The article argues and explains how parts of history is forgotten as a result of the silencing of history that explains extreme social disparity today. In other words, the history that is taught and passed on by schools is extremely narrow and one-sided. The author gave two such examples: the Taínos and the Mexican history. The thesis statement of the article is “Arizona’s attack on Mexican American Studies and Rethinking Columbus shares a comment root: the attempt to silence stories that unsettle today’s unequal power arrangements.” The unequal power arrangement is the disparity of the people, in terms of wealth and power, and it is very prevalent in the United States. For example, Hispanic Americans make up 16% of the population in the US, yet their total wealth asset makes up only 2% of the country’s total. The stories of Columbus, Mexican American, and many others, those which explain and unsettle today’s unequal power, are silenced.
If the author had read our textbook, he would both commend and criticize it. First, he would commend the book for mentioning the crime Columbus and other conquistadors had committed when they encountered the Native Americans. The book includes the details of Columbus’s horrific treatment of Tainos, including assaults, enslavements, and plunders. It has also brought up other conquistadors’, such as Cortes and Pizarro’s greed and massacre of the Native Americans. The author would definitely commend the book’s effort of bringing up the often ignored history that shows the bad and evil side of the Western Conquistadors. On the contrary, the author would also criticize the book for excluding the gruesome details for some of the historical events, such as Cortes’s massacre of the Aztecs. These details of the conquistadors’ violent crimes are necessary to emphasize how horrible and cold-blooded they were against the Native Americans. The details the book excludes, such as Cortes’s massacre of the Native Americans, in which “the entrails of the victim dragged as they ran,” are vital to convey the true horror of these events. Instead, the book wrote, “Cortes retreated to plan an assault. In 1521, in a brutal struggle, Cortes and his Indian allies captured and demolished Tenochtitlan.” The book then changes the topic to how the disease aided Cortes’s cause. In the case of diseases, it was not the fault of Cortes for the death of these Native Americans. Thus, Cortes’s guilt for the genocide of the Aztecs was greatly lightened by the book’s topic change. Therefore, the author would both commend the book for its inclusion of the crimes of the conquistadors while criticizing the book for its “strategic” and “unnoticeable” defense for these conquistadors.
I agree with the author’s criticism of the Tucson, Arizona’s school system silencing history. But I do not agree with the author’s criticism on the exclusion of Mexican American History completely. I do agree with the author about how it was wrong to not mention the major event when Mexico “cedes” at bayonet point. It was also wrong to silence what the US has done to Mexico: Take half of the country’s land. What the US did heavily contradicts to its claim to “respect sovereignty” and was also quite immoral. American History expunges this immoral event the nation has done, which shows how the fact that “history is written by the victors” is especially true in American History. On the other hand, I disagree with the author’s criticism of the exclusion of “Mexican’s importance to the country: Building railroads, copper mines, and so on,” because I believe that doing so would be an over-emphasis. There are a lot of things to cover in American History. Thus, I believe that it is not necessary to state the importance of Mexicans to the country. If we do not look at the fact that the Americans “stole” land from Mexico, and merely look at how the history of the Mexican-heritaged “Americans” who worked in copper mines and railroad was underemphasized, it would not seem like the history is silenced. But since we include “the Americans robbing the Mexican’s land” into the context, people would look at these Mexicans as people who lost their country and unmentioned in the textbook, and blame the school system for silencing their hardship in mines. In other words, if we look at each event independently, there is nothing wrong for history to ignore the Mexican American’s work. This brings up an analogy. If there is a quiz in which students have to order A, B, C, D, and E into alphabetical orders, it would be wrong to take off all the points if a student orders A into the last place but orders B, C, D, and E in relatively correct position. Thus, if the US wrongfully stole Mexicans’ land, it would be wrong to attribute everything that is bad for the Mexican American today to the United States.
If the author had read our textbook, he would both commend and criticize it. First, he would commend the book for mentioning the crime Columbus and other conquistadors had committed when they encountered the Native Americans. The book includes the details of Columbus’s horrific treatment of Tainos, including assaults, enslavements, and plunders. It has also brought up other conquistadors’, such as Cortes and Pizarro’s greed and massacre of the Native Americans. The author would definitely commend the book’s effort of bringing up the often ignored history that shows the bad and evil side of the Western Conquistadors. On the contrary, the author would also criticize the book for excluding the gruesome details for some of the historical events, such as Cortes’s massacre of the Aztecs. These details of the conquistadors’ violent crimes are necessary to emphasize how horrible and cold-blooded they were against the Native Americans. The details the book excludes, such as Cortes’s massacre of the Native Americans, in which “the entrails of the victim dragged as they ran,” are vital to convey the true horror of these events. Instead, the book wrote, “Cortes retreated to plan an assault. In 1521, in a brutal struggle, Cortes and his Indian allies captured and demolished Tenochtitlan.” The book then changes the topic to how the disease aided Cortes’s cause. In the case of diseases, it was not the fault of Cortes for the death of these Native Americans. Thus, Cortes’s guilt for the genocide of the Aztecs was greatly lightened by the book’s topic change. Therefore, the author would both commend the book for its inclusion of the crimes of the conquistadors while criticizing the book for its “strategic” and “unnoticeable” defense for these conquistadors.
I agree with the author’s criticism of the Tucson, Arizona’s school system silencing history. But I do not agree with the author’s criticism on the exclusion of Mexican American History completely. I do agree with the author about how it was wrong to not mention the major event when Mexico “cedes” at bayonet point. It was also wrong to silence what the US has done to Mexico: Take half of the country’s land. What the US did heavily contradicts to its claim to “respect sovereignty” and was also quite immoral. American History expunges this immoral event the nation has done, which shows how the fact that “history is written by the victors” is especially true in American History. On the other hand, I disagree with the author’s criticism of the exclusion of “Mexican’s importance to the country: Building railroads, copper mines, and so on,” because I believe that doing so would be an over-emphasis. There are a lot of things to cover in American History. Thus, I believe that it is not necessary to state the importance of Mexicans to the country. If we do not look at the fact that the Americans “stole” land from Mexico, and merely look at how the history of the Mexican-heritaged “Americans” who worked in copper mines and railroad was underemphasized, it would not seem like the history is silenced. But since we include “the Americans robbing the Mexican’s land” into the context, people would look at these Mexicans as people who lost their country and unmentioned in the textbook, and blame the school system for silencing their hardship in mines. In other words, if we look at each event independently, there is nothing wrong for history to ignore the Mexican American’s work. This brings up an analogy. If there is a quiz in which students have to order A, B, C, D, and E into alphabetical orders, it would be wrong to take off all the points if a student orders A into the last place but orders B, C, D, and E in relatively correct position. Thus, if the US wrongfully stole Mexicans’ land, it would be wrong to attribute everything that is bad for the Mexican American today to the United States.