The modern Witch trials

Witch trial

the Zoot Suite

Thanks to john's post, I had the idea of examining modern events and how they overlap with the infamous Salem Witch trials. The idea of blindly convict a human being without sufficient evidence is nothing new. It has been around for centuries and it is still around until these days. The trials itself might differ these days. A modern witch trial could be performed outside of court. Moreover, the sentence can be carried out by the society outside the boundaries of law. Destroying someone's life can be performed literally and virtually. A person might not physically die but his career, marriage, family, livelihood and mentality just might. An example of a modern witch trial is the patriotic act. Anyone suspected of acts of terrorism is sent to Guantanamo bay even without sufficient evidence. The zoot suite riots in the 1940s are also a good example. This type of suite was popular among some parts of the society who happened to be not white. Some people found it to be distasteful and started beating and stripping whoever wears it. The law did nothing to prevent these violent riots. The Holocaust is the most similar instance of the witch trials. Condemning people just based on their identity or looks is the very essence of both the witch trials and the Holocaust. The media these days is vastly similar to a Salem's trials judge. The media has no problem destroying someone's life, dignity, career, reputation and credentials just because the person doesn't agree with them. Most of the time they have no proof that he did anything wrong but rather fake same footage or make a genuine good act appear as a bad deed. Twisting facts and presenting only part of the truth is the 21st century's way of sentencing someone to a life of agony. These were all examples of similar events to the witch trials. They might not be the same but the results are certainly the same.

Media Hypocrisy, all parties' Families should be off limit if they are not involved in the issue 

The colonization of America vs Australia

         

      The colonization of America made me think of Australia. I was wondering if the colonization of Australia had the same scenario as America. They were in fact very similar except there was only one major player that was the English empire. When the English decided to use the Australian land as prisons after the American colonies protested against them, they treated the indigenous people just as bad as they treated the Native American. They hunted them down, chased them off their lands and spread their imported diseases among them. Their population decreased from hundreds of thousand
s to near extinction. They had around three hundred languages that most of them disappeared. Their history vanished and they were forced eventually to adopt the English way life including the language, fashion and being slaves to a white master.  The subtle differences between the Native Australian and the Native American is that at least the natives in America could, at some point, ally themselves with one or more of the major players on the continent. Because there were several armies fighting each other, they sometimes opt to make a temporary peace with the natives since they were of use to them. Sometimes those major powers simply couldn't afford to start another war with the natives. Most of the time, their relationship was based on supply and demand. When the natives were needed, they were treated fairly. However, when their lands became more valuable than they did, they received a harsh treatment. The native Australians never had that luxury but eventually both nations ended up the same.

Native Australians forced to adopt the English life Style

The Enlightenment vs The Great Awakening

The differences between the enlightenment and the great awakening don't stop at the superficial aspects of both. They both influenced completely different demographics. Mostly the elites adopted the enlightenment while the great awakening influenced the more common people.  It rather reminds me of how "Born Again Christian" is a label given to only famous people and powerful personalities like former president Bush, President Carter, Tom Hanks and hilariously Charlie Sheen. The later seems to adopt the title out of some publicity scheme. Nevertheless, I don't know the details but I have never met a person who claims to be a born again Christian and I only heard the term on TV, which made me think it's reserved for famous people. Back at the original comparison, even though both principles are somehow noble and had great concepts that benefits humanity, they still have some flaws. The great awakening breached to have no more slaves and called for freedom and equality while the enlightenment had no problem with owning slaves. The enlightenment sought out the improvement and the perfection of the human society while the great awakening focused more on the revival of religion. The great awakening didn’t pay much attention into science and education but it did help building a better society by freeing slaves and giving women the right to vote and participate in the society. We can observe a similar behavior these days where the higher class focuses more on science and education while the lower class tend to be more religious. However, back then the enlightenment and the awakening seem to complement each other instead of going against each other. Unlike today, where there is a constant debate on whom is right and which is better, Science or religion. Personally, I don’t believe they should be separate and apparently, people shared my view in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Why Tobacco in the Chesapeake Colony

Why Tobacco in the Chesapeake Colony

When I read about the Tobacco plantations in the Chesapeake colony and the amount of indentured servants and slaves it took to work there, I wondered why tobacco? The British valued their Tea so why didn't they just plant tea. When I looked further into the history of Virginia, it turned out that tobacco was not the first plant they tried to grow and benefit from. King James I granted a charter to the Virginia Company of London to bring settlers into Virginia and return a profit. They first tried producing glass, Tar and beer. However, these products required too much labor and work

ing in dangerous conditions. Their safety standards at that time were not top notch to mention they didn't even care about the workers lives anyway. As a result, to this, they lost a huge number of workers and barely made a profit.  that caused them to start farming crops instead. They tried cotton, sugar cane, indigo, plantains, grapes and pomegranates. The Spanish were already growing these crops and making huge profits in the West Indies so it didn't turn out well for the British. Then Pocahontas's husband came along and started growing tobacco imported from Venezuela. It had a better flavor than the native Virginia's tobacco, which commanded a higher price in England. It turned out; Chesapeake was environmentally perfect for growing this kid of tobacco that got very popular in England. Therefore, the industry grew tremendously.  Growing tobacco wasn't only hard on the workers, it was also hard on the land itself. On average, a land is used to grow tobacco for three years then corn for the next three then it had to stay fallow or un-planted for the next twenty. Tobacco plantation was so rough that even the indentured servants eventually stopped working there which caused the owners to bring more slaves.

A tobacco plantation