For this discussion, we had to act as one of three representatives in one of three groups. I was a native woman who's husband had been killed by the colonists who decided to launch a surprise attack on my village. My children were killed as well, and it was devastating to say the least, at least I'm assuming that's how my character would feel. I channeled this explosive anger into the discussion when colonists said they were victims, and shared my story through yelling and frustrating tones. I felt that this was how best to show my character, as the discussion was heated and I had a right to be furious. We talked about different topics like "the effects of a bunch of poor people being shipped to the new world" and "the treatment of Irish and Native Americans". We were able to address these topics from our character's perspective, which led to everyone's statements clashing, and a lot of yelling and argument. All of it was in good fun between classmates, but the truth of the conversation was that it was extremely chaotic and going absolutely nowhere. I actually had to check with my teacher a few times to see if we were "doing it right" since it felt so wrong to just yell at each other and waste time pointlessly arguing and pointing fingers. It was frustrating to go nowhere and feel trapped with no perspectives understood and voices being heard. It was a traditional "if your voice is the loudest then you can speak" type of situation.
I thought the discussion, as I said before, was extremely chaotic and it gave us a good view of how meetings went back in the day. It was so frustrating to move nowhere in the conversation, but just keep blaming. It honestly just made me feel extreme distress, but I also got distracted from that by playing my character. As the conversation progressed, it was easier to organize my thoughts and use evidence to argue our point, and in the end come up with a reasonable solution. I feel that the Natives -- my group -- best represented and expressed the ideas or points we had because we used textual and statistical evidence, didn't falter from our main argument and claim, were all on the same page, and had ethical, moral, and logical reasoning backing up our claim and opinion. We didn't simply shut down others perspectives, but instead disproved them with accurate information and relevant facts. The most interesting points made were probably when colonists argued they weren't given women when they got to the New World, when in fact the were in the sense that they stole native women and raped, tortured, and hurt them, with no care for their human needs and emotions. I also found it important to hear what each group had to say, as the promoters played the blame game, the colonists played pity party, and the Indians played the angry middle aged "let me talk to the manager" woman. What was most confusing was where the conversation was supposed to go, as I'm used to civil discourse in a classroom environment, not allowed arguing and belittling of others. It was of course all in character, bu nonetheless was all we did for a solid half hour. Some questions I have about this historical period and the events, people, and ideas that were discussed are: - Were the perspectives we shared in the conversation the same as those of the real Natives, Promoters, or colonists? - Was there ever any actual peace or agreement made between the colonists and Natives that benefited both parties? - Did the promoters sell the Native's land, or free land around their villages? - Why didn't other countries seize the opportunity to take this "free" land or the New World? Where were other countries during this period? - What is the general timeline regarding colonist and Native relations and evolution of both cultures and societies during this period of 1450-1700?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
November 2018
Categories |