By the same token, is of course the loss of life suffered by the Indians. They fought to keep their land, and perished without success. Overall, the Indians were the only side paying for the United States to expand westward, and the United States was forcing them to do so. Is it right to treat people this way, or should someone have stopped this before it
The destruction of the Sioux’s native land had a great impact on their idea of home. When the Wasichus destroyed pieces of the physical being of their home, they also destroyed the emotional and mental ideas of home as well. The killing of the bison, had a very strong impact on the tribe, as well as when the whites forced the Sioux, to conform to their ideals of living, mainly by forcing them to live in the square houses.
When the Europeans began colonizing the New World, they had a problematic relationship with the Native Americans. The Europeans sought to control a land that the Natives inhabited all their lives. They came and decided to take whatever they wanted regardless of how it affected the Native Americans. They legislated several laws, such as the Indian Removal Act, to establish their authority. The Indian Removal Act had a negative impact on the Native Americans because they were driven away from their ancestral homes, forced to adopt a different lifestyle, and their journey westwards caused the deaths of many Native Americans.
When gold was discovered in a so-called Indian Territory, “thousands of whites invaded, destroyed Indian property, staked out claims” (Zinn) The Americans didn’t acknowledge that the same place they were settling into was the place the Indians called their home. Many Americans thought that since it was their fate to settle in the West, there was a reason they could remove Indians from the land. They thought that God was leading them and used it as an excuse for unexplainable acts like kicking Natives out of their land. Although it seemed the country was coming together to move westward, the decisions made along the way caused for a split of opinions.
“1491” Questions 1. Two scholars, Erikson and William Balée believe that almost all aspects of Native American life have been perceived wrong. Although some refuse to believe this, it has been proven to be the truth. Throughout Charles C. Mann’s article from The Atlantic, “1491”, he discusses three main points: how many things that are viewed as facts about the natives are actually not true, the dispute between the high and low counters, and the importance of the role disease played in the history of the Americas. When the term “Native American” is heard, the average person tends to often relate that to a savage hunter who tries to minimize their impact on their surrounding environment.
The Indians and Europeans are divided but together in terms of how Europeans viewed Indians. In New World for All and in Dawnland Encounters, Calloway uses European writer Hector St John De Crevecoeur, to describe how Europeans thought of the Indians. De Crevecoeur said the Indians society had a “imperceptible charm for Europeans and offered qualities lacking in European society” (Calloway. 155). In other words, the Indians offered a new take on life for the Europeans as well as give them a new insight to a clear majority of things in the Indian society. In contrast to how Europeans viewed Indians, when a European “went native” they were looked at as a traitor and would receive cruel and unusual punishment for that crime they committed.
I don’t know that I have ever read or heard a story of a Native American being treated well by settlers or even now days. Why were Native Americans treated so horribly?. Did the settlers have the right to push Natives to the west for their own happiness?. How much have things changed in history with the Native Americans?.
During one of his powerful speeches, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said “Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race.” Scholars talk of what happened to the Indians as a great tragedy, but never anything further. We deny what happened to the Indians, particularly the Cherokees. During the 1830’s, the United States government set out to remove all Cherokee individuals from their homes and relocate them west. Relocation meant ending up on a land foreign to them, and presented with environmental conditions that posed difficulties for human living.
Zinn asks this question in APeople’s History of the United States.He questions whether or not it was necessary for the explorers of the New World to cause so much destruction. Through his writing, he seems skeptical of these “sacrifices”. In APatriot’s History of the United States,however, this question never arises, it never even appears to cross the author 's mind, their main focus is on who is to blame for the bloodshed and horror. The one thing that both authors (and many others) agree on is that the road that began with Columbus and continues now in the development of this New World is a messy one.
Historians differ on what they think about the net result of the European arrival in the New World. Considering that the Columbian Exchange, which refers to “exchange of plants, animals, people, disease, and culture between Afro-Eurasia and the Americas after Columbus sailed to the Americas in 1492,” led to possibly tens of millions of deaths on the side of the American Indians, but also enabled agricultural and technological trade (Henretta et al. 42), I cannot help but reflect on whether the effects should be addressed as a historical or a moral question. The impact that European contact had on the indigenous populations of North America should be understood as a moral question because first, treating it as a historical question is difficult due to lack of reliable historical evidence; second, the meaning of compelling historical claims is contestable as the academic historian perspective tends to view the American Indian oral history as invalid; and finally, what happened to the native Indians is morally repulsive and must be discussed as such. The consequences of European contact should be answered as a moral question because historically, it is hard to be historically objective in the absence of valid and dependable historical evidence.
Cherokee, Cheyenne, Seminoles Option #2 During the nineteenth-century, the federal Indian policy changed and it forced the removal or relocation of many different Indian tribes. The federal government sought to expand its control of territory and resources across America. The one big problem the U.S. faced were the Indians who resisted their removal. Georgia signed the Compact of 1802 which stated that if Georgia were to give up their western claims, the U.S. would eradicate American Indian land titles in Georgia and remove them (Lecture 14).
After the recent readings for Zinn’s book, I began to do some research on the Indians helping the British during the Revolutionary War. I Google “Roles of Indians during the Revolutionary War,” and I sound a very interesting site that backed up Zinn’s statement. Many of the Indians, especially the Shawnee, Creeks and the powerful Cherokee and Iroquois helped the British in the American Revolution. The British promised Indians more than their freedom, they also promised to stop settlement on their land. However, there are some Indians that fought for America as well, those tribes were most involved with people who would become Americans. They lived in an intermarriage community and have personal relationships with them.
Native Americans had once dominated the land now called America, but eventually, their lives would be destroyed by European Colonization. In arrival/ settlement of Europeans, a drastic change for Native Americans occurred forcing them to submit to White settlers, choosing between assimilation into a White culture or preserving their heritage and ancestry. A number of negative results would occur including disease, loss of land, and loss right of self-governing, with no remorse to Native American culture. At this point in time five Indian tribes are recognized as civilized, those being; Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Cree, and Seminole Indians, because of their acceptance to the acculturation that George Washington had proposed.
The gap between the rich and the poor widened and not everyone prospered. Many people were taken advantage of and maltreated, including particularly Native Americans and African Americans. European Conquistadors conquered Native Americans and their territory and in the process committed genocide. Roughly ninety percent of the Native American population died due to the Europeans’ arrival. If they were not killed, they would be bound to a contract such as the Requerimiento which blackmailed them into obeying the European rulers.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you throughly about the significance of the eight stages of genocide. When recognising the importance of the eight stages of genocide, future atrocities, to the degree of the Holocaust, can be anticipated and prevented. To introduce myself, I come from the prestigious Munich International School. Throughout my academic studies, I acquainted myself with the subject of genocide. I have read several first hand accounts where the eight stages of genocide were not utilised to anticipate the order of events in the massacre, leading to a variety of iniquities. To introduce these “classics of Holocaust literature” (Chicago Tribune), Elli Coming of Age in the Holocaust written by Livia Jackson is a very moving piece full of lucid sorrow about the experience of death camps, while Night by Ellie Wiesel portrays the horror of Nazi German concentration camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald in 1944–1945. These novels portray the procedure of a genocide. Earliest in order, Classification occurs, thereupon Symbolisation, Dehumanisation, leading to Organisation,