The relationship between Settlers and the Native Americans was complicated and varied between tribes and settlements. I think perhaps the Natives knew some of the Europeans intentions, but could not see how dangerous the Europeans were, and how much they would change the native lands. Thinking about the two cultures historically, we assume, were vastly different, and they were, but they did share a few similarities. Both societies were deeply religious, but both had very different views about the world around them. The difference ultimately proved great, and both societies experienced great difficulties.
This is evident with Andrew Jackson’s actions and his presumptions of the Natives. However, this source has significant limitations due to Jackson’s motivation in removing the Cherokee, historians cannot be fully assured Jackson included all facts behind the removal. For example, many of the benefits Jackson mentioned in his speech specifically regarding the Cherokee benefiting from removal hardly seem plausible. This calls into attention Jackson’s integrity and honesty throughout the entire speech.
In 1858, the government had directly taken the reserves given to the Native Americans for resources the nation had wanted. The absolute least we as a nation and sports league can do is take away a name that the Native Americans find offense to their culture. We have not given them a voice until recently, although it is still flawed in how we value their opinion. Cynthia Connolly, one of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, says mascots representing them most often reflect who they were in the 1800s, as warriors.
The British population in North America was rapidly growing, hence they required more land to settle the new populace, and more resources to feed and clothe them. Neither the British nor the French had any settlers in the land but the British required the land for a place to settle their booming population and the French want to protect their economy, in the trade from the Indians. Both looked at the Ohio River lands as land which could be, as if it belonged to no one. But this was untrue as the Ohio River Indians had been living on this land for a long time. As historian Fredrick Jackson Turner claims in his ‘Frontier Thesis’ “[the] idealistic conception of vacant lands as an opportunity for a new order of things is unmistakably present” here he also describes the attitude of the French and the British by saying that “never again will such gifts [such as] free land offer themselves.” , causing the kindling of Native American discontent to
First, the earliest form of racism that was forced on the First Nationers of this country. From the moment the English step on to the American soil the settlers knew there was no precious metals so the only thing that it offered was land. “As Since the Indians stood in the way of unlimited access to North America’s magnificent landmass, the Indians would have to be eliminated. And so they were” (Stannard 431). Burned, purged, killed, and raped, this was just the beginning for the people that were indigenous to the lands in which we now all live and call our own.
With the Indians finally placed in a spot which is theirs, though far away from where they were born, a fake delegation arises and causes them to withdraw from that land. "It comes to us, not through our legitimate authorities, the known and usual medium of communication between the Government of the United States and our nation, but through the agency of a complication of powers, civil and military. ”(Cherokee letter protesting the Treaty of New Echota, 1836), without looking back, and only viewing their future straight forward, the US takes everything they can and don’t even try to reduce the Native Indians ' pain. Instead of trying to solve the main problem and stop the treaty from forcing the Native Indians out of their land, they sent troops to make it fast and clean. "Our property may be plundered before our eyes; violence may be committed on our persons; even our lives may be taken away, and there is none to regard our complaints.
“But Nanny, Ah wants to want him sometimes. Ah don’t want him to do all de wantin’.” (Hurston.23) But as you read in the previous paragraph, Nanny did not think much of Janie’s comment about love. “Ah hope you fall on soft ground” (Hurston.25) Logan Killicks had sixty acres of successful farmland which was perfect “soft ground” in case Janie fell. Despite the provided financial support and good treating during the first year of marriage, Logan wanted Janie to help him with the farming work. This in turn made her feel used and unloved.
This was a very controversial event that many people opposed. The law required that Natives not be forced to leave their lands; however, President Andrew Jackson, who had signed the Act into law, often ignored this, and took Native land by force. Native Americans were relocated to land west of the Mississippi that the United States had gotten in the Louisiana Purchase (History.com, 2009). The Choctaw nation was the first to be forced from its land. These Natives travelled on foot to their new lands, on what was later called the “Trail of Tears”.
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.
Turner hesitates to mention anyone in his essay who is not male or Germanic or at least European, leaving out huge demographics of people who heavily influenced the West. The lack of recognition for the people who actually built the country, with or without choice, is detrimental to history and representation later on in America. The Europeans that came to America had very oppressive laws of property which they carried over with them. The Natives who had been living there for years had a very different concept of property; many believed that the land was gifted to everyone and no one person could own any part of that land. However, the Europeans refused this idea and saw this as an opportunity to take whatever they wanted.
He believed Jackson needed a reality check. The Indians were there first, it was their land. He force the Natives to move away from their homeland, with brute force. He believes Jackson could not justify his actions just because it was for America’s benefit. He also stated Jackson refused to listen to many people, and he refused to let Indians live.
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.
The document essentially split the nation into two camps. On one hand, there was a group who welcomed the document, seeing it as necessary for progress. On the other hand, there was a camp which opposed the document, arguing that it represented an unwelcome change. The fact that it ushered a new form of governance where authority would be shared between the federal government and state authorities is one of the factors that made the constitution a controversial document (U.S National Archives and Records Administration, n.d). There are those who felt that the constitution took away authority from the state governments and therefore robbed them of their autonomy.
Also saying that the Transcontinental railroad wasn 't a reason why there was Westward Expansions. Few families had the resources to even start farming.“The Homestead Act (May 20, 1862) set in motion a program of public land grants to small farmers”(History.com) They say that the transcontinental railroad was literally the transportation of traveling to the West. Removing the main barrier of to expansion and settlement. It may have improved moving to the west a lot easier, but it doesn 't mean that the farmers and free men were wanting to go to the west just because there was transportation. Why would they leave their properties they had in the East and Midwest when they had the things they could get?
If I was a Native American when the Europeans arrived I was be cautious but also curious. I had no idea that their arrival would eventually disrupt our way of life. Besides these settlers were helpless in that they couldn 't even survive the long winter on their own. However land became the main problem among us. Settler wanted more land for farming and mining.