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, 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
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAustin Olson, Mark Riewestahl, Nick Klemann
ReplyDeleteBoth of these stories show a clash of two different cultures, where one group is cruel to the other and horribly mistreating them. In Equiano's story, he talked about how they were treated so poorly that there were many people that would rather jump off of the ship and commit suicide than become a slave and do slave labor. Bartolome wrote, "...Christians... began their subjection of the women and children, taking them away from the Indians to use them and ill-use them, eating the food they provided with their sweat and toil."
Kayla, Dakota, and Claire:
ReplyDeleteThe message that we got from both stories that relates to the theme of Cultural Encounters is that when two cultures come together, one seems to always be dominant to the other and uses their power in an inhuman way. Then the 'underdog' culture realizes these injustice acts and try to escape these actions or more importantly, try to rebel against the dominant culture. In de Las Casas's story, he says, "the Indians gave them their own free will.." and proceeds to say, "which was always too little to satisfy enormous appetites, for a Christian eats and consumes in one day an amount of food that would suffice to feed three houses inhabited by ten Indians for one month." This shows that the Spaniards were very controlling
, they began to get greedy, and they started to abuse their powers. It also shows that the morals of the dominant culture are not right and they need to be changed.
DeleteHallie, Genna, Nick
ReplyDeleteThe last two readings fit into Cultural Encounters and Frontiers because in both stories, the author is writing about the poor treatment of the native people by settlers in new frontiers. In Relation, the author says that it was "heartbreaking to see the naked Indians" and continues to talk about the other heartbreaking situations he saw. In Equiano's narrative, he speaks of his desire to escape captivity. The stories show that the authors had a negative view on the cultural encounters and the events resulting from the encounters. They also show the desire for a change in the way the cultures treated each other.
I believe Las Casa's story did. He used specific words and phrases to show the suffering of the Natives in gruesome detail. During the reading, he referenced to the Spaniards as "..enemies of the human race..." showing that all they care about is themselves rather than other races and their rights. He shows how they claimed to be Christians but didn't give the other people their beliefs of faith. They didn't do anything but strip their rights and I believe that the words, descriptions would have changed the mind of his audience to be against what they were doing.
ReplyDeleteEquiano's testament I believe did not change the mind of his audience. I believe that it was not descriptive enough, his word choice wasn't as strong as I thought it could have been when describing who the merchants were and what things happened to him. His word choices didn't create a picture in my mind as much as it probably could have. I think the only thing he needed to do was improve his word choice.
One of the cultures that is in the encounters is always seen as superior while the other is inferior. While the encounters are horrific, the "inferior" culture is abused and not treated fairly. (Las Casas) "...a tyrant gets an old person or an invalid, he says, 'Why do you give me this one? To bury him?'" This quote shows how the Spaniards saw and treated the Native slaves because they saw their culture and race as better than the natives. (Equianos) "...rather than give any of them to us to eat...tossed remaining fish into the sea again..." This quote show the merchant on the ship believing that the slaves are not even worth the leftovers of their meal. Rather than giving maybe the most disgusting parts, they are still not worth it. So, they throw the fish overboard.
ReplyDeleteIt related to the Cultural Encounters/ Frontiers because of the poor encounters that the Indians had with the other races, because of how poorly they were treated. The beatings, the starving, the hurting was all because of the Spaniards were looking for new places to settle. They explored and claimed this new land (frontier) even though they were not the first people there. Which then in turn completes the cultural encounters.
Jordyn, Paul, and Jared
Kajsa, Avery, Maddie
ReplyDeleteBoth cultural encounters in the two readings were brutal. The message that is shown is that encounters can result negatively. Slaves and Native Americans were treated unfairly and lived under harsh conditions because of the English and Spaniards. In the story "Relation" it is stated, "Let us again consider whether the Spaniards preserve the divine concepts of love for their fellow men, when they place the bodies of the Indians in such mortal danger." This passage shows that there was brutal cultural encounters between the Spaniards and Indians. This also goes along with the cultural encounter of the Slaves and Europeans.
I don't think either author changed their audience because both authors were trying to turn their audiences against slavery, yet it still continued to happen. I honestly believe that no matter what the authors would've said they couldn't have turned their audiences against slavery because there was too many people for slavery at the time that were most likely wanting someone else to do their work for them, especially if it was for free. I think turning people away from this thought was just too much for either of the authors to really accomplish in their writings.
DeleteI don't believe that the stories changed the audience. It could have changed their opinions but there was nothing done to stop it. Although Equiano wrote about the brutality and cruelty of slavery, it didn't stop slavery. Also De Las Casas didn't change anything. It could have made the readers feel bad for the Indians, but it didn't influence them enough to stop the cruelty towards them. I don't think anything would have changed it. No matter how persuasive the writing was. Most people read things and just feel bad and don't do anything about it. I think this is how it would be for both of the stories.
DeleteI think that both authors did change the audience's view of slavery. Bartolome de las Casas' "Relation" helped to pass laws that banned further enslavement of the native people. He used many descriptive words to explain the brutalities the Native Americans faced, such as being starved and being forced to be pearl divers. By explaining these brutalities well, Bartolome de las Casas made a difference in the lives of the natives.
DeleteIn Equiano's story he explains his voyage to the America's on the Middle Passage. I also believe that he influenced his audience to believe that slavery was wrong. He used strong words to show the struggles and brutalities that the slaves faced on the Middle Passage. How could people not think slavery was wrong after hearing this?
Austin Olson, Mark Riewestahl, Nick Klemann
ReplyDeleteBoth of these stories show a clash of two different cultures, where one group is cruel to the other and horribly mistreating them. In Equiano's story, he talked about how they were treated so poorly that there were many people that would rather jump off of the ship and commit suicide than become a slave and do slave labor. Bartolome wrote, "...Christians... began their subjection of the women and children, taking them away from the Indians to use them and ill-use them, eating the food they provided with their sweat and toil." Equiano said, "In this manner, without scrupple, are relations and friends separated, most of them never to see each other again." Both of these pieces of textual evidence show that slavery had destroyed family and relationships.
I think that both authors wrote to the same audience, which was the slave traders and people in power that could stop the slave trade. I think that they influenced some people to try to revolt and stop the slave trade, but it didn't actually change anything. No matter what these authors wrote, it wouldn't have changed the fact that slavery brought in a large amount of money for the government and people in power, so nothing would have benefit them to abolish slavery.
DeleteRhiana,
ReplyDeleteI think the people who read these were changed at least a little bit. If they believed all the horrid acts that are claimed in this story they probably had major sympathy for the slaves. But the sympathy probably wasn't enough for them to actually try and do something about it. Plus if they had grown up with slaves they might not have believed it or even didn't care because the slaves were African American or Indian. Yet there would always be that little piece of their mind that would look at a slave, see the scars and malnourished, and feel some sort of remorse for them.
#2, I don't think they changed the audience at all, because there was still slavery and the Indians were still treated poorly. One thing they could have done to show more meaning is to actually show some people what slavery really was. The stories changed some peoples minds, but not everyone's. slavery still continued even after these stories were published.
ReplyDeleteI think de las casa's accounts at least showed the English the harshness of what they were doing. It didn't change that they had slaves because when the indians were no longer slaves black people were slaves. It might have changed some people to be less harsh or not have slaves but not the whole crowd. I didn't read it all so he maybe did more in it.
ReplyDeleteI think Equiano's story did change the audience because the middle passage stopped and his story was probably a factor in it by telling the harshness of the passage. It didn't stop slavery if that was his intentions because a lot of slaves were already out of Africa at other places.
I do think that De Las Casas and Equiano made a difference because De Las Casas put up arguments to the Spanish courts that gave the native people protection of the law. Equiano didn't he wrote his life story to try to help but he himself had slaves.
ReplyDeleteI don't think either of these stories had a different audience. I believe the audience was everyone during this time. They could have changed it by addressing it to either the colonists or the natives. It could have been addressed to the colonists by saying how terrible the natives were treated. It could have been addressed to the natives in how they could get free from the enslavement or on how they can fight to get free.
ReplyDeleteI think that both authors succeeded in getting their point across about how cruel the Europeans and the Spaniards were towards the African Americans and the natives of Hispaniola. They showed how utterly inhumane those dominant cultures were treating the less fortunate cultures. I believe that this led to more people realizing what was happening and trying to stop these terrible acts. I think that the authors did this by going into detail about all the injustices committed and they tried to put people in the victims' shoes, making them feel sorry for those who went through those tragic events. This resulted in some people wanting to make a change, by not socially accepting these acts and by trying to stop slavery.
ReplyDeleteEmily, Matt, and Olivia
ReplyDelete1) In all the cultural encounters we have explored there have been two groups the dominate and the submissive. The dominate group general has more wealth and are initially treated with reverence by the submissive group which usual has differing racial features. The Dominate group eventually uses violence to oppress the other group. In the text, it says "They committed other acts of force and violence and oppression which made the Indians realize that these men had not come from the Heaven." This text directly shows how the dominate group is superior over the more submissive group, by manipulating and oppressing.
Olivia
DeleteI think that the text would make some people rethink on what they were doing and made them stop. But I also think that it didn't make a a difference to everyone. One thing the authors could of done to make more people change their mind about slavery is to actually tell in detail what happened because some stories are just the outline of it but if an author tells real deep details about the true way slavery is a lot more people would change their mind.
I believe that both of these author have changed their audiences' views. These authors accounts are pointed toward their audiences as a way to make them really think about the events or issues. Like De Las Casas' really goes more in depth of why the Christian people were wrong to treat the Indies they way they have been. He give good reasons and real life examples of why they are wrong. He explains his points so well and direct them to the Christian people to make them think. Which I think he does very well, especially with all his personal encounters. His tone in the story of making it so serious, he makes the Christian people feel bad for what they had done, and for those who still call themselves good Christians. While Equiano's writing is directed toward the European people and I feel he does a good job of that. He wants to make them feel bad and so how they were treated or felt. He wanted to make the people fell want he did, and imagine themselves in his shoes. Equiano wrote to make the people feel like they were the slaves and were experiencing all of that. He wanted to make them feel bad so they would think it is wrong to treat any human like that. I feel like he successfully did that. Both these author used such detail and real examples that it persuaded people feel and most of all think differently about certain events and issues.
ReplyDeleteI think that they didn't change the audience because the europeans didn't do anything to stop the slave trade until Olaudah Equiano wrote his personal narrative and sent it to britain to help weigh in on whether to ban the slave trade, so in that sense it did affect the Europeans. To effect their audience they could have started accusing them of murder and abduction to get more attention in Europe. though that is just about what they did (so I change my arguement to yes they had the audience proven wrong about slaves and indigenous peoples
ReplyDeleteI think that de las Casas' changed the audience by his words the words he used and telling the story of the Spaniards claiming to be Christians but no one else has faith. They just took away the Indians rights and just attack them and give them beatings. The Spaniards only care about themselves, they don't care about the Indians or any other races or their faiths either. The Equiano's story doesn't change the audience because it doesn't have as much good vocabulary words as de las casas'.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that either of the authors changed the audience. I think that at this point in time people were more in the mind set of that slaves were property not people. I think they should have put more blame on the common man. If they put more blame on the common man for not stepping in and stopping it I think the audience might have viewed it differently
ReplyDeleteI think both accounts changed their audiences because they displayed the horrible experience they either went through themselves or witnessed firsthand. In Relation, he shows his empathy for the native people and continually speaks of how "Christians" were murdering and torturing innocent people in their own land. I think he changed his audience because prior to his account, the Spanish people in Europe had no idea any of this was happening, so he finally revealed to them the horrific truth behind the Spanish settlement. Equiano's story also revealed new knowledge to those back in Europe. He told his experiences as a slave, which outsiders had little knowledge of the situation and horrible treatment. This changed his audience's point of view because it confirmed to them that something had to be done in order to abolish slavery for good. Both stories revealed new knowledge to their audiences, so I think both authors did a good job persuading their audiences.
ReplyDeleteBoth authors,at one point, change their audience. At one point it seems as though they're trying to show their own race the wrongs that have been bestowed upon them by the white man. But for the most part they are writing to the white man trying to open up their eyes to the horrible things they have done as Christians. So they stick with their main audience for the most part but at some point they talk to their own race to reveal the Christian's wrongdoings.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Equiano's narrative had a larger impact because shortly their after slavery was abolished in england. However it was several hundred years before any real lasting changes happened related to his work. This probably has to do more with the time frame than actual literature however Equiano's work was much more personal and persuasive while mixing in emotion with vivid descriptions.
ReplyDeleteThe stories had changed the audience's mindset by giving them a sense of perspective on other situations and issues that are going on during that time., but it took some time to change their malevolent ways since humans are naturally born to hate change, and some groups still to this day enforce discrimination upon others whom are deemed “inferior.” In the story, the devastation of the indies, shows the manipulative behavior towards the Indians by those who claim to be good, Christian, men. This story was targeted towards Christians, however has not been very successful as there are still many discriminating Christians. The Indians could have targeted another audience as a call for help, making it more likely to be successful. The the story, Oladah Equiano, shows his personal experience of what happened and is targeting Europeans and Americans who have been doing it for so long. This story was very effective and slavery no longer exists.
ReplyDeleteBoth cultural encounters in the stories were horrific. Both of them show that one culture thinks that they are superior to the other culture. In Equiano it says, " two of the white men offered me eatables: and, on my refusing to eat, one of the, held me fast by the hands, and laid me across, I think, the windlass, and tied my feet, while the other flogged me severely." Showing that the white men would punish the captured for something as simple as not eating. And how they were given such an unfair punishment and the whites were showing their "superiority". And then in Las Casas story it talks about how they used the natives for pearls and how mean they were to them and how they didn't value their life by forcing them to keep searching even though they were out of breath.
ReplyDeleteI think de las Casas' and Equiano's accounts changed the audience because they showed how brutal things were and many different situations where they were treated badly. And they describe it so well it kinda puts the audiences in their shoes and makes them think. But then again I don't really think it made a difference because nothing changed and slavery still went on.
Both cultural encounters in the stories were horrific. Both of them show that one culture thinks that they are superior to the other culture. In Equiano it says, " two of the white men offered me eatables: and, on my refusing to eat, one of the, held me fast by the hands, and laid me across, I think, the windlass, and tied my feet, while the other flogged me severely." Showing that the white men would punish the captured for something as simple as not eating. And how they were given such an unfair punishment and the whites were showing their "superiority". And then in Las Casas story it talks about how they used the natives for pearls and how mean they were to them and how they didn't value their life by forcing them to keep searching even though they were out of breath.
ReplyDeleteI think de las Casas' and Equiano's accounts changed the audience because they showed how brutal things were and many different situations where they were treated badly. And they describe it so well it kinda puts the audiences in their shoes and makes them think. But then again I don't really think it made a difference because nothing changed and slavery still went on.