The essay below was generously provided by Lea Stokes, at my request, for the purpose of exhibiting an essay that would serve as an example of the kind of writing that I am encouraging for the mid-term and final essays. This is not the only style or format that would constitute a good essay, but a good example of how to write a reflective paper on a subject relevant to the course. My annotations appear in RED in [square brackets].--G. Spangler

---

 

Thoughts on a Terrible Shadow

Lea Stokes

 

Many of the readings, videos, speakers, and discussions in my treaty rights class have prompted me to think in new ways and about things I wouldn't normally fathom. [Here, she is speaking directly to the audience (instructor) who will be reading the essay] While reading the first three chapters of T.R. Berger's A Long And Terrible Shadow, several sections caught my attention. These passages sparked something deep down in my brain leading me into deeper and more critical thought (which doesn't happen often) [This self-deprecation is not necessary, but it underscores the extent to which these chapters meant something to the writer--this impresses the instructor--Wow, the reading really meant something to the student! This might simply be a gratuitous comment, intended to ratchet-up the instructor's regard for enthusiasm in a student, but the rest of the essay gives plausible, and often, persuasive evidence that Lea really did reflect seriously upon the chapters she had read]. There are three ideas that originated in the chapters that I will cover in this paper. [Here, she states her promises for the rest of the essay, and tells the reader what to expect--this is the "topic statement" of the essay, or, thesis, or proposition that she will present] First, I will discuss the double standard that exists in the history of conquerors and the conquered. Second, I will discuss how definitions of right and wrong change through time. Lastly, I will cover how the spread of our culture and attempts at assimilation like those in the book, never ended.

One portion of the book that caused me to think was the Spanish conquest of the Aztec nation. Throughout history those who conquer other nations are portrayed as bullies. The conquerors are a strong and technologically advanced nation. They move into uncharted but occupied land. In a shower of gunfire they take the city. Almost everyone is killed or enslaved. All valuable objects and the land that the native people were living on now belongs to the conquerors. It is an all too familiar scene out of our history books.[The opening sentence invokes our common understanding of how conquests happened and needs no specific documentation, as she points out in the next sentence] It happened in North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and even on tiny Easter Island. This is all well known. What made me think further than this point was the description of the Spanish conquistadors moving in on the Aztec city. According to Berger,[Here she cites the writing directly] the conquistadors found many subjected tribes who were willing to rise up and fight against the Aztec. [The next sentence poses a rhetorical question about our "conventional wisdom" or assumed knowledge of the Aztecs] Hmmm--- So the Aztec nation wasn't the happy picture history books have painted it out to be? The Aztec themselves were a conquering nation. In order to become so great, so advanced, so wealthy, the Aztec had conquered smaller and weaker tribes in the area. [Then, she notes the similarity of conquerers, regardless of their "nation" of origin] This means that other non-European nations practiced the art of conquering. This does not sound like a revolutionary idea, but it occurred to me how seldom I have ever read or heard about a conquering nation that was not European. The history books report on the Europeans' achievements and all the nations they have discovered and conquered. Seldom mentioned are the accomplishments of non-Europeans when they crushed their enemies.[Now, she concludes her reflections on the first promise made in the topic paragraph] The fact that the Aztecs were the conquerors of other Indian tribes does not justify the actions of the conquistadors. However, it does create a deeper understanding. Perhaps it's just human nature to take advantage of those weaker. Nations all through history have been conquerors or the conquered. Why is it we only hear about European conquerors? Is it a subconscious sense of guilt for past actions or pride over past accomplishments? Is it because these conquests are the most recent or closest to home? I would assume it is because the history we learn was written by Europeans, for people of European descent. Who cares if the Aztec conquered other tribes? That was way before we got here. I think the oversight is simply due to self-absorption.

               Periodically, in our readings and class discussions I am confronted by decisions and actions that I view as downright wrong and immoral. [This sets the stage for her to fulfill her second promise, a discussion of "right and wrong"] An example of this from A Long And Terrible Shadow is how the conquistadors treated the native inhabitants after arriving in South America. The whole requerimiento process is ridiculous and despicable.[This is her characterization of why she thinks the requerimiento was morally wrong] The natives were faced with these strange people who spoke gibberish. They made demands that the Indians could not understand. Then they got terribly upset and started killing people! The Indians must have been confused and shocked. Today, anyone would agree that it is wrong to arrive at someone's house, unannounced and uninvited, make demands in a language that they do not speak (and none of their neighbors speak), and then to try to kill them if they do not comply with said demands.[This is so self-evident, that the reader doesn't require further documentation] The conquistadors fully believed that this was appropriate. They had a go-ahead from God. This was what God wanted. They were simply trying to convert the heathens. It is not the fact that this happened in history that I find mind boggling, [This is a brief lapse into language (mind-boggling) that is generally too informal for a serious essay] or that the conquistadors and their religious leaders thought that this was the right thing to do. It's just another sad example from a history filled with similar stories and similar actions. [The following sentences trace her steps in arriving at her conclusions, then ask the reader some rhetorical questions to stimulate further thinking, and finally, she nails down the relevance of the topic by referring to the contemporary Iraqi war] This got me to thinking about right, wrong, morals, and how ambiguous and temporary they all are. If the conquistadors firmly believed that what they were doing to the native people was right, what guarantee do we have that future generations will agree with us? What will future generations think about the things we do today that we consider morally right? In two or three hundred years will a group of college students be sitting in a classroom amazed that we were only doing what we considered "right?" (Especially with our "war to liberate Iraq.") If something that was right then could be so wrong now, what will be considered right, wrong, or moral in the future?

               A third thought [This is the third promise] inspired by A Long And Terrible Shadow is our country's constant attempts to impose our culture on others and to try to shape them in our image. In chapter two, [Here she cites an authority] Las Casas argued Spaniards had the right to enter Indian lands to convert the Natives. It seems that Europeans always wanted to "help" the Indians by civilizing them. Indians could only be accepted if they looked and acted just like the Europeans. This has happened throughout history and is still going on today. Missionaries still exist. In my cultural anthropology class, [Another authoritative source] we studied a group of natives in the rainforest in Brazil. There are missionaries down there trying to convert the natives to Christians, trying to bribe them with food, clothes, and guns. We impose our culture on other people in less obvious ways. It seems like there is a McDonald's in every country around the globe. We've all heard stories about American tourists in other countries selling the Levi's off their body [Small grammatical error here in subject-verb agreement, but nothing so glaring that it distracts us from understanding the intent of the Levis and McDonalds examples]. We impose our culture without trying to do so. Nor do we care about the consequences of doing so. By flooding others with our culture, don't we make their cultures a little less meaningful? Or are we simply expanding people's horizons and making the world smaller? [Here and earlier in the essay, she makes great use of the rhetorical question to encourage the reader to think further about the subject]

               A Long And Terrible Shadow has inspired me to think critically about the history of Native Americans and the conflicts that arose with the arrival of people from other nations. These chapters have also caused me to question the notions of absolute right and wrong and the judgement of whether something is moral or not. Finally, it has caused me to think about assimilation and the spread of our culture throughout the world. [This is a good conclusion. It is personal, as many essays are, and it sums up what effect the reading had on her thinking. The reader is not obligated to agree or disagree, but comes away from it knowing more about why Lea thinks what she does, as a consequence of having read Thomas Berger's first three chapters.]