Cultural Assimilation

Braford E. Burns began writing The Poverty of Progress as a historical essay arguing against the “modernization” of nineteenth century Latin America. Burns argues that modernization was preformed against the will of the majority and benefited a small group of Creole Elite, while causing an exponential drop in the quality of life for folk majority. Burns supports his research through a series of dichotomies. Within the first twenty years of the nineteenth century the majority of Latin America gained independence from Spain. Prior to the Latin American countries gaining independence, the Creole elites expressed great displeasure with the crown and readily equated themselves with the American colonists before gaining independence from Britain.

In Document A, there is a map showing the land Napoleon conquered for France, Napoleon and his military conquered a lot of land for France and it even explains in Document B that Napoleon conquered so much land because he wanted to eliminate the tyrants of other countries to better the lives of people under their rule. Napoleon cared about the happiness and well being of others. In Document E the Napoleonic Code explains “All Frenchmen shall enjoy civil rights.” During the Reign of Terror and the Revolution Frenchmen had no civil rights and had no protection from the government. Napoleon reintroduced civil rights to France after their rights had been taken away from them. Document C explains that Napoleon believed in better education for France and thought better education would help create a stronger military.

When the Ku Klux Klan was formed, they tried to cease the African American from participation in the political process. “We would state that we have been law-abiding citizens, pay taxes, and in many parts of the state our people have been driven from the polls, refused the right to vote. Many have been slaughtered while attempting to vote.” [Doc. 3] Southern States deprived the right to vote from the former slaves because of their race and color. “Their (Mississippi, South Carolina, or Louisiana) framers intended and did disfranchise a majority of their citizenship [deprived them of the right to vote] because of “race and color” and “previous condition”..” [Doc.

The Dawes Act, was introduced by Henry Dawes, a Senator from Massachusetts. Simply put, the Act broke up previous land settlements given to Native Americans in the form of reservations and separated them into smaller, separate parcels of land to live on. More importantly, the Act required Natives to live apart from their nations and assimilate into European culture. Dawes felt that the law, once fully realized, would save Native Americans from the alternative, which was their total slaughtering. However, the Dawes Act may in fact be the gold medal winner of all time when it comes to how often the best intentions result in the worst harm, since, ironically, it just about accomplished what Dawes claimed he was trying to avoid.

The creation of countries, end of segregation, women's suffrage, etc. can be credited to disobedience. America was created because we disobeyed England; we thought that taxation without representation was unfair. Our motive was freedom and justice; the outcome was American people with more rights. In the 50s and 60s, people of color and allies protested segregation with “sit ins”.

These changes will soon be repeated in countries like the German Coast Uprising of 1811 in the United States. Naturally, the bloodiness of the Haitian Revolution aroused fear among many. For example, Thomas Jefferson in Document 9 wanted to end contact and abolish trade in order to ensure peace and stop violence between different groups of people. Jefferson knew that contact with Haiti would cause slavery to be a debated question for the United States. With Haiti being another republic, the new country no longer imported slaves from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which ultimately shaped the economy particularly in the Western

American Injustice The United States of America, much like every developed nation before and after it, left a trail of injustice and oppression behind it as it became what it is known as now. However, the United States approached their issues differently: America rebelled against their mother country, England. They were the first nation to do such a thing; the first nation to cut all support from their mother country and end the cycle of abuse that England had set for their American brothers. White American men became powerful through a simple process, education. Education gave them the tools and skills necessary to fight England and thrive as a nation.

They almost unilaterally believed that white anglo-saxon protestants were superior to those of other races, origins, and religions. During the 1830s, ‘40s, and ‘50s, they would come to believe that it was their destiny (in the words of John O’Sullivan, their “Manifest Destiny”) to settle the entire continent, although for some this belief was tempered with a brief contemplation of ethics. These two assumptions provided the social fuel for many significant political policies during this time period, including many that caused major political strife. Even though people on both sides of an issue often held the same core beliefs, they approached it in different ways, resulting in political controversy. However, it is important to remember that there were people who did not hold these beliefs and who were extraordinarily vocal about their dissent, although there were many reasons for dissention, most of which were not at all selfless in motivation.

Both the impressment of American Sailors and blocking trade with France was spilling over policies England had adopted during the prosecution of the war with France. And finally England blatant support of Native American groups that preyed on American settlers along the frontier had to be stopped. Although technically no one won the war. All four of Americans goals were

Native Americans were forced to pick up their homes and resettle in areas that were less than sufficient to meet their basic needs. If Native Americans were not compliant, Americans would murder them. Although Manifest Destiny was seen as an inevitable movement among Americans and resulted in the formation of the American West in the Nineteenth century, it was truthfully an act of invasion and subjugation against peoples who had settled the land for hundreds of years earlier. Manifest Destiny led to an obvious upsurge in racial