|
|
Post by hausmann on May 22, 2016 17:38:42 GMT
Below are the discussion questions for this week:
1. Based on Merrell, Hoxie and Denevan, do you agree with Merrell's assertion that North America after ~1500 was a "new world?" If so, why? What was new? If not, why not?
2. Most historians, myself included, strongly believe that nothing in history is truly inevitable and that human agency directs historical change. With this in mind, why did Americans enact a policy of "removal" of Indians in the nineteenth century? Was such a process inevitable, despite my argument against inevitability?
3. Many people point to the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre as the "end" of Indian sovereignty and history in the United States and the American West in particular. Based on your known experience as well as the Kelman podcast and two recent newspaper articles, do you agree with this argument? If so, argue your case! If not, how would you characterize Native American history in the twentieth and twenty first centuries? What story could you tell?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Lare on May 24, 2016 13:38:03 GMT
2. Most historians, myself included, strongly believe that nothing in history is truly inevitable and that human agency directs historical change. With this in mind, why did Americans enact a policy of "removal" of Indians in the nineteenth century? Was such a process inevitable, despite my argument against inevitability?
I believe that the process of "removal" of the Indians was inevitable. After the French and Indian war was lost, the United States started taking land from the Native Americans because they sided with the French and since the French lost, so did the Indians. After this it was a matter of expansion, as we started moving west for reasons such as cheap land, fertile farmland, rising populations and the gold rush, I feel it was natural to supplant the Native Americans. They were seen as savages and lacking in social and economical clout so naturally we moved in and took their land for our own use. I'm not sure I quite understand the argument that nothing in history is truly inevitable, I think that could apply to certain situations but I do not think that applies to this one. If the Native Americans had been one nation and divided into separate tribes then maybe the act of expansion and removal would not have been inevitable, however, they were divided into small tribes throughout a very large continent. They were very naive and had relatively primitive needs. They ate what the killed, they did not over expand their territories. We came in and developed a capitalist attitude, more is better. With the lack of skill to really defend what they wanted, I think it was inevitable for us to remove the Indians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hollie Axel on May 26, 2016 1:11:43 GMT
I disagree strongly with Jonathan Lare I believe that the Indian Nation was a sovereign government, with their own ranks in society and in culture. As we read in last weeks articles the regional areas would come together for spiritual or harvesting gatherings trading and conducting an economic revenue such as the beads made from the shells. How is imperialism okay for the people being invaded. Once all resources have been abused then the imperialists may consider what they did wrong to the native people the incoming government will try to make some inadequate gesture or fee.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on May 26, 2016 1:12:40 GMT
Response to Question 2
I do believe that history is inevitable. Throughout history there have been many events that we today look back on and say “what were they thinking?” In my opinion, we have to understand that it was a completely different time period where people valued many different things and would think in a very different way than we would today. The removal of the Indians was inevitable. The settlers believed that the Indians were a threat and could cause damage and make life for them very difficult. With the loss for the French in the French and Indian war, the settlers were just taking land. The French and the Indians were both on the same team for the war so therefore the Indians lost. Just like in WWII hundreds of years later, the losing country of battles would have their land occupied by the opposing side. I do also believe that the Indians did not possess what was needed to prevent their “removal.”
|
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on May 26, 2016 1:26:51 GMT
Question 1: New World
James Merrell makes a compelling argument that the New World applies to all involved; the colonists, slaves, and indigenous people. The Native Americans experienced a long-term process of cultural change, and not just change in how they used the land. But the land was something that they had intimate knowledge of, and this knowledge took years to accumulate. If they were to be physically moved, their whole cultural process would have to be rethought. The impact of disease, which mostly can be tied to contact with settlers, cut back their population by almost 75%. Their cultural heritage would have been severely curtailed by diseases. Collective memory, wisdom from their experiences, and traditions would have eroded. This whole process required an active role to reinvent their place in the changing landscape. Trade was very beneficial at first, but over time it showed the weakness in their position. Indians were self-sufficient, but their craft skills eroded over time. They became dependent on trade goods and lost control to this new material economy. Compromise with settlers turned to acquiescence. The settlers were seen in the Merrell reading as “erasing the native signature” on the land.
The William Denevan reading explains the colonists’ land impact as “grafted” to the land that the Indians already altered, over the course of thousands of years. One reason why the primitivist writers may have took to the wilderness ideal was the difficulty that they had in seeing the visual impact of the humanized landscape. Nature over time covered up much of the alterations by the Indians. The primitivist narrative tends to make Indians innocents and mere victims of European expansion. But the Indians certainly had dominion over the landscape prior to the change in settlement patterns. Selective burning led to a more open undergrowth beneath the canopy in the eastern forests. Manmade fires expanded the eastern boundary of prairies, and would have allowed for an expanded bison habitat. They may have done this to avoid catastrophic fires that would have devastated land that they relied on for subsistence.
Native American history has been replaced by an American history that is dominated by the expansion of European influence, including the specter of slavery. Frederick Hoxie explains that Indians are portrayed as wandering, fleeing from progress, victims of or opponents to this new world. When the Cherokee decried their removal from their ancestral lands, they pointed out that it would be an impediment to their becoming civilized. This ties back into the land being more than just a familiar place for subsistence; their ties to land are also intertwined with their cultural processes. The Indians have always been engaged and connected to this new world. They relied on their agency to avoid being completely separated from the changing landscape. American history needs to infuse the Indian experience, including the dispossession of their land and culture, and their survival, into the complete narrative. Anything less is a simplified and denial laden American history.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 26, 2016 1:49:28 GMT
Question 3:
When I consider the history of Native Americans presented to me before college, I would have said that yes, the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre was the end of Indian sovereignty. But after taking a class called Race and Ethnicity in cinema, the Kelman podcast, and the news articles, I would say Indian sovereignty has never ended, rather it has more or less evolved. I've started to think differently about how to understand "sovereignty". In the readings discussing the war/peace relations between Native Americans and the U.S., it is clear that in the past Native sovereignty was defined as massacres and signed agreements. I think back to the Ken Burns documentary "The West" where the history of the United States and the Native Americans is presented exactly as massacres and rigged peace treaties in the United States favor. I can't recall where the documentary ends, but the history "ends" around the turn of the 20th century.
The podcast brings to light the fact that when a spot for the Sand Creek National Historic Site was to be chosen, an argument arose on where that spot would be. Relatives of those who remembered the massacre were of the opinion that no specific "scientific" spot was needed, because the importance of the massacre was about the negative relationship it created between the two, not its specific spot. The podcast discusses further the current opinions of the site in the minds of Native Americans who have descended from that history, and it shows recent sovereignty from Natives. The New York Times article shows a even more subtle occurrence of sovereignty, as Andrew Jackson's history has become a representation of the negative relations that the U.S. has had with its indigenous people. Enough so that many groups of Americans are willing to and advocate to remove him from the 20$ bill. The Washington Post Article shows the clearest form of twenty first century Native American Sovereignty, as it shows how current Natives are protesting the Washington Redskins team's mascot. This is making a presence known and simultaneously continuous Native American sovereignty. From my Race and Ethnicity in Cinema class, I learned about visual sovereignty. In movie making outside of mainstream Hollywood, Native filmmakers have produced movies with Native actors and stories based on oral traditions or new stories, but no matter the case, the movies are indigenous in all aspects of its making and are another example of native sovereignty that exists today.
|
|
|
|
Post by madison on May 26, 2016 2:19:22 GMT
Response to Discussion Question #2:
I personally believe that nothing is inevitable, that there is always a way to avoid something from happening. Most times things would need to be done in advance in order to not let something else occur. With that being said, I believe the process of removing the Indians in the nineteenth century was not inevitable.
In the mid 1700’s the French and Indian War occurred, which was the French versus the British. The Indians were on the French’s side during the war, known as allies. As Merrell stated, “Especially at a time when Anglo-American felt threatened by the French and their Indian auxiliaries.” The French ended up losing the war, which in turn meant that the Indians lost the war as well. With losing the war, the Indians knew that bad things were coming, or should I say even worse things.
Decades following the French and Indian War the major removal of Indians began. As Jackson stated the Indian Removal act was passed in 1830, which gave power to negotiate removal treaties with the Indians. I believe this could have been unavoidable if the Indians had made different decisions in the past.
I like to think that nothing is inevitable. The Indians could have sided with the British or could have stayed out of the war. There are numerous possibilities that could have happened, and no one knows what the outcome of those situations would have been. It leaves us all left with wonders of what would have happened, or would the Indians have a huge place in society if it were not for this war? These are all possible things that might have made the removal of Indians unavoidable.
|
|
|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on May 26, 2016 4:42:30 GMT
Response to Question 1:
Merrell’s assertion that after 1500, North America was considered a “new world” is, I believe, half true. He claims that it was not necessarily a good or bad thing because we brought upon so much change to the Indian’s way of life. We drove them out of their land and gave them disease but we also introduced them to the developing world market. As William Genevan describes in his article, "The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of Americas in 1492", after the Europeans arrived, there was a severe change in the landscape of the country. There was a lot of land that was eliminated because of Indian burning but was used for other purposes like expanding prairies and territories between lands. They attempted to make North America a new European centered way of life rather than what was already there. When Merrell says that it was a new world he is right in saying that it was new because of change but he is not necessarily right by suggesting that it was a new world because there was nothing there before the Europeans had arrived. In Frederick Hoxie’s podcast, “How Do Indians Fit In?” he addresses the common misconception that there was no American History provided by the Indians. He said that often people tend to leave Indians out of American History because they think that they did not provide anything; they believe that American History started around the time that Christopher Columbus discovered America but in reality it began before that. Before the Europeans arrived, the Indians had a fairly structured and “civilized” way of life; they had diplomatic relations among the different tribes. Hoxie even suggests that Europeans sort of “fit into” this diplomacy when they settled and followed the Indians lead. He also states that the Indians had an economy based off of trade before the arrival of the Europeans and had used sovereignty to solidify relations with them after they arrived. The use of diplomacy, trade, and sovereignty could be arguably Indian ideals that became American ideals eventually. The new world was new in a sense because there was severe change but it is not new in the sense that there was no history there to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by hollie on May 26, 2016 10:26:15 GMT
Question 3
I believe the allocating of the Native Americans onto reservations was abominable profitable and political decision. For the incoming settlers stealing the most fertile and bountiful streams and rivers was for the better of humanity at that time. The people of wounded went there in good faith and believing they were safe. As it turns, out not so safe for the Native Americans Indians. Politics lead the Massacre and mayhem leads to various account of truth. The account of the soldiers is most important because these witnesses have no reason to lie. In my opinion, the logo of the Washington Redskins is just as offensive as someone using the “N” word. It has only been sixty years until everyone in this nation was considered equal. The unfortunate reality for Native Americans is that their numbers as far as population is not very large. I do believe that with the tribes realizing and always understanding that their traditions and old ways could be extinguished never to be retold again the way it was told to the Indian historian. Without maintaining education of the existing tribes and determination, more than pride will be lost.
I hope the protests in Minnesota continue that seems to be where a large population of Native Americans still resides. I am a great believer in grassroots programs that have strong roots in the community. I feel that when I vote for the Commissioner in my township he has my best interests at heart. He is the elected official that will keep my local and school taxes down and make sure that his morality is similar to mine. The Commissioners time to move on and he becomes a member of the state congress. So now, my lowly township Commissioner can start to make changes locally in Congress. This is where the students need to be protesting, calling their Congressmen and Senators by writing letters and being vocal about what the issue is yet active in a productive manner
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on May 26, 2016 11:29:22 GMT
Question 1
Merrell discusses how the Native Americans were not really considered to be a part of this New world and that it was not considered this until about 1500 but in my mind it was a New World way before the Europeans, Africans, or English got here. The Native Americans had been living on this land for decades prior to the years around 1500 when many Europeans began making their way to this land. Although it was new to these people, in my mind it was a world where the native Americans lived but then many groups of people came and began to take their land and make it into their own world, which to them was a New World. This land may have been new to all of the people coming to this land in the late 1400s and 1500s but it was not new to the Native Americans who had lived there for decades. The world was not new to the people who had lived for a while but it was considered the New World to those who had just made the journey across the Atlantic. Unfortunately, we do not know as much and pay as close attention to the Native Americans therefore people sometimes forget that they were on this land long before any of us. The people who came to this land during these early times in The New World created their own world while completely ignoring the Native Americans who were on this New world already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on May 26, 2016 12:32:14 GMT
A major similarity exists in the Merrell, Hoxie, and Denevan article and that is the idea that Indians’ played a role in American history and the establishment of the “new world.” Merrell’s article concludes with the statement, “Indians belong on the colonial stage as important actors in the unfolding American drama…For they too, too lived in a world.” Merrell explores the response of natives in the southern piedmont area. These natives experienced cultural intercourse through contact with invaders across the sea. The article states that the Indians, Europeans, and African shared a “single history, drawn together by cultural affinities and common plight.”
Hoxie’s podcast supports Merrells’ statements with new evidence that emerged in the 1970’s during the rise of Indian activism. According to Hoxie, this new idea found that the Indians had functioning systems prior to European invasion. Europeans were seen to fit in the diplomatic arena created by Indians, further developing an intercultural diplomacy. With that said, Indians and Europeans were able to encounter two ways of life, rather than one displacing the other.
Furthermore, I do believe with Merrell’s assertion that North America after 1500 was a “new world.” I believe it was a “new world” that that intertwined Indian perspectives with that of Europeans. It was one of the earliest points in American history where there seemed to be a clash of cultures, resulting in a new drawn together culture thriving on government, policy, trade, religion, ideas, and people. Following 1500 and the “new world”, diseases such as small pox became prevalent. This sense of a culturally diversified, promising land known as the “new world” was one that inspired trade and migration across the world. It introduced a new, promising opportunity for many.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on May 26, 2016 12:43:31 GMT
Response to question 3.
How very American to think that Native American history ended in 1890. It must be easier for people to forget about Native Americans then have to deal with their uncomfortable history at the hands of our founders. Such as Hoxie stated in his lecture, Naive American history is separate then American history. But just because something is separate does not mean it doesn't exist. Native American culture is rich and powerful and has meaning on its own. Their story is one of perseverance, and to ignore their history, is to forget about our own parts that coincide. If you look closely their is Native American history that is occurring around us everyday, from fights over the football team's named Redskins, to the Cherokee nation winning a battle against Urban outfitters for Cultural appropriation. Everyday there is something new happening around us, we just have to look for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on May 26, 2016 14:37:05 GMT
Response to Question 2.
There is certainly an irony to this question and the answer to it. Prior to the middle of the 19th Century, America had finally made its way from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Many had believed that this "democratic experiment" needed to spread as far it could, because to Americans since the inception of the sovereign nation, believed that the will of the people should rule as opposed to a monarchy. It was in the 1840's where a term, "manifest destiny," would come to be popularly used to justify this expansion. Americans began using this, which in tern, "gave" America a legitimate reason for their expansion. It seemed to them that it was destiny that would lead this movement and not the decisions of the American People. A great example comes from 11th President James K Polk, who sought reasons to declare war on Mexico so that America could claim new territory out West.
This "destiny" that Americans believed in is also what gave them the reason to remove Indians from their respective homelands. Americans believed that it was their history, their Anglo-American culture, their civilization, that was greater and should be implemented in their lands. Although manifest destiny wasn't really used until the 1840's and it would be two decades prior that Andrew Jackson's presidency would propel the Indian Removal Acts, America now had legitimacy in doing so. It is impossible to think that the removal of Indians was inevitable. People make these choices and choices determine history. People of the past, especially Greeks and Romans always tried justifying their actions by using terms similar to inevitability, or even as the antibellum South justified slavery for the greater good. The irony here is that Americans made the choices to remove the Indians from their homelands, but it was the idea of manifest destiny, that made Americans believe that their removal was inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on May 26, 2016 15:57:21 GMT
Response to Question 2:
I find it difficult to accept anything as inevitable. Therefore I do not believe that the removal of the Indians in the nineteenth century was inevitable. The definition of inevitability is “unable to be avoided, evaded, or escaped”. After reading the two documents on the Cherokee removal it is very hard for me to agree that the removal of Indians was unavoidable. In the first document it is said that the state of Georgia is pressing the Indians to give up their possessions for Georgia’s benefit. Further down in the document it goes over how in the treaties the United States understands and acknowledges the rights of the Indians. I cannot accept that all of a sudden the removal of the Indians was inevitable and there was nothing that the United States could do to stop it. Here is a plea from the Indian people to the United States government about keeping their land. A land, which they shared with the first settlers, and a land, which they saw eventually, stripped away from them piece by piece.
I do understand the United States wanting to expand and control land. This is common practice for any young developing state. However, I view this hunger for land and power as greed more than anything. There is no need to strip people of their rights and deny them access to land that they have stood on far before the first settlers ever came. I understand that this has happened before, where imperialistic states come and colonize land that is not theirs. However, I do not believe that these actions are inevitable. Of course they can be avoided. The states could decide not to invade other land or to create peaceful treaties with the people that already have inhabited that land. Now the expansion of the United States was somewhat inevitable. This drive and greed would cause the United States to expand their land. However, the removal of Indians in the process was not inevitable. There was a way to avoid removing Indians from their land while still expanding the United States’ land. And I believe that there was a way to live peacefully with the Indians instead of treating them as savages and people who were below the status of the settlers.
|
|
|
|
Post by rheajain on May 26, 2016 16:50:36 GMT
Question 2
I believe that it was inevitable for the European settlers to enact the policy of the “removal” of Indians in the 19th century because they were the settlers and the Native Americans had conflicting goals. The US wanted to expand their control into the Native American lands and the Native wanted to continue to own their ancestral lands. The US wanted to either remove all of the Indians or force them all to assimilate to American ways. However, many Americans thought it would be much easier to just move the Indians so that they could take their land. The Indians owned very good lands and the Americans wanted to take it from them. There was no truly peaceful way around this conflict; there was bloodshed between settlers and natives all through history ever since Christopher Columbus. There was inevitably going to be conflict between the US and the Natives.
However this conflict did not need to be as deadly as it was. The US was inevitably going to remove the Natives from their land so that they could expand west. They did not need to move them so quickly and brutally. The idea of an Indian removal act was inevitable but they did not have to move them so quickly. If they had given the Indians a little more time to move and not forced them to march so quickly over such a great distance, then there would have been far fewer deaths. They could have still moved the Indians and taken their lands without the deaths of so many Cherokee Indians. The trail of tears was not inevitable but regrettably the Indian removal act was, the US Government wanted their lands because it would help our economy. Andrew Jackson told congress during his second annual message to congress on December 6th, 1830 that,” The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations.” He wanted them removed so that the government could gain economic advantages and he was determined to do this. There was no way around that but they could have moved the Indians more slowly and less of them would have died.
|
|
