1) How did you feel during the role play? What happened?
I feel quite comfortable and interested during the role-play. As a jury, I took down a lot of notes of each character’s defense. I was mesmerized by each of their defense, because I found out that there can be so many different perspectives on one thing; and they all were so persuasive they it seemed paradoxical. I believe that each defendant did a wonderful job in their defense and built interesting and strong arguments.
2) How would you describe the events of the role play? Who won?
I would describe the role play as fast paced and a little hurried because we did not have time. Some of the defendants spoke for a very long time, and some had a lot of arguments, to the extent that I believe they should delete some. Some of those extra arguments weaken their role as a whole. We had very little time to question the defendants as juries, so we did it in a hurry. This cause the juries to not have the opportunity to question the defendants thoroughly. In the end, Salina (System of Empire) and Jonathan and Ray (the Taínos) won. They were not guilty at all for the verdict.
3) What did you learn? Did it confirm or disconfirm what you already knew?
I learned that there can be a lot of different Point of Views for even one single event, and they all contradict each other. But at the same time, all of the point of views can seem persuasive. Its a paradox. This disconfirm what I had already knew. Before the mock trial, I use to think that there can only be one correct view, and that it is impossible to build a different view if you already have one view in mind. But it turned out that my brain changed again and again after different views. In other words, my views changed as I watched each defendant defend for their own stance. It was an interesting experience.
4) Putting your character aside, how would YOU apportion guilt (percentile) to those who were charged?
I would apportion the guilt as I did as jury. 50% on the King and Queen, 30% on Columbus, and 20% on Columbus’s men. I would a heavy potion of the guilt on the King and Queen because they said that they harmed the Taínos because they didn’t take in their good will and rejected their teaching. But in moral sense, it is not right to commit genocide if a group of people doesn’t take your view. Second, I put the second highest percentage on Columbus because he did not take the King and Queen’s order to “not enslave” the native americans. Last, I put some guilt upon Columbus’s men because they raped women and commit unnecessary crimes against the Taínos.
Analytical Response to Rethinking Columbus: Towards a True People’s History
The article explains how history is forgotten because of the “silenced history.” There are a lot of examples, but the author stated two: The Tainos being forgotten and the importance of Mexicans also being forgotten. If the author gets to critique our textbook’s coverage of the new world, I believe that he would criticize how it does silenced a lot of history, of how Columbus just take over the Tainos, the conquistadors from Europe just taking over parts of the world. In other words, the author would criticize how the textbook did not mention the wrongness of conquering weaker people. I believe that the author would also say that “the textbook is Eurocentric and did not emphasize and talk about the conquistadors killing people and the amount of people they’ve killed; the textbook instead, only talk about the disease killing the native americans. I agree with the author about how its wrong that Arizona school system silences the books that talk about the evil doings of Columbus and the other conquistadors. I also agree with his point that children’s books and textbooks are filled with distortions of Columbus that did not talk about his evil doings. I also agree with his idea that its also wrong Arizona silence parts of the Mexican American War. But I do not agree with his statement that U.S. histories silence the importance of Mexico because neither did the U.S. history mention the importance of white people. The U.S. history doesn’t and shouldn’t mention the importance of its people in groups of race, but rather, as a whole. Therefore, I believe that the author has demanded too much credit for the Mexicans. But other than that, I agree with the author’s article.
I feel quite comfortable and interested during the role-play. As a jury, I took down a lot of notes of each character’s defense. I was mesmerized by each of their defense, because I found out that there can be so many different perspectives on one thing; and they all were so persuasive they it seemed paradoxical. I believe that each defendant did a wonderful job in their defense and built interesting and strong arguments.
2) How would you describe the events of the role play? Who won?
I would describe the role play as fast paced and a little hurried because we did not have time. Some of the defendants spoke for a very long time, and some had a lot of arguments, to the extent that I believe they should delete some. Some of those extra arguments weaken their role as a whole. We had very little time to question the defendants as juries, so we did it in a hurry. This cause the juries to not have the opportunity to question the defendants thoroughly. In the end, Salina (System of Empire) and Jonathan and Ray (the Taínos) won. They were not guilty at all for the verdict.
3) What did you learn? Did it confirm or disconfirm what you already knew?
I learned that there can be a lot of different Point of Views for even one single event, and they all contradict each other. But at the same time, all of the point of views can seem persuasive. Its a paradox. This disconfirm what I had already knew. Before the mock trial, I use to think that there can only be one correct view, and that it is impossible to build a different view if you already have one view in mind. But it turned out that my brain changed again and again after different views. In other words, my views changed as I watched each defendant defend for their own stance. It was an interesting experience.
4) Putting your character aside, how would YOU apportion guilt (percentile) to those who were charged?
I would apportion the guilt as I did as jury. 50% on the King and Queen, 30% on Columbus, and 20% on Columbus’s men. I would a heavy potion of the guilt on the King and Queen because they said that they harmed the Taínos because they didn’t take in their good will and rejected their teaching. But in moral sense, it is not right to commit genocide if a group of people doesn’t take your view. Second, I put the second highest percentage on Columbus because he did not take the King and Queen’s order to “not enslave” the native americans. Last, I put some guilt upon Columbus’s men because they raped women and commit unnecessary crimes against the Taínos.
Analytical Response to Rethinking Columbus: Towards a True People’s History
The article explains how history is forgotten because of the “silenced history.” There are a lot of examples, but the author stated two: The Tainos being forgotten and the importance of Mexicans also being forgotten. If the author gets to critique our textbook’s coverage of the new world, I believe that he would criticize how it does silenced a lot of history, of how Columbus just take over the Tainos, the conquistadors from Europe just taking over parts of the world. In other words, the author would criticize how the textbook did not mention the wrongness of conquering weaker people. I believe that the author would also say that “the textbook is Eurocentric and did not emphasize and talk about the conquistadors killing people and the amount of people they’ve killed; the textbook instead, only talk about the disease killing the native americans. I agree with the author about how its wrong that Arizona school system silences the books that talk about the evil doings of Columbus and the other conquistadors. I also agree with his point that children’s books and textbooks are filled with distortions of Columbus that did not talk about his evil doings. I also agree with his idea that its also wrong Arizona silence parts of the Mexican American War. But I do not agree with his statement that U.S. histories silence the importance of Mexico because neither did the U.S. history mention the importance of white people. The U.S. history doesn’t and shouldn’t mention the importance of its people in groups of race, but rather, as a whole. Therefore, I believe that the author has demanded too much credit for the Mexicans. But other than that, I agree with the author’s article.