Colonial+America

__//COLONIAL AMERICA: //__

I just watched The Navigation Acts Music Video that was created by students. I think that the students got most of their facts right. They included what the Navigation Facts were about, and how it affected the colonies and England. Although, I think that they should have included more information about how the colonies were affected too. Personally, I think that most of their work was correct but there was a bit bias in that video, and some facts were incorrect. They also should have included information about mercantilism. Mercantilism is basically if you have a lot of money, you have a lot of power. So, if you start losing money, you start losing power which affects you and the places around you. Overall, I think the students did a decent job at explaining what the Navigation Acts were.


 * //Jen's Thoughts-//**

The video was a bit bias, and all the work wasn't completely correct.

The south got wealthy through trading cash crops (indigo, tobacco, and rice) that they grew on plantations.
 * Notes-**
 * the south remained rural
 * the south grew cash crops (tobacco and indigo) and made them very wealthy because of English demand
 * rope, tar, and turpentine were used to make ships, which also got the south very wealthy
 * there were many slaves who worked on plantations
 * there were many mosquitoes in the swamps so many people got malaria
 * slaves were very important because they worked on the plantations and grew all of the crops
 * Rice was also another important crop in the south
 * By 1774 South Carolina exported a million pounds of indigo annually
 * Cash crops- agricultural products sold to make money.
 * CCQ's**
 * Why weren't more cities built in the south? They could have been used to attract more people, resulting in more trade and more money.
 * It says that Eliza Wood's sons were well known politicians and soldiers, and one signed the Constitution. What was her son's name?
 * Since Parliament offered a bonus to indigo growers, how much did they earn on average?
 * I think that the south used more slaves, because they needed them more than the North. This is because the South had more fertile land than the North, and so they had more plantations. Since they had large plantations, people made slaves work on plantations so they could harvest and grow the crops. They also made slaves do dangerous tasks that no one else wanted to do. I think that this was completely unfair. Slaves were humans too, and it was inhumane to force them to do things they didn't want to do. It's terrible, disturbing, and disgusting.
 * Main Idea-**

//** Northern Colonial Economy- **//

England needed to grow crops so they could sell them and make money.
 * Notes-**
 * Farmers in New England couldn't grow their crops all year because the weather was unpredictable, but people in the southerns colonies could grow them all year
 * Winters were long, and the spring/summer was short, so it was hard to grow crops.
 * After the Navigation Acts coastal cities were the center of ship building
 * England's crop methods didn't work on New England's thin and rocky soil.
 * There were a lot more cities in the North than in the South
 * Most slaves in the north become artisans, shoemakers etc.
 * Since people couldn't farm all year, people worked other jobs to earn money.
 * CCQ's-**
 * I like it how slaves didn't have to work on plantations or farms as much as they had to in the South, because instead they could become artisans, shoemakers, etc. and eventually earn enough money to buy their freedom. So in my opinion, slaves in the North would probably end up having better lives than the slaves in the South.
 * What were some other jobs people had to get money? Because farming wasn't really that good of an option for many.
 * Yeomen farms are small independent farms with farmers and slaves working alongside one another. In yeomen farms, farmers would grow all kinds of crops, unlike plantations. I was wondering if there were many yeomen farms in the North, considering they couldn't have maintain plantations because of the thin and rocky soil.
 * Were slaves treated fairly after they bought their freedom? Or were they still disrespected and treated unfairly?
 * Main Idea-**

//** 9/24/10-Olaudah Equiano **// I dont think that it matters that Olaudah Equiano lied because his book still proves to people that he is a person and can do things other people can do too. If that was Olaudah Equiano's goal, then I think he accomplished that goal. He basically showed everyone that even slaves can read and write and do everything. They are people too. Just because they are slaves doe sn't mean they are incapable of doing other things. Being a slave has nothing to do with what you are able to acheive.

Now that I know he made a fortune buying and selling slaves, it doesn't really change my opinion. I do think that he was a cruel man for buying and selling slaves, even though he was one. He wrote that book to show people that slaves were real people too, and that they could do the things others could too. So, he accomplished that goal. I don't think my opinion should change, because maybe he was just trying to show people that slaves were humans, and when he bought his freedom, he became a successful man like other people even though he was once a slave. I think he was a bit of a hypocrite though.

__Olaudah Equiano __ Olaudah Equiano was kidnapped from his village when he was only eleven years old, along with this sister. A slave owner bought Olaudah Equiano, and gave him a new name: Gustavus Vassa. As years passed, Equiano gradually began to learn how to read and write. Equiano worked for various owners, and he had the privilege to work higher-level jobs because he was educated. Also, his price went up because he was an educated slave. Equiano would earn more and more money because he bought and sold other slaves, and earned prize money from his owners. He finally got enough money to pay for his freedom. When Equiano bought his freedom, he went to England. He also went on many explorations and took part in a voyage to the Arctic. Equiano soon wrote an autobiography that had a huge impact on people in England and everywhere around the world. Equiano was against slavery and wanted to abolish it. His book showed how slaves struggled and lived, because he was once one. His book was called __The Life of Olaudah Equiano.__ It showed people that slaves could do things, like reading and writing, which other people could do too. It showed people that slaves were human beings and that they weren’t being treated fairly. His book also describes the Middle Passage, which is extremely disturbing. People believe that Olaudah Equiano was a very influential man and that his book was what triggered the abolishment of slavery. People also think that some of his story was false, but I don’t think that it really matters. Everything you write has some truth behind it, so he was probably basing some of it off of someone else’s experience. Even so, it changed people’s opinions about slavery and helped abolish slavery. POSTS-
 * < **re: CCQ's on Colonial America**

[|MahaKourikchi] I don't really agree or disagree with that statement. Answering this question is very difficult because some people are bias, which leads them to have different outlooks on this whole subject. If you were on the colonies' side then you would definitely think that the Navigation Acts were ill-conceived because before the Navigation Acts came salutary neglect. Salutary Neglect allowed the colonies to trade with anyone they wanted to because people thought that "if no restrictions were placed on the colonies, they would flourish." As soon as the Navigation Acts were created, the colonies lost that privilege and could only trade with England. This angered the colonies because they became less prosperous. It did benefit them in some ways, but others think that they were better off before the Navigation Acts came along. If you were on England's side, then you would think that the Navigation Acts weren't ill conceived. You would probably think this because during salutary neglect, England was gradually losing power over the colonies. So as more and more time passed, the colonies had more freedom to do whatever they wanted because they were being very lenient on them. The Navigation Acts brought England back into power, because they had more control over the colonies. The Navigation Acts only allowed the colonies to trade with England and a few other countries. As a result, England grew wealthier and became very successful. So in other words, I don't agree or disagree because it all depends on how you look at it. || re: **Responses - Why didn't they pay them?** [|**MahaKourikchi**] Today 5:45 pm  Even though slaves worked extremely hard, their owners didn't pay them. The colonists didn't pay them because they didn't want to lose money. Also, because slave owners thought of slaves as their “property.” They didn't really consider slaves as real people because back then everyone was led to believe that slaves weren't as important as themselves, or anyone else. Since slave owners thought they “owned” slaves, they did whatever they wanted to them. (This included not paying them). They would also beat them, punish them, and torture them. Slave owners could do this because they owned slaves and had power over their slaves. My guess to why colonists hired slaves instead of hired laborers was because with slaves they didn't have to pay them and they had complete power. Although, with hired laborers, colonists couldn't control them and didn't have power over them. Personally, I think that slavery and the whole concept of buying someone is disturbing. People shouldn't have been able to “own” other people. People shouldn't have been able to control others because they thought it was right, or because it was more efficient to have others work for you. Everyone is equal no matter who you are, and should be treated equally and fairly. Unfortunately, slavery still exists in many parts of the world even though it's illegal in many places. ** re: Responses - Why didn't they pay them?** [|**MahaKourikchi**] **Today 6:24 pm** You can't really say that slaves were cheap, because it all depended on the slave. Every slave was a different price. Slave owners looked for strong and healthy slaves, so they were more expensive. Although, the weak and sick slaves were much cheaper. Slave owners also looked at slaves' gender and age, and that also determined how much the slave cost. It also depended on who was selling the slaves.

** re: Responses - Why didn't they pay them?** [|**MahaKourikchi**] Today 7:11 pm I think that it all depends on how the slave owner treats the slave. Back then, people didn't really think it was wrong to buy slaves, that's why they did it. It wasn't really their fault for buying slaves because everyone was doing it, and no one was against it...other than the slaves. So, a slave owner that punishes, beats, and tortures his slave wouldn't be considered a "good person" in my opinion. But, there were some slave owners that respected slaves and treated them well, so I guess they could be considered "good people." Although, I still think that slavery is very wrong and terrible.

**re: Your responses to last night's video** [|**MahaKourikchi**] Yesterday 8:25 pm  I just watched The Navigation Acts Music Video that was created by students. I think that the students got most of their facts right. They included what the Navigation Facts were about, and how it affected the colonies and England. Although,I think that they should have included more information about how the colonies were affected too. Personally, I think that most of their work was correct but there was a bit bias in that video, and some facts were incorrect. They also should have included information about mercantilism. Mercantilism is basically if you have a lot of money, you have a lot of power. So, if you start losing money, you start losing power which affects you and the places around you.Overall, I think the students did a decent job at explaining what the Navigation Acts were. [|MahaKourikchi] I think that the slaves that weren’t sold were left with their current owners. Their owners would then take care of them until someone else bought them. Unless the slaves were sick and if their owners thought they were useless, then I think the slave owners killed them. Slave owners would continue trying to sell the slaves, and eventually they would be bought, unless they were in critical condition. But as I said before, if the slaves were ill, they would be killed. ||
 * || **re: What happened to slaves that were not sold? ..brownie points for Allyson?**