The NYT article refers to the controversy about renaming the memorial and building a shrine commemorating the death of Native Americans in the Battle of Little Bighorn. “Senator Malcom Wallop, Republican of Wyoming, became an outspoken opponent of the name change, calling the proposal ‘a prime example of political correctness’ and an act of ‘revisionism’” (NYT 37) It seems that ideas such as westward expansion and imperialism have taken a negative toll after the 1960’s, but yet defenders of colonialist/imperialist history find some type of way to defend it. Political correctness is the orthodox patriotism of the post
The past history for Americans convey the idea of despotism and tyranny by the government. Therefore, Sullivan utilize the idea of American’s past to justify the idea of expansion for the reason that Sullivan wants to persuade Americans that the expansion to the west would build a renovated and great nation. Moreover, Sullivan illustrates the idea of a new government that will bring equality and freedom that Americans did not have under the control of the Mother Land, Great Britain. Sullivan demonstrates this idea in his work when he writes “On the contrary, our nation birth was the beginning of a new history, the formation and progress of an untried political system, which separates us form the past and connects us with the future only; and
She argues that the book depicts society’s evolution toward the acceptance and normalization of racial hybridity, but her methods of furthering this argument are problematic at best. Moss not only ignores the author’s explicit intent in writing the book in favor of her own idea, but she tokenizes other authors of color to provide what is actually very weak support for her argument. She desperately wishes to show that Smith is depicting a post-racial reality, but in doing so, Moss ultimately diminishes the credibility of her argument by revealing her own
By opening Virgin Land with de Crévecouer’s question, “What is an American?,” (3) Smith demonstrated that the primary ambition was to answer that very question. Smith uses the frontier myth as his starting point because the most persistent “generalizations concerning American life and character has been shaped by the pull of a continent drawing population westward.” (Virgin Land 3) Where Turner had argued that the frontier had shaped the American identity, Smith shifted the attention “away from what ‘actually happened’ in time past to what people though was happening.” (Marks, 71) Focusing instead on the mythic and symbolic aspects of the West, Smith demonstrated that the image of the West was considered to be a reflection of American nationality, identity, and culture. The American identity was, according to Smith, not the result of the actual experience of living on the frontier as Turner had argued but the result of the utopian ideas used to describe the West and the myths that followed in its
Lisa Lowe’s book “Intimacies of Four Continents” attempts to escape the traditional historiography that usually has an Anglo-American perception of history. The recently published book makes a wake-up call to traditional scholarship that tend to prioritize the self-centered view of every matter, even foreign affairs, interpreting historical facts according to this Anglo-American narrow perspective and principles. The scenery of the Intimacies of Four Continents is the European expansion and the Atlantic trade focusing on slave trade followed by the Chinese indentured workers transportation to the Americas in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Lowe argues that scholarship fail to address the Chinese indentured workers that,
A view of Americans as a special, exceptional people because Americans had progressively taken over the West and conquered primitive societies was firmly established in the minds of Americans by frontier myth. One of problems is that the frontier myth is a story, and “all stories are partial; that is, in creating narrative coherence, they leave things out, and emphasize other things”. They are not necessarily false, but neither are they history. As the society evolved, the concept of the frontier is consequently redefined as a space of social and cultural interaction and replaced by the terms “contact zone” by Mary Louise Pratt in her 1992 book Imperial Eyes. Contact zones are “social spaces where disparate cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other.” Of course there could be winners and losers, and violent battles in these encounters, however the focus is no longer on distinctions between race and gender but on the intersections between people and cultures, on their assimilations and
Contrary to popular belief, Thomas Jefferson was the one who proposed the idea of the Indian Removal Act. The proposal was made when native tribes refused to integrate and adapt to American lifestyle (assimilation). In fact, Jefferson stated, “if we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi.” As president, Jefferson made an agreement with Georgia to relinquish their claim of land in the west in return that the United States army would force the Cherokee from Georgia. However, the agreement was demolished because the United States had formed a treaty with the Cherokee granting them the right to their lands. As for Monroe, he commission Andrew Jackson to destroy the Seminole native tribe of Florida.
The expansion throughout the continent would only serve to reopen the controversy over slavery and create further tension between the North and South. As long as there was a fundamental difference in beliefs throughout the country, conflict would continue. The possible acquisition of land from Mexico led to another point of contention in the slavery debate. When a bill surfaced to appropriate funding to purchase peace with Mexico during the war, a provision was added to prohibit slavery in any newly acquired territory. Southern opposition soon surfaced claiming that all Americans had equal rights in new lands.
In the article “Race in America: ‘We would like to Believe we are Over the Problem,”’ which was published on America, Maryann Cusimano Love argues that the racial inequity issues still persist today in the United States. She triggers her topic by responding to Delegate Hargrove’s arguments that “not a soul today had anything to do with slavery” and “it is counterproductive to dwell on the past.” She thinks Hargrove’s suggestions are defective because racial issues are still exist in the modern society, which people must be responsible for. As the evidence to support her argument, she listed historical statistics and numbers. She first makes it clear that the inequality in health care causes many African-American died in the United States. She
Part of this argument is that tribes aren’t sovereign in the first place, saying “American Indians are not a separate nation any more than blacks or Jews or Korean immigrants are” (Riley, Naomi). And while knowing the US. government has broken promises and treaties with the Native people, they also bring to light that the US. decided that they could modify or terminate any treaties with Native Americans, without the tribes consent (Riley, Naomi). “It is time for both the US government and the tribes to stop pretending that they are like foreign countries negotiating a settlement” (Riley, Naomi).
The lens of Changes in the Land focuses on the Indians and how “their ability to move about the landscape” (Cronon 159), had been “severely constrained” by the actions of the Europeans, and how their life was affected by the settlement. The lens of Experiencing History: Interpreting America’s Past is one that speaks greatly of the Europeans and their life and their struggles and their point of view. This is specifically evident when the textbook speaks of “communities in conflict” (page 89), and how it spotlights the issues pertaining to the colonists. Another area where the textbook and Changes in the Land don’t align is the portrayal of the settlers and the way that they view and act on the land of New England. In our textbook, Experiencing History, the settlers are portrayed as people whom, “established most of their settlements with an eye to stability and order” (page 89).
Johnson will serve as a Connecticut agent, to help put the colony’s title on a Native American land. While Johnson is at Britain, he will soon realize that Britain’s policy is mostly made up of American’s conditions. When the Patriots become wild up with their demands, Johnson knew that he couldn’t be part of the Patriots actions. Johnson agrees that the Patriots were correct about their actions but he have trouble from breaking up with his mother country. Johnson avoids associating with the Patriots by rejecting his election to the First Continental Congress and this move of Johnson will make the Patriots remove him from the militia command.
When Jefferson became the president he tried to make these changes a reality. Jefferson 's expectation was that by assimilating the natives into a market-based, so they would be heavily dependent on trade with white Americans, then they would be more willing to sale their land. Jefferson believed that this strategy would "get rid of this pest, without giving offence or umbrage to the Indians" However, if they were to resisted the assimilation, Jefferson then believed that they should be forcefully removed from their land and sent west. His first promotions of Indian Removal were between 1776 and 1779, when he recommended forcing the Cherokee and Shawnee tribes to be driven out of their ancestral homelands to lands west of the Mississippi River. According to Jefferson, the Indian removal was the only way to ensure the survival of Native American
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.
The author moves the history onto another trajectory by investigating the connection between native identity and politics to protect their way of life. Dowd states that tribal religion interconnected with “Indian politics.” Investigating the Pan-Indian movement, Dowd offers historians with a new inquiry, which questions the importance that native religion had in forming an identity in resistance. Examining memoirs and journals, Dowd argues that the visions of the prophets “received revelations” that promoted the nativists’ resistance against Europeans. Dowd reexamines Brown’s argument by focusing on how accommodationists merged native and European traditions together. However, Dowd progresses the course of history by arguing that the nativist rejected the accommodationists.