Mann's Argument Essay: The Indian Savage

On page 37 of Taking Sides, Van Zandt states “… It took actual North American experience and knowledge of Europeans to fully understand the necessity of allying with powerful Indian nations or at least to gain a more realistic appreciation of which Indian Nations were the most powerful”. Van Zandt summarizes her arguments by stating that power struggles were the reason behind intercultural alliance failures, not cultural differences between Europeans and Native

Hope was being lost, once proud people, now thought to themselves that they were cursed. To draft Indians and not call them, “The First American Citizen,” (Page 126) is very clearly disrespectful and dehumanizing. Wassaja wanted these words spoken to the “Washington father”, to spark some sort of fire. Hoping to show proof that the Native American deserved to be an American equal. That would then let them proudly call this country “

Even though colonists desired freedom, they felt that Native Americans had the wrong type of freedom. They thought they were too free and lacked the structure that civilization provided. Because of the multitude of Natives in America they had no choice but to live around them, but the treatment of the Natives between the French and the English were vastly different. The establishment of New France rested on their need of furs rather than agricultural settlements.

Yet even removal and issues of tribal sovereignty fit within a larger context of Jackson’s convictions regarding national security and state sovereignty. The general’s rise was due to his success as an Indian fighter on the frontier. He always, and to some extent legitimately, viewed American Indians as a serious threat to settlers. As president, Jackson understood

The Native Americans were treated very cruelly and scornfully by white settlers and the American Government. The white settlers and the Government did not show any slight altruism towards the Native Americans' and therefore took their land by force by cheating them through treaties or relinquishing them off with soldiers or after battles. The Trail of Tears was a devastating event that occurred in the 1830's and an example of a grueling era. In 1830 The Indian Removal Act was passed by the authorization of president Andrew Jackson.” Five Civilized Tribes, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole.

Using that image as the high school 's mascot is just to “honor your heritage”. When using a Indian as a mascot, it 's the same as using a pilgrim as the school’s mascot and is not offensive but just honoring their heritage. High Schools have pride when they call

I love Snapchat because the uses are endless, be it taking really good selfies, or cheering up five-year-olds at my summer job, Snapchat is an app that houses a lot of memories for me, both figuratively, and

The Army fought them at a certain disadvantage,the Army had to learn to become half indian before it could fight the indians on anything like even terms. We seem not so much to have coveted the lands in the trails than for the soil. The Indians themselves had lived there all their lives,had conquered their environment and were happy in it. They made a bitter fight,which they can’t be blamed for. The Indians was protecting what had been theirs for a long time.

They made their journey towards the new world, just leaving everything else behind. If they would have thought about what to do if they ran into new people they could have handled things differently, instead of invading the Native Americans land and seem threatening. Due to this we see that the Native Americans and the way that they were treated affected them and this changed their whole world. We hear now a days that Christopher Columbus did not in fact find the land we call America but he did change the world. Was it for the better?

Although the natives lead different lives than the stereotypical Christian American citizen, it does not give the United States government the right to strip them of their homeland and resources. The aborigines have a vast set of lore that many of are unaware of. It is wrong of Jackson to assume that one must be Christian in order to be civilized. Jackson claims that the natives, upon settling westward, will have access to countless benefits provided by the government. However, disregarding the natives’ religion, culture, and way of life does exactly the opposite.

What misconceptions did Europeans have about the North American continent? How were these misconceptions inaccurate? The main misconception that the Europeans had about the North American continent was that it was completely rid of intelligent life.

here is no doubt about the great impact that European colonies had upon the North American Continent. The initial interactions between Europeans and Indians defined history and set the atmosphere between the two groups for years to come. However, the ways in which different European Powers interacted with the native peoples of the lands they were colonizing were very different. Aside from a few key similarities, the interactions between France and the natives versus the interactions between Spain and the natives differ in the ways they treated the natives, their dependency on the natives, and their motives for colonizing. There is no doubt that the Spanish were much more ruthless in their methods of colonization than the French.

America Before Columbus Had you heard of Cahokia before? What surprised you, if anything? I have never heard of Cahokia before and reading about them today is very interesting. They were a very educated people, the large ceremonial mounds are such a beautiful creation and the fact that the settlers believed the mounds to be built by someone else is wrong. The settlers were very harsh to the natives, doubting their intelligence and their genius.

France, knowing that its current system could not work due to the year delay for instructions to reach New France implemented a different administration and eased the burden of the seigniorial system to maintain control . All the while the churches transformation of native and European teaching allowed for so many new diplomatic opportunities. Freedom, a new land, distant rulers, a domineering yet failing church, corrupt officials, new education, freedom to trade, and native society transformed into what we now

The assertion that the land should still belong to the Lakota because the United States violated the Fort Laramie treaty by acquiring the land without Lakota approval has been undermined however by the United States Supreme Court. In the case United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980) the 8-1 ruling was that the United States’ “sole legal shortcoming was the failure to pay just compensation” for the land (Pommersheim 116). Although the land was seized using moral justifications that ranged from questionable to outright egregious, the Lakota were just as expansionist when they arrived on the land less than 100 years before (Kurkiala 449). The United States continued to honor the law however, and proposed paying $17.5 million to the Lakota as compensation for the land. The court later revised this number to $122.5 million by compounding a 5% interest annually (Churchill 135) but the Lakota response to this was that they were no more willing to take the new offer than the old one.