During the 1800s, America was a prospering and powerful country so the People felt that it was their Manifest Destiny, or obvious fate, to settle from coast to coast. Therefore, they set out to get all lands in the West, and were determined to do so, no matter how much they had to give up. However, when the Americans started moving westward, they kicked Native Americans out along the way. They had no respect for other people’s ownership of the land and did anything they needed to obtain it. The idea of Manifest Destiny divided the nation in several controversial topics like Indian territories and slavery.
Throughout history, we have explored and conquered new lands, stamping the American flag into the earth and claiming it as ours — even if the rightful owners disagree. These feats have enabled us to assert ourselves throughout the world, settling communities and influencing those around us. In doing so, our ancestors refined distinct societies, adapting to the terrain and operating accordingly. Our efforts were not invariably supported, however, and disputes arose among those who were indigenous to the lands we thought ours.
William Cronon’s Changes in the Land shows the effect on the land of widely disparate conceptions of ownership owned by Indians and English colonists. He also interprets the situations occurring in New England with the plant and animal communities and the change from Indian to English take over. As residents of Europe were introduced to North America, the boundaries between the two were unclear. Cronon uses evidence to explain the situation that led to the ecological ramification of contact with New England. The law materialized land, making it material of which the purchaser had ownership. Indian law created possibility of being able to own fish or nuts that land produced and the right to hunt and live on the land because there was no possibility
Essay Outline The human race that inhabited the lands earlier than anyone else, Aboriginals in Canada had conquered many obstacles which got them to what they are today. In the past, Canadian Aboriginals have dealt with many gruesome issues that primarily involved the Canadians opposing them or treating them like ‘‘wards.’’ The Indian Act is a written law which controls the Indian’s lives and it is often amended several times to make Indian lives either peaceful or cruel but especially, cruel. Aboriginals found the Indian Act a massive problem in their lives due to it completely controlling them and how they lived on their reserve.
In the article by Anthony F. C. Wallace, “The Hunger for Indian Land in Andrew Jackson’s America,” the reasons for America's need for Indian land is discussed. The purpose of this article is to explain the Indian removal that occurred under Andrew Jackson’s presidency. The thesis of this essay states that Americans kicked the Natives off of their land to fulfill a selfish desire to expand the cotton industry. The first point Wallace uses to support his thesis is how Jackson’s financial interest in the land affected the removal of Natives.
With the arrival of Anglo-Americans, Native Americans lost much more than just their land. Tribes were forced onto reservations, stripped of their culture, wealth and place in society, with no hope of regaining what they owned unless by complete assimilation. For the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, many Anglo-Americans continually pushed for Native Americans to abandon their cultures and “savage” ways. However, despite the many attempts to force Natives into Anglo-American culture, many Native Americans found ways to negotiate with the demands of the Anglo-Americans through mainly social, economic and legal means.
Throughout the seventeenth century, conflict between Europeans and Native Americans was rampant and constant. As more and more Europeans migrated to America, violence became increasingly consistent. This seemingly institutionalized pattern of conflict begs a question: Was conflict between Europeans and Native Americans inevitable? Kevin Kenny and Cynthia J. Van Zandt take opposing sides on the issue. Kevin Kenny asserts that William Penn’s vision for cordial relations with local Native Americans was destined for failure due to European colonists’ demands for privately owned land.
Hugh Henry Brackenridge did not care much for the Indians. In his article, he referred to them as “animals, vulgarly called Indians” (Brackenridge, 185). Indians claimed their land by “occupancy” (Brackenridge, 185). One Indian would set foot on a piece of land so he believed that that area of land belonged to him. When another Indian set foot on that same piece of land, the first Indian asked him to leave because he had already claimed that land.
In the early arrival of the English, there was an extreme competitive economic viewpoint. Unaware of the English’s’ intentions, the Native Americans did everything the English told them too. However,
Most people would define wealth as the accumulation of some sort of precious possessions or just plain money. However, like most terms, wealth can be observed as a completely different or foreign concept in another cultural/social group. At this time, two cultural groups, the American Indians and the American English settlers, began to interact more frequently for various purposes such as the purchasing of land. Nevertheless, the concept of wealth and property had been so dissimilar between the two societies that misunderstandings were not unfamiliar to them and frequent disagreements occurred. Fueled by differing understandings and perceptions of wealth and property, a clash between the American Indians and the American English colonists… During the early colonization of America, the accumulation of property was often the definition of one’s wealth and power for the English colonists.
In 1742 the chief of Onondaga of the Iroquois Confederacy knew that his land that the people shared would become more valuable than it has ever been. (Doc B)The reason for this was because the “white people” also known as the Americans wanted the land of the chief. The feelings of the Chief result in complaining to the representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia,
However, the American government’s idea of freedom also relied on the access to land to prosper the economy. Therefore they sought to take this land for their use. The Native Americans disagreed with this, and fought to keep their land. However, the Native Americans never succeeded in claiming their land back. The settlers actually tried to compensate some of that land back to the Indians by a document called the Dawes Act, which supposedly protected Native American property rights, mainly through the land rushes in the 1890s.