|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on May 26, 2016 16:53:06 GMT
In response to question 2:
The "removal" of Indians in the 19th Century has been a topic that is not too far from home, or atleast home for my dad. My dad was born and raised in Central Oklahoma, where there is a large influence of Native culture. The state of Oklahoma was still considered Indian Territory until the early 20th Century. Because of this most of the state history is rooted in the relocation of the Indians, opposed to my state history learning where the Revolution and Civil war were concerned. The relocation of the Cherokee tribes was dubbed the "Trail of Tears" and ended in eastern OK where there is a small monument and information site. I have always grown up visiting my family in OK and both driving past the monument and through many different Indian Nations. With this being said I believe that the removal of those tribes was not inevitable, but what was inevitable is the fact that two groups of people who have different languages and cultures would eventually reach a point where they had to learn to live side by side. The Indians were a very skilled people and were skilled hunters, one of the reasons settlers were afraid of them. I believe the settlers made them act more savage than they ever would on their own.
The settlers came into the country with guns and cannons, two things that the Indians had never experienced before. They were called fire sticks because they would explode and a injury could be caused, but the Indians were working with the weapons that they had been for thousands of years, in the part of continent that they had been living in for around the same amount of time. There are plenty of stories of Indian camps and settlers living side by side, hunting the same game, and tending the same crops, but these people worked together for survival because there were many things that the Indians had taught the settlers. In many cases the Indians were able to teach the settlers about their beliefs and how everything has a spirit and that the Earth grants you provision through the grain you harvest and the animals that you hunt. There was never any waste for two reasons: (1) it was disrepectful to the generous earth to kill more than you could use and to waste that was left and (2) their survival depended on using every bit. There was not blacksmith or tinsmith, or metal workers of any kind so there plates, needles, clothing and food all came from the animals that they killed.
Fast forward 200 years and we are still using the same techniques that were taught at the beginning, but now many of the Northern tribes had either died of disease that was brought from Europe, or married into the White community, this happened to one of my Great-grandmothers, she was a Lenape Indian and married a white man, leaving behind the Indian culture that she grew up in. But the people had started to forget who taught the settlers how to farm on this new land and where and what to eat. We became entitled and thought that the land was ours because we wanted it, not even concerning ourselves with the fact that there were people already living on the land. As we moved westward we became familiar with new groups of Indians that were firm in the fact that they wanted to stay where they were. The US gov't didn't give them much choice to stay or move because it was a national eviction for lack of a better phrase. The Indians were forced west and then eventually kicked out of that land because we again got greedy for more land.
I think with all of this being said it was not inevitable that the Indians would be relocated, because of what happened in the northeast, but rather it is inevitable that humans will become greedy and sometimes overlook the cultures and significance of others because they do not think or live the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on May 26, 2016 17:32:26 GMT
Question 2:
In my theoretical opinion, nothing is absolutely inevitable (when it comes to outcomes caused by humans' decisions) because there are always other options to resolve a conflict. You could say that both the Native Americans and the US had opposite goals and neither party was willing to compromise in considerations to the other, but I would still say that the Native American Removal policy was not inevitable.
Andrew Jackson was the president at the time approving the Indian Removal Act. His belief was that the Native Americans moving west would be a good economic opportunity for the American government. He also added that the Native Americans moving away would be a good thing because that would enable them to move away from the states, allowing them to pursue happiness in their own ways. Jackson also said that he wanted the Americans and the Indians separated in order to conserve the American culture.
So the US wanted the good lands that the Indians had, they decided to "remove" the Indians just to get it over with. I think that if the US gave them enough time to "move" somewhere else, there would be less bloodshed. But then again, the Indians probably would not have moved anyways and chooses to stay and fight regardless. To say that the conflict and the massive bloodshed was inevitable is almost like giving humans the excuses for their cruelty and impatience. Of course the conflict was avoidable, of course they didn't have to remove the Indians. They could have compromised, came up with other peaceful and mutually beneficial ways to solve the differences. But they just wanted to because they were greedy. The Indians removal act didn't have to happen, and neither did the trail of tears.
The Indians could have slowly evolve to become Americans and adopted the new western culture. They could have become great allies for the US. They could have become a lot of things but now we will never know. Andrew Jackson did not have the rights to say how the indians would feel if they "moved" west. So not only do I disagree with the Indian Removal Act, but i also disagree that the policy was inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by robgallagher on May 26, 2016 18:52:57 GMT
Question 1
Merrel’s assertion that North America was considered a new world is half true. The Indians were there for a long time so it wasn’t a new world for them. It was only a new world for the Europeans that came over from Europe. In Frederick Hoxie’s podcast, “How Do Indians Fit In?” he addresses that most people think there was no American History provided by the Indians. So when we think of the new world, most people think when Christopher Columbus made the crossings was when history started in the new world but in reality it began before that. In order for North American History to be complete in its entirety, common people must consider the time that Indians came over is when American history began.
Another thing that made North America a new world was the drastic change in landscape that occurred when the colonist came over. The colonist changed the landscape to suit their needs and make it more like their home in Europe. In the William Genevan article, "The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of Americas in 1492", he describes how the colonist changed the landscape to match landscape in Europe, however a lot of the land was already altered by the Indians. It was hard for Europeans to see the changes because nature started to hide those changes. Manmade fires expanded the eastern boundary of prairies, and would have allowed for an expanded bison habitat.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisdigi on May 26, 2016 19:55:56 GMT
Question #2:
Some events in history I believe are inevitable and some I believe aren't. In this particular case, it being the 'removal' of Native Americans, I think that the United States would have acquired control of Native lands whether it be by force or by voluntary action on the Native Americans' part. The circumstances of this case lead me to believe that the 'removal' was inevitable.
Many US presidents before Jackson wanted Native Americans to adopt a European-American way of life. Agricultural lifestyles, the idea of owning one's own property, speaking English, and practicing Christianity are a few examples of what the US wanted to bestow on the Natives. Sometimes there was success. White's article in last weeks readings mention the accomplishments of the school that Native American children were sent to. They came back to their tribes and spoke English, served as communicators between their tribes and settlers among other things. Basically, they adopted the European-Americans' ideals which is what the first presidents and governments wanted. But it was voluntary.
Remember how once settlers came into America, they traded with Native Americans and brought them into a developing-world in which the European settlers had control over? It's not only in the last week's readings but also one in this week's. Merrell stated, " Indians were forced to blend old and new in ways that would permit them to survive in the present without forsaking their past." Their survival was dependent on the settlers, who became United States citizens. So we have Americans that control some tribes' means of surviving in their newly altered world. If the Americans wanted to 'remove' the Native Americans, they could have easily manipulated trade causing the Native Americans to "voluntarily" adhering the Americans' desires. But this is only for the tribes who were already deeply involved with the Eurpean-Americans.
Some tribes resisted the change brought on by the new settlers and maintained their own way of life. Even though treaties and agreements or whatever a President's policies, beliefs and statements gave the impression that the Native Americans had rights and the US government shall not violate them, there is always the idea of 'civilizing' being pushed in the background. The second document in the Cherokee removal article mentions President Jefferson stating that the Natives' "country should remain inviolate" but literally sentence later the idea of 'civilization' is mentioned. As time went on the government got more and more frustrated at how the 'civilizing' part wasn't as successful as hoped as some tribes gave resistance.
So basically what I'm getting at is the fact that the 'removal' was completely inevitable. Past presidents expressed that they wanted to strengthen ties between the US and Native Americans and wouldn't infringe upon their rights but they expected that the Natives would become integrated into European-American society which would result in the US government getting the land anyway. But since that was not the case and a lot of tribes wanted their own sovereignty, which includes the land. With the former expectations having fallen through, the US government decided to remove the Native Americans by force.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 27, 2016 0:21:20 GMT
Question 2: In my theoretical opinion, nothing is absolutely inevitable (when it comes to outcomes caused by humans' decisions) because there are always other options to resolve a conflict. You could say that both the Native Americans and the US had opposite goals and neither party was willing to compromise in considerations to the other, but I would still say that the Native American Removal policy was not inevitable. Andrew Jackson was the president at the time approving the Indian Removal Act. His belief was that the Native Americans moving west would be a good economic opportunity for the American government. He also added that the Native Americans moving away would be a good thing because that would enable them to move away from the states, allowing them to pursue happiness in their own ways. Jackson also said that he wanted the Americans and the Indians separated in order to conserve the American culture. So the US wanted the good lands that the Indians had, they decided to "remove" the Indians just to get it over with. I think that if the US gave them enough time to "move" somewhere else, there would be less bloodshed. But then again, the Indians probably would not have moved anyways and chooses to stay and fight regardless. To say that the conflict and the massive bloodshed was inevitable is almost like giving humans the excuses for their cruelty and impatience. Of course the conflict was avoidable, of course they didn't have to remove the Indians. They could have compromised, came up with other peaceful and mutually beneficial ways to solve the differences. But they just wanted to because they were greedy. The Indians removal act didn't have to happen, and neither did the trail of tears. The Indians could have slowly evolve to become Americans and adopted the new western culture. They could have become great allies for the US. They could have become a lot of things but now we will never know. Andrew Jackson did not have the rights to say how the indians would feel if they "moved" west. So not only do I disagree with the Indian Removal Act, but i also disagree that the policy was inevitable. I too agree that paths in history can never be determined as inevitable. If the young United States adopted a truer view of equality for all, meaning the inclusion of native people, then policies such as the one that Andrew Jackson pushed for wouldn't have been an inevitability. I'm a bit torn though on the idea that "neither party was willing to compromise". There definitely was an atmosphere of opposing and clashing cultures, but from what I have learned, there was never a complete unwillingness to compromise. Compromises that benefited both parties did happen, just not enough to change the outcome of the history between the two parties. I agree that if the United States gave the Natives enough time to move somewhere else would have lessened the amount of violent conflict, but I also find this idea skirting the problem. Do you question how the moving process could have been easier or do you ask how the move could have been prevented in the first place. The idea that the United States' history could have played out differently in terms of the relationship between the nation and its Natives recognizes that nothing was inevitable, but saying that that history still has within it the Natives being moved out west, recognizes an inevitability of Manifest Destiny. So that leads me to think that its hard for people, myself included, to accept that history is not inevitable when, especially in this country's history, it's hard to imagine an outcome other then the one that actually happened. Now after discussing how I felt about your response, I've come to realize that you have inadvertently helped me understand how complex the idea of an inevitable history versus one that isn't is. I didn't quite get what you meant by "Theoretical opinion" but I think now I know what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on May 27, 2016 0:36:39 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. I both agree and disagree with you Jonathon. I agree with you that it may feel natural for the Native Americans to be relocated due to expansion but I do feel that you may be slightly misguided in your thoughts of the Native Americans as a whole. The Native Americans did have nations, and yes each of their tribes had a chief but the chiefs would come together to have meetings and celebrations. There were different nations spread across the whole continent with there being distinct territory boundaries between the two people. There were often wars between nations and tribes because of misuse of hunting grounds, or hunting on sacred grounds, such as burial sites. I do not, however, understand your point of the Natives being naïve and having primitive needs. They were in many cases smarter than the white men because they were able to hunt and fight with the same weapons and they were outright warriors. And not to mention that the weapons were made of stones and branches and were as deadly as a musket. In many cases I think the white men saw Indian hunting and fighting as uncivilized because they were so used to seeing wars where everyone lined up and started shooting in a pattern (that was civilized warfare). Speaking to the point that they ate only what they killed was the same for the settlers at that time. There was no where to store food, so the only food that was killed was food that would be eaten quickly, it just so happens that the white man became sport hunters in the process and started killing things just to say that they did and in the process removing food that the Natives could be using. And the Native Americans were, as I said earlier, skilled warriors so there was not a lack of skill, but there was more a lack of numbers so there was not really an easy means of defense. |
|
|
|
Post by micathcart on May 27, 2016 2:50:09 GMT
Question 2
I would agree with you, and most historians, that history is not inevitable. Everything happens in a complex web of interrelated factors. The dominant agents of change in history have been humans. How they interact with the environment, with ideology, and with each other is history. Since I do not believe anything in history to be inevitable, I do not believe the “removal” of the indigenous inhabitants of North America was such.
To point out the obvious, had the Christian kingdoms of Europe not soured their relationship with the Muslim kingdoms of the Middle East then they never would have had to seek an alternate route to China (which then caused the colonization of the western hemisphere). To point out the opaque, had indigenous populations been exposed to smallpox prior to the 17th and18th (and even 19th) centuries, then they would possibly have been able to resist settle colonization and western expansion of the United States.
There are innumerable factors that led to an imperialist (and jingoist) United States. However, I believe that one aspect was the primary contributor to the genocidal practices of the Jackson administration and the Indian Removal Act of the early 19th century. That factor was the increasingly fervent debate over slavery. Instead of address the proverbial “elephant in the room,” the proslavery president successfully (at least temporarily) attempted to unite the states against and common enemy. Further, the debate over slavery gave new value to western territories for those on both sides of the aisle. New states in territory occupied by natives could push the Senate in one direction or the other. The west became an important pawn in the United States’ (ultimately very bloody) debate over the ownership of humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielkogan on May 27, 2016 3:22:27 GMT
Response to Discussion Question 2:
I think this question is nothing less than fantastic. Even from the very little exposure and experience I personally possess regarding the proper approach to historical thinking, I am in definitive agreement with you. I think there exists tremendous opinion around major historical events and movements that entails educated perspectives from numerous angles of analysis. That being said, I also believe there could have been a more civil way to settle the territorial land dispute between the United States government and the Native American population.
Despite the fact that the US government essentially assumed ownership of the Indian lands after the French and Indian war, prior to such conflict, William Denevan’s article essentially reveals the normality and civilized society of the Native American landscape in the early sixteenth century. More specifically, Denevan suggests that “[Native American] landscape…was a humanized landscape almost everywhere. Populations were large. Forest composition had been modified, grasslands had been created, wildlife disrupted…” Meaning, Denevan is signifying that there existed productive signs of human activity and function. Further, he denotes that “the most visible manifestation of the Native American landscape must have been the cultivated fields…” While such observation in the Indian society occurred very early on, the purpose of introducing such points into my response was to adequately portray that the Native Americans were real people with their own cultural version of a modified society respective to their needs and the time period.
While the US was a developing country at the time, the need for land acquirement and control is understandable. After looking at the maps, the Native American land took up roughly a fourth of the country. Certainly it was inevitable that some form of grand compromise needed to be made. However, the manner in which such a negotiation was executed was almost brutal. I believe that such a major shift in the US society would have been more dynamic and beneficial to both parties if it occurred gradually. Tension between the Native Americans and US government would not have erupted resulting in a more stable political circumstance, and a whole lot more lives would have been saved. It is mentioned in the Presidential podcast that “Andrew Jackson was largely responsible for clearing the Native Americans off their lands…so that, that land could go to white men.” While this did put the US at an economic advantage, certainly a more humane approach should have been to taken to properly address the Native Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on May 27, 2016 13:31:38 GMT
Question 2: In my theoretical opinion, nothing is absolutely inevitable (when it comes to outcomes caused by humans' decisions) because there are always other options to resolve a conflict. You could say that both the Native Americans and the US had opposite goals and neither party was willing to compromise in considerations to the other, but I would still say that the Native American Removal policy was not inevitable. Andrew Jackson was the president at the time approving the Indian Removal Act. His belief was that the Native Americans moving west would be a good economic opportunity for the American government. He also added that the Native Americans moving away would be a good thing because that would enable them to move away from the states, allowing them to pursue happiness in their own ways. Jackson also said that he wanted the Americans and the Indians separated in order to conserve the American culture. So the US wanted the good lands that the Indians had, they decided to "remove" the Indians just to get it over with. I think that if the US gave them enough time to "move" somewhere else, there would be less bloodshed. But then again, the Indians probably would not have moved anyways and chooses to stay and fight regardless. To say that the conflict and the massive bloodshed was inevitable is almost like giving humans the excuses for their cruelty and impatience. Of course the conflict was avoidable, of course they didn't have to remove the Indians. They could have compromised, came up with other peaceful and mutually beneficial ways to solve the differences. But they just wanted to because they were greedy. The Indians removal act didn't have to happen, and neither did the trail of tears. The Indians could have slowly evolve to become Americans and adopted the new western culture. They could have become great allies for the US. They could have become a lot of things but now we will never know. Andrew Jackson did not have the rights to say how the indians would feel if they "moved" west. So not only do I disagree with the Indian Removal Act, but i also disagree that the policy was inevitable. It is good that you pointed out that claiming an “inevitable” outcome appears to be excuse making for cruelty and impatience. If I may apply a comparison to economic terminology, historical events that are “macro” is scope take on a more inevitable conclusion, and history that is “micro” has more of a human agency effect. Another way to describe what I am getting at is individually there is a strong element of human agency, but collectively there is a strong element of inevitability. There is the possibility that the national “collective” of people want individual leaders to act a certain way. I could argue that Andrew Jackson did what he felt that he had to do for the “people” by removing the Cherokee. Or that the U.S. Supreme Court claiming the “right to discovery” was what the people wanted, and therefore inevitable. But this begins to look familiar to your idea that this takes on the appearance of excuse making. Once cultural norms (we are God’s chosen people / system of private property rights) became collectively imbedded, there is a perception of inevitability in the domination of land and people by European settlers, exploitation of Africans, and marginalization of Indians. But the collective ideals are created by individuals, with human agency. |
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on May 27, 2016 14:51:34 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. I completely agree with your response Jonathon. I also believe that history is inevitable and that the removal of the Indians was inevitable. The reasons you used about the expansion for cheap land, fertile farmland, rising populations and gold rush helped tie in your points about how the removal was inevitable. The settlers needed to make the new found land their home and to make it suitable for themselves. Another great point you made was about how the Indians were not one nation but they were small tribes divided throughout the continent. I also believe that things may have been different if the Indians were united as one nation. Circumstances would have been different and outcomes may have been different. |
|
|
|
Post by madison on May 27, 2016 16:22:56 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. I agree with your statement on how the "New World" was a New World before the 1500s. Anything is considered 'new' to someone who has never been introduced to that particular thing, such as land. Stumbling across land that the Europeans, Africans, and English have never seen before, would be considered 'new' to them, but not to the Native Americans who were previously present. Therefore, I disagree with Merrell, that the Native Americans were not apart of the New World. I believe that the Native Americans were the original founders of the so called New World. The Europeans, Africans, and English may have created a 'new world' for their civilization, but they were not the first people living in the particular area or New World. It is interesting to think about how one person can call something 'new,' but it may be considered 'old' to someone else. This thought process can be applied to the viewpoint of the New World. |
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on May 28, 2016 1:24:59 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. One aspect that you mentioned was that "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." Coming from taking my Race and Diversity class two semesters ago, you hit it right on the target. We spent a few classes focusing on the Native American population and their history with the white settlers that resulted in their mistreatment. Their "primitive" (and by primitive I refer to the difference in weapons, language, social economic class, and education [which is still a significant issue today on the reservations]) classification separated them from the settlers, making them appear inferior and less deserving of what was rightfully theirs. They were looked upon as savages, and treated as such. Even Christopher Columbus, who was originally searching for India, found America and the Native Americans but called them "Indians" out of his own naivety, and that's a politically incorrect term that we all are so used to today. But the point here is, that from the get go, they were never given the full respect they deserved--from cultivating, protecting, and respecting the land and its inhabitants. Their land, America, was rightfully theirs. In reality, with as large as a county we inhabit, they did not take up the huge majority of the land. In a right and just world, our nation could have expanded around the various tribes. Instead, we pursued the land they inhabited, and took it as if it was rightfully our own. As the term Manifest Destiny explains, the attitude of the American People was to expand because they were destined to stretch from coast to coast. This is the attitude that fueled the removal of Native Americans. We surpassed the Native Americans in numbers and with the advancements in our weapons, so even with any resistance, it was inevitable they would fall back into reservations. It is cruel, but that is the common theme of our nation--take, take, take. 
|
|
|
|
Post by tburckh1 on May 28, 2016 3:14:14 GMT
Question #1
James H. Merrell's assertion that North America after 1500 was a "new world" is, in my opinion, to be accurate. The European settlers and African slaves saw North America as the new world, and not a land that was already inhabit by a group of people. They intentional left the Native Americans out due to the idea that the Native Americans didn't fit the new world theme that was made up by the European settlers and the African slaves. The Native Americans and their ways is considered the 'old world' which to the settlers and slaves is irrelevant and unimportant to their story of the development of the new world. The development and struggles in the new world is what matters to the settlers and to the history books. The Native Americans also came into the new world without even leaving North America. The European settlers and African slaves brought the change with them unknowingly; from pushing the Natives off their land, to 'new world' and 'old world' diseases, and even to little 'pest' that come over on the ships. The Native Americans had to adopt to this changes and fast if they wanted to survive in the 'new world'.
I have a question to the class. I was reading William H. Denevan's article on the pristine myth. He states that " the landscape of 1750 was more 'pristine" (less humanized) than that of 1492". What does this statement mean to you? I read and reread this statement over and over again. All I can come with is that Denevan is saying that the landscape in North America (even though he touches on other countries) in 1750 was more 'pristine' or untouched than that of 1492 in which case I would have to totally disagree. I remembering last week's Alan Taylor's article, the settlers did more damage to the landscape than the Native Americans did. Yes, the Native Americans cut farmed and hunted, but not to the same scale as the settlers. I completely altered the environment, and there were more settlers migrating definitely around pre- and post-American Revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on May 28, 2016 10:32:43 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. Jonathon, I really like what you stated here and pretty much agree with your opinion and where you stand on this matter. I like the fact that you talked about how nothing is inevitable and that we make things happen with our actions. I completely agree and looking at the situation with the Native Americans; unfortunately because of the settlers attitude toward these savages that this removal of these people would eventually happen. It is unfortunate of the views some people of the Native Americans because if they had been different there may not have been as quick or harsh response. It was very hard for the Native Americans to defend themselves and worry about eveyrthing else they need to survive. The removal of the Native Americans was only inevitable because of the attitude and beliefs we had towards them. |
|
|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on May 28, 2016 14:51:57 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. Chelsea, Good job on the response! I look at the statement, "Native American history is separate from American history" and wonder if it really is? Yes, majority of the culture that founded this country was from the Europeans but can it also be argued that some cultural aspects can be linked to Native American ways? Homie discusses that Native Americans had certain things like diplomacy, economic trade, and sovereignty that the Europeans kind of "fit into". Its something to think about who we actually have to thank for our countries foundations. Have a great day! Gabrielle Rabadi |
|
