PRESENT DAY

What began as a source for cheap labor, Indentured Servitude soon became a nightmare for the colonial elite. Initially, the colonial elite loved the idea of indentured servitude and as a result this form of labor became increasingly popular. As time passed, the indentured servants’ labor allowed the colonial elite to reap great profits. This “love affair” soon ended when many indentured servant's contract expired. Since their contracts expired, the indentured servants were no longer obliged to work for the colonial elite, and thus were free. With this freedom, they were given land. On this land, many former indentured servants began to buy other indentured servants. Soon, the newly freed servants began to economically compete with their former masters, the colonial elite. Scared of competition, the colonial elite successfully sought to replace indentured servitude with slavery. With slavery as their source of labor, the colonial elite did not have to worry about future competition, from their workers.

Even though the thirteenth amendment to the constitution bans indentured servitude, it still exists in the form of illegal immigration. Similar to the colonial elite, many present-day employers seek out cheap labor. The main source of cheap labor comes from illegal immigration. Realizing this, many employers seek out illegal immigrants that are currently in the United States. Once they are sought out, the employers pay the illegal immigrants below minimum-wage and they pay for their food and transportation expenses. This appears to be a win-win system. The employers are receiving cheap labor, while the illegal immigrants are being paid more than they would have been in their native country. There is a loser, however, and it is the citizens/permanent-residence of this country, whose jobs are being replaced by illegal immigrants. The employers see this as the free market at work, but Americans view this as rewarding illegal behavior.

If this was happening in the 17^th and 18^th century, the role of the illegal immigrant would have been played by the Africans, who were turned into slaves. The role of the Americans would be played by the Indentured Servants, whose “jobs” are being jeopardized by slavery. The role of the employer would be played by the colonial elite.

As historian say: “Names Change, But the Game Remains the Same.”

By just reading Elizabeth Sprigs' A Letter to her Father makes me pretty thankful that my parents were very strict about where I am and where I go. If I decided to do what Elizabeth did to gain independence, I would probably feel really stupid about sneaking out. A regular teen would sneak out to go to a party. She sneaking out to a whole other country. The punishment was 10 times more worse than if her parents caught her, because they treated her like crap. I guarantee you that the way her parents treated her were not that bad. I mean, today's world and the 1700's were very different, but sometimes doing things out of rebellion are not worth it; especially to be enslaved in the end.

If raised in this country, when in grade school, you were taught about Christopher Columbus, the celebrated explorer who "discovered" the great country we call America. At first mention, one may picture Columbus towering over his three famous hsips, compass in hand. Columbus thought he found a route to India, truly stumbled upon America, and as a result, great cultual exchange took place. As you get older and transition into middle school and high school, you may then begin to learn that Columbus slightly exposed Natives, took their land, and caused wide spread disease among them, which lead to their decline.
Now that I am in college, I was exposed to Howard Zinn's "Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress." Zinn attempts to enlighten readers about the WHOLE truth concering Columbus and his voyage by providing primary resources from Columbus' own journal. Zinn himself is well aware of the fact that one rarely ever uncovers the entire story; this is his stab at doing so. Howard Zinn is a very educated man that attended Columbia University. Although he did obtain a Ph.D in history, he knew barely any of the facts that he brought to light before doing intense research for his piece. It is said in "Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress" that Columbus and the Europeans exposed Native Americans to violence, slavery, and even rape. His main motives were greed and he did his best to achieve it at any means.
While not exposing the whole truth, but rather only the optimistic side I understand is more appropriatefor young children however, once middle school is reached, I do think that students should be more exposed to the whole truth about our country and how we came to be. We, as people, are only as smart as what we know. Is concealing a part of out truth restricting us? In my opinion, it is. After reading Howard Zinn's writings, I became even more aware of the power of the media. Not only does it posses the power to expose us, it posses the power to limit us.

When you think of an explorer from the 15th century, or from any era, you would think of a brave, courageous, and respectful man. What about a man that discovers a new country? I would assume that a person with such an immense discovery would appreciate the beauty of the new environment and admire the way the natives lived with one another so peacefully. Instead Christopher Columbus saw this as too primitive and thought they would make great servants.

As I was reading Howard Zinn's The People's History: Columbus, Indians, and Human Progress, I, among others who have been taught the Christopher Columbus story the "PG" way, was more than entirely shocked by the content that filled the chapter. At first, I felt indifferent about the story, however the more I read on, the more I felt like saying "This can't be. How could he write these lies?" Unfortunately for me, so did others who felt the same way I did. I had to stop and think about how afraid I was about finding about the truth behind "the discovery". It really couldn't have been peaches and cream with finding the Americas. Better yet, the islands because he didn't even find North or South. It just irks me how America just changes around the stories of history, with the fear that the people will find out the naked truth. Although I'm sure people know that there are many skeletons lying in America's closet. This was just one of them.

Is Christopher Columbus considered a hero or a murderer? Columbus is considered a hero in most history textbooks because we are taught the basics. "Columbus was a man of great and inventive genius" (Irving 192). However, he is also considered a murderer. "...children thrown to dogs to be devoured, newborn babies born to women prisoners flung into the jungle to die..." (Zinn 204). Columbus tortured Natives and killed several. Indians were treated as slaves and were forced to work for Columbus. He made sure that the Indians were never in control and sent our several warnings to prove it; cutting off an innocent Native's hand to send out a message. Not only were Columbus and his men cruel, but always made sure they had the upper hand in the battle.

Relevant to the misconceptions that have been taught regarding Columbus, the story of Rosa Parks is no different. Everyone's heard the story of Rosa Parks as an elderly woman who courageously took a stand for her rights on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. However, this is not the full, true story. The first person to refuse a white man their seat on a bus was Claudette Colvin. She was a fifteen year old girl who refused to move on a bus. Colvin's name had not been widely known during the Civil Rights movement due to the fact that she wasn't considered an acceptable example for the movement. Colvin's skin was a very dark shade and she became pregnant with a married man's baby. A tired, elderly woman sets forth an example whom the public could sympathize with much easier.

Click here to  read the story of Claudette Colvin on the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) website

   Every year we recognize Christopher Columbus for discovering America. We're even off from school for "Columbus Day." But who really "discovered" America? What does it mean to "discover?" It becomes clear after reading Howard Zinn's "Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progess" that the idea Columbus discovered America is questionable.  Elementaty school textbooks portray Columbus as being a "good guy" because as a nation we don't want young children to be afraid of the violence and bloodshed, but we also don't want to signal the message that "bad people" get holidays named after them. But at at the expense of not telling children this, they are believing lies. Why not tell the history in a way that is not frightening to children ,but does not falsify the history in any way, like the teachers on pg207 suggest?

  The book  "Lies my teacher told me" by James W. Loewen explores the countless number of lies and cultural bias' of an American textbook. Loewen's makes a crucial point that "Many of the textbooks tell of Columbus's three later voyages, but most do not find the space to tell us how Columbus treated the the land and the people he discovered"  (pg 53)
   
   In addition to Columbus' story being culturally bias, there are so many more. Thomas Jefferson fathered a black child with a plantation slave (Sally Hemings). However, textbooks often fails to list the child Jefferson had the Hemings, probably, because she was partly black. Is it a coincidence that there is so frequently so little focus on minorities in textbooks, and that it's so rare to hear about flaws in American "heroes"?

 Perhaps racism in textbooks is born out of fear. Fear of losing land. Fear of losing a sense of superiority. Fear of admitting the truth. Columbus DID have the courage to explore the world, WAS first to have a written history of the new world, and did discover the new world for Europeans. However, leaving the Native Americans out of the prior history doesn't seem ethical. It almost seems racist because by saying Columbus "discovered" America (and nobody else was involved), you are asserting that Native Americans who were here first either weren't people, or were an inferior race.