. Olaudah Equiano says, "These filled me with astonishment, which was soon converted into terror, when I was carried on board." This quote supports the topic sentence by showing that the "aliens" of the land took the native people away from their families and everything that they knew to be enslaved and mistreated by the higher beings.
These two examples of cultural encounters and frontiers showed that when people were put in these situations, where they dealt with new things and people, one of the two groups (the whites) weren't quite sure how to approach the situation, and the best thing they could think of was to be in charge, so they could control the situation. One place where we see this white dominance in The InterestingOlaudah is where the white men force the slaves to eat. Olaudah wrote, "Two of the white men offered me eatables, and on my refusing to eat, one of them held me fast by the hands and laid me across, I think, the windlass and tied my feet, while the other flogged me severely." This shows how the white men made almost no attempt to communicate with Olaudah but instead used force to get what they wanted-which was their slaves to not die. We see this white dominance again in The Very Brief Relation of the Devastation of the Indies when Bartolomeau writes about the pearl divers. Bartolomeau writes, "If the pearl diver shows signs of wanting to rest, he is showered with blows, his hair is pulled, and he is thrown back into the water." This quote shows how the white men took control of the natives and used them for their own benefit. Jami, Belle, Sven.
ReplyDelete2. I do think these stories changed the audience. Obviously , Olaudah Equiano changed England's point of view because they went on to abolish slavery. He wrote very in depth and it was written in a narrative style, putting the reader directly into the story.
ReplyDeleteBoth stories share a message of when two cultures encounter each other, the dominant culture overrules the lesser of the two. In the story of de las Casas, the Spaniards take control over the Native American land as well as the people, using them as their own property. De las Casas describes the Native Americans in his story, “Then, like sheep, they are sorted out into flocks of ten or twenty persons...” The Native Americans are being compared to sheep, who are expected to obey their masters and are treated as animals would be. Spaniards serving as the role of masters reflects how they overpowered the Native Americans. In Equiano’s story, he expresses the brutal relationship between the Europeans and the African Americans, “held me fast by the hands, and laid me across...while the other flogged me severely.” The way Equiano describes his experience in this situation shows the African Americans’ helplessness to the Europeans. Their helplessness displays the power the Europeans obtained over them. Between the two experiences of cultures encountering, each author was at the expense of a dominant culture.
ReplyDeleteAlaina, Blake, Brittanie
Yes, I think Equiano's narrative was the one that changed the audience because it ended slavery in England but then it started slavery in America. He put it into a story and it showed all of the bad things they were doing
ReplyDeleteCultural Encounters and Frontiers can be tied to the stories we read in the terms that they both deal with encountering a new culture with negative impact. These two stories communicate that in most cultural encounters one group is always inferior, in this case, it ends in enslavement. When de Las Casas says, "... to escape these inhuman, ruthless, and ferocious acts, the Spanish captains, enemies of the human race, pursued them with the fierce dogs they kept which attacked the Indians, tearing them to pieces and devouring them." This shows how the Indians were treated by the Spanish and how they saw them as a part of their lives. They were mistreated by them, frightened, and abused them.
ReplyDelete"Is it not enough that we are torn from our country and friends to toil for your luxury and lust of gain?," Olaudah says. This quote directly relates to the subject of cultural encounters and frontiers through slavery, showing how they are taken from their native land and families to give the white men advantages.
I think both Equiano and De las Casas had an impact on their audience. The graphic word choice in both texts like "severe floggings" and "continual cold penetrates them, constricts the chest, and they die spitting blood" most likely showed the audience more details about the torture the Native Americans/Slaves were going through. This would most likely result in a change of their perspectives.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these stories portray cultural encounters as being one-sidedly violent followed by counteracting violence that leads to more deaths. In La Relacion, we see the Spanish Christians dehumanizing the American Natives, ruthlessly murdering them and using them as slaves, while in The Interesting Narrative we see Europeans terrorizing and separating African Americans as they take them from their home land and starve them as they cross the Atlantic. De las Casas addresses European Christians,"judge if (you) are accomplishing the divine concepts of love for our fellow man as laid down by the prophets". Equiano asks Christians,"O, ye nominal Christians! might not an African ask you...as you would men should do unto you?". European Christians are the main audience for both of these writers as they are the ones in control of what violent attrocities are occurring in both circumstances.
ReplyDeleteyes, I think they both changed the view the white men had on the treatment of slaves and the native Americans. both were very detailed and gruesome stories that showed the cruelty and violence of the white men on the slaves and natives. i believe violence and honesty made the public uncomfortable and helped put an end to the unfair treatment
ReplyDeleteYes, I think Equiano's narrative was the one that changed the people's opinions and thoughts on slavery. It showed the first hand mistreatments that were delivered to the slaves and the hardships and the thoughts that would be going on inside someone's head if they were enslaved. They ended slavery in England because his book helped account for this.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Equiano and De las Casas both had affected their audiences because it gave their mostly European audience a real and first hand account of how slaves were being treated. These works can influence the opinions of the audience and probably led to more Europeans of the era becoming opposed to slavery.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that even though De las Casas and Equiano both portrayed their views in the best way possible, I would assume that the people that they reached were very minimal, and most likely had no pull in politics. I believe that most people of this time period wouldn't even want to touch a book that was made by a slave, the white people that were in the slave trade wanted to keep a narrow mind, so they could keep a clear conscious, when they took innocent people from their homes. The works by De las Casas and Equiano may have been very persuasive, but they did not end slavery. The best purpose that their written works serve is as a point of reference and learning for the current generation, so no, I do not feel like either of these accounts gave any significant amount of people a sudden change of heart.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think both De Las Casas' and Equiano's account changed their audiences' thoughts and opinions on the subject. Many people at the time probably didn't realize how horrible the mistreatment of Indians and Africans was or chose to ignore the issue. By seeing real life accounts on these issues, people couldn't simply just ignore them. Many people at the time probably had no idea these horrors were going on, but after reading these accounts, they would know and have to form their own opinion. Many people probably realized how inhuman it was and tried to stop it. Others either didn't care or chose to ignore it.
ReplyDeleteI think both stories changed their readers by using details that are often skipped over in events that most readers already know about. By portraying the terrifying reality of events that happened in American, these authors forced the reader to reconsider everything they had already learned. Not only did the reader rethink these two events, but will also look deeper into the emotional side of events they learn of in the future. The authors changed the way the reader saw things and will see things in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think both stories changed their readers by using details that are often skipped over in events that most readers already know about. By portraying the terrifying reality of events that happened in American, these authors forced the reader to reconsider everything they had already learned. Not only did the reader rethink these two events, but will also look deeper into the emotional side of events they learn of in the future. The authors changed the way the reader saw things and will see things in the future.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both De Las Casas' and Equiano's accounts changed their audiences' views. They used descriptive word choices that were able to create vivid images of what the Native Americans and Slaves went through. Some examples include;"He is showered with blows", "The Christians attacked them with buffets and beatings", and "Hourly whipped for not eating." These descriptions help the audience better understand the horrors that these people had to experience during their lives.
ReplyDeleteI think that both stories made an impact on their audiences, years, and years, even generations after being published, but not initially when it was published. I don't think it's for lack of trying, but if they didn't see what they were doing was wrong first hand, I don't think they would bother reading anything written by a slave, or if they did, no one would really try to stop what was happening. It was only after time people learned how wrong this treatment was and started to try to empathize from their point of view and learn of what happened to the slaves during this time. I don't think they could really reach a bigger audience, or more people, they weren't respected, they weren't even considered people during this time. I think it took time for people to realize how cruel the whites were and begin to understand that historically we were inhumane and cruel.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the idea that there isn't slavery in the united states anymore is partial proof that it had helped change the audience opinion. On the other hand I didn't believe that Olaudah Equiano's story was the greatest because he didn't describe the experiences in depth. He said it smelled foul stenches and the beatings were harsh but it wasn't strong arguments for the most part. When he said that the man was beat so much he died i do believe that is an exception. The two stories could be argued either way but there is no official way to determine how much they helped because there was another factor helping abolish slavery.
ReplyDeletei think that both the stories changed the audiences point of view for the better. it changed it and showed the cruel treatment of natives.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both of the readings influenced their audience. Both authors expressed the brutality that the minority (Native and African Americans) faced during that time. The many descriptive scenarios that de las Casas and Equiano included in their stories allow their audience to realize the pain and suffering the slaves had to face.
ReplyDeleteI think that both readings did play a large part in recognizing that what the Spanish and British were doing to the Africans and Central Americans was wrong. After Equiano's book was written, the slave trade was abolished in England.
ReplyDeleteI think both of the readings showed the European audience dehumanizing the cultures and it shows the affects it had on the natives and slaves.
ReplyDelete2. Do you think either of these (de las Casas’ and Equiano’s) accounts changed the audience? How? Why yes or no? If no, what could they have done to more affect their audience?
ReplyDeleteI think that these readings probably changed a few readers' opinions completely, but for the most part I'm sure it didn't change the minds of those who relied heavily on slaves for work. I feel like it was kind of like when people nowadays watch videos about how hot dogs are made. They'll usually say, "Wow, that's disgusting," and not want to be a part of that, but then they think, "Oooh, but I love hot dogs." This was simply an analogy and I am in no way dismissing the seriousness of the horrors of slavery. That being said, I feel like there is not much that could have been done to change the opinions of people who owned slaves, the only persuasions i think could have been made were in the minds of those who sat idly by and watched slavery happen (but didn't actually own slaves) because they were probably rarely exposed to the terrible ways of slavery.
2. Do you think either of these (de las Casas’ and Equiano’s) accounts changed the audience? How? Why yes or no? If no, what could they have done to more affect their audience?
ReplyDeleteI think that these readings probably changed a few readers' opinions completely, but for the most part I'm sure it didn't change the minds of those who relied heavily on slaves for work. I feel like it was kind of like when people nowadays watch videos about how hot dogs are made. They'll usually say, "Wow, that's disgusting," and not want to be a part of that, but then they think, "Oooh, but I love hot dogs." This was simply an analogy and I am in no way dismissing the seriousness of the horrors of slavery. That being said, I feel like there is not much that could have been done to change the opinions of people who owned slaves, the only persuasions i think could have been made were in the minds of those who sat idly by and watched slavery happen (but didn't actually own slaves) because they were probably rarely exposed to the terrible ways of slavery.
I think both of the author's experiences in these two stories changed the audience by creating an image of reality in their head of what goes on when certain cultures encounter each other. When the harsh brutality of dominant cultures overtake a culture of less power such as in these accounts, the audience is informed of things that went on that they might've not known about. The audience may not have known about these cruel acts until after reading, therefore changing them.
ReplyDelete