The author of the first passage I read is Clinton Rossiter. Rossiter's passage argues strongly that due to a multitude of factors, the American colonies had lost their English identity and in many respects, had formed a unique identity that contributed to their separation. British mercantilism contributed heavily to the later circumstances that would begin to uproot the colonists’ ties to their homeland. By adopting policies designed to promote the interests of the mother country, the British effectively excluded the colonist from the benefits associated with being a subject of the king. Over time such regulations and efforts would turn stale in the eyes of the colonists and promote a feeling of dissent. As argued by Rossiter, these growing feelings combined with extended periods of salutary neglect proved to be ideal circumstances for the growth of a new independent identity. Early forms of self government soon blossomed under these conditions to become relatively autonomous democracies which initially suffered few restrictions from The Crown. These democracies gradually promoted new ideas and went in different directions to promote personal liberties that soon became the norm. Potentially the stronger liberties though came not from the expansion of democracies, but from the wilderness and great natural freedoms that came with the great scope of the New World. The frontier lifestyle promoted rugged individualism, and the only attempted limitations would ultimately come from the mother country, spurring frustration. The 3000 some miles that separated the colonies already made restrictions challenging to enforce and over time caused great change in various aspects of typical British traits, but the frontier created a whole new challenge for the British. Infrastructure between colonies was relatively sparse, significantly extending the struggle. Economically the colonies found themselves in a unique position, with better pay than their brothers from across the pond. Another major contribution to the creation of this new identity noted by Rossiter was immigration from other reaches of Europe. With an influx of Germans, Scots, Irish, and others the British colonists were exposed to new ways of life and certainly mixed ideas and customs with their new neighbors. New colonies were formed and the English identity slowly evolved into a unique and independent picture.
In a different light, Lawrence Gipson argues that the British identity of the colonists remained very much intact during this period. Gipson discusses the pride associated with being British, and how the colonists were no exception to this notion. A major factor noted by Gipson was the attraction to British law which followed strict code and had been quite successful at home in maintaining order. This strict code Gipson argues, effectively meshed the colonists together and maintained their devotion to the mother country even with an ocean separating them. The economic security provided by the Crown was also certainly something not to be overlooked, with the British Empire stretching across the globe and virtually owning the seas. Great Britain secured colonial devotion in many respects in regard to its military being used in their defense. The British spent an incredible amount of money on the colonies, Gipson points to this as an example of how the colonies found their leadership back home as theirs. I find myself in agreement more so with Rossiter than Gipson. Although it ultimately varied from household to household and individual to individual, the general feelings of this new identity was strong during the 18th century. Undoubtedly most colonists were faithful at least for the majority of the century, to their homeland identifying themselves as British, however it appears quite evident to me that a new identity had been formed. Immigration was certainly a major factor, infusing new cultures into a society virtually cut off from the Crown at many points. With such great distance separating the two sides it is no wonder that during this time period a new identity would be formed. Specifically after the French and Indian war it seems as though this identity was becoming more and more unique. It was only a matter of time before this change was recognized and acted upon.
4 Comments
The author of the first passage I studied is Gavin Menzies, author of the book 1421: The Year China Discovered America. Menzies showed his clear support for the theory that the Chinese landed in the New World prior to the more well known discovery by Christopher Columbus in 1492, the same scenario covered in his book. The author references the great voyages of famed Chinese explorer Zheng He. He’s ships travelled great treks around the Pacific, trading and exploring with different cultures, and exposing a previously isolated China to the globe. These ships were cutting edge, far more advanced than those of their European counterparts, even many years later they were undoubtedly superior to that Columbus’ ships. Specifically, author one refers to Zhou Man’s fleet which fits a potential timetable for a transpacific journey. According to this theory, Zhou Man’s fleet went on a 4 month journey somewhere far in the Pacific, if the ship let the currents take steer its course, a journey to North America, and along its coast would be entirely possible. Menzies also points to evidence of wrecked vessels on the Western coast of North America that match Chinese ships of He’s expansive fleets, potentially Man’s. Although not all have been dated exactly, many details point to them being of China’s age of exploration. One potential Junk referenced by author one has been found in the Sacramento River. The ship fits the description of one of He’s Junks and metal on the wreck shows evidence that it is not Amerindian. Inside the wreckage seeds and other small items have been identified as being of Chinese origin and are appropriate for the estimated time period. Aside from these ships, other evidence shows possible settlements by early explorers that had formed their own tribes. A particular case in 1874 brought attention to this theory, when a government employee taking a census found what he originally thought was an indigenous Native American tribe. Upon further investigation he realized that they were culturally and linguistically unique from their Amerindian counterparts. This tribe had a well developed understanding of botany and agriculture, their language also appeared to be very similar to Mandarin. Along with other similarities, this tribe, said to be located just miles away from a potential junk wreck, displayed many cultural similarities to typical Chinese traditions.
The second author I analyzed, Robert Finlay, strongly disagrees with Menzies’ claims. Finlay asserts that the evidence used by Menzies in his book is wildly construed and greatly implausible. Author two also accuses Menzies of greatly misrepresenting the basic tenets that are typically followed by a historian, by stating that Menzies stretched the truth for personal profit. According to Finlay, author one blatantly ignores Zheng He’s extensive records of travel, and assumes that this supposed venture was an exception. This trip would have also been extremely dangerous for He’s vessels that had already been at sea for years and may not have been prepared for such a journey. Menzies’ Chinese map that appears to show North and South America is also argued to be a later European map, as certain features such as California being displayed as a large island are said to be unique to European cartography. Many of the crops, animals, and technologies that Menzies claims were brought to the New World, or brought back would have not likely been brought and certainly not in the quantities that Menzies claims. As Finlay makes clear, this is only one of many examples of this author making his own assumptions and exaggerations without evidence. After analyzing the views of both these authors, it is difficult to establish a clear or obvious answer to this daunting question. Menzies’ abundance of potential evidence was quite convincing in many respects, but as Finlay made clear the lack of records by the Chinese personally left me dumbfounded and certainly creates a sizeable hole in Menzies’ theory. It also became clear to me that many of Menzies’ theories seemed to be relatively farfetched. Despite this, I could certainly see at least a smaller group of ships making this trip. If these individuals stayed in the New World or only sent part of their group back this could explain the lack of records. The potential Chinese colony found in 1874 was something not mentioned by Finlay that I found very convincing. Knowing that groups of Polynesians may have made such a venture in vessels the size of canoes, I see no reason why it could not be accomplished by the grand ships of China. This is certainly a very debatable issue, and with little solid evidence on either side it’s near impossible to prove. |
AuthorWelcome to Liam's Blog. Liam is participating in an independent study of history this year part of which requires him to interpret historical arguments. Archives
April 2017
Categories |