|
|
Post by danielkogan on May 28, 2016 16:20:20 GMT
Response to Jonathon Lare:
After reading your post, I thought you brought up some very solid points as to why the Native Americans were essentially forcefully removed off their grounds. You mention that such a removal was inevitable essentially due to the Native Americans being in the way of United States expansion. However, all that being said, I believe your analysis is solely capitalistic—not that I think it is wrong, I just believe it is narrow, and that there certainly exists other central perspectives associated with such a maneuver.
You mention that the Native Americans had “primitive needs,” and later suggest that is basically holds down US capitalistic development. In my opinion, for that time period, I believe the needs of Indians were fair and their social and survival abilities were respectable, given their socioeconomic position. I think it is important to understand that centuries from now, history will consider an iPhone primitive. That being said, I do not necessarily believe that labeling their needs as primitive is a justifiable reason to forcefully remove them. Additionally, despite the fact that the tribes were scattered over a large land area, this would likely have little impact on the inhumane damage that would have been done, regardless of where the tribes were located. They would still take up relatively the same amount of land if an equal amount of people were all concentrated in one area, or slightly dispersed. At the end of the day, I believe the dispute over the Native American land could have been handled in a more civil manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on May 28, 2016 16:33:05 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. Response: I appreciate your honesty and delving into your own families' past in order to support your post. It is interesting to think about how today there is a growing fear of running out of supplies and using too many resources. Where back then and still now we are wasteful with our supplies and what we have. I also find it interesting how culture can be lost through marriage. My own experience has led me to believe that both cultures can be kept and preserved in multicultural families. I know several Asian friends who married Caucasian men/women, however, they have still been able to keep their Asian culture throughout the marriage. However, I see how the Native American and Caucasian community back in day may have a different situation than today's world. What I really liked about your post was your last sentence. Because I also think that the relocation of Indians was not inevitable, however, I do believe that human greed is inevitable and that over time that greed and arrogance could take over and cause the relocation of the Indians. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisdigi on May 28, 2016 16:44:17 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 agree as I said in my original post. The Native Americans, as you said, had fertile farmland and a lot of other resources which the European settlers wanted as well. If we look back into the readings about the hardships settlers faced and the will to survive and prosper, I guess that part of their ability to succeed was partially helped by taking what the Native Americans already had. They had fertile land, which settlers needed to grow crops in an agricultural economy and to also just feed the family. With a rising European-American population, more space was needed and the Natives were not willing to part with their own ways or become "civilized." They didn't want to integrate themselves into European-American society so they were pushed out.
Now, I don't think that even if the Native American tribes were all part of one nation that removal would have not occurred. Yes, they may have a better fighting chance but remember that the colonists controlled the trade of modern goods such as guns and gunpowder. They could've easily stopped trade with the Native Americans, preventing them from having the same military strength as the US. It just would've been another war between two states, the US and the hypothetical Native American Nation which would've resulted in a Native defeat thus leading to removal anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on May 28, 2016 17:16:06 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. Rely:I have to agree that nothing is inevitable. Philosophically, our history may already be written but we have the ability to change it. When it comes to placing other humans in harms way, just for a monitory gain how can we justify our actions? Andrew Jackson wanted to conserve the American culture, but what sort of culture did Americans have? One where the didn't care about others who weren't WASPS, was this the history he was trying to preserve? The fact of the matter is no matter what America did or what 'deal' they made, the government wanted the Native Americans out, and they did what they did so they could get that. Massacres and terrible living conditions were apart of the deal americans made with themselves. With this they could say the Natives caused these problems themselves, and ignored the better options that americans were presenting. I am starting to notice a common them in American 'culture' and history that allows us to look at ourselves as blameless. |
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on May 28, 2016 19:38:51 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. I agree that you said the new world was not in the sense that it was the first, that there was no history prior to it. This "new world" was known to the Indians for years before the Europeans came, and yes they had their own economic structures (trading). It's not fair that people think the Indians did not provide anything useful before Columbus came. I think it's also that the Indians were wiped out so quickly that barely any of them or anything about them was left. So we dont know much about them and people just assume that the Indians didnt do anything useful. |
|
|
|
Post by rheajain on May 28, 2016 19:57:54 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 agree that it was inevitable. I like how you related the French and Indian war with the expansion of land and moving west. I also agree that the Native Americans were seen as naïve and I also think that our capitalist values of more is better and that we need to make money/wealth however we can made the policy of the “removal” of the Native Americans inevitable. Our ways were so different that we could not live on the same land as them in peace. Rather, we would come to the conclusion of making them move for our needs instead of trying to find ways around them. |
|
|
|
Post by tburckh1 on May 28, 2016 20:50:53 GMT
Looking back at history and the mistakes made, I always say "what were they thinking?" because its like "Really? Come on. Did you honestly think that was going to work or have a different outcome." What jpetonak2 said about how it was a different time period where people valued different things is true. Probably back then it seemed like a good idea to push the Indians off their land because they, along with the French, lost the war so why should they stay. Now was the removal necessary? Not really. The Indian removal was definitely an extreme that was unnecessary. Yet again, different time period and different way of thinking. As future historians and educators we know that it was an unnecessary extreme, but to the settlers after the French and Indian War it was necessary. 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 hausmann on May 29, 2016 14:26:50 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 agree that it was inevitable. I like how you related the French and Indian war with the expansion of land and moving west. I also agree that the Native Americans were seen as naïve and I also think that our capitalist values of more is better and that we need to make money/wealth however we can made the policy of the “removal” of the Native Americans inevitable. Our ways were so different that we could not live on the same land as them in peace. Rather, we would come to the conclusion of making them move for our needs instead of trying to find ways around them. ---- We're about to move on to a new unit, but I want to push you both a bit on this. You say that after the Seven Years War, Indian removal was "natural" and "a matter of expansion." Why was expansion natural? More specifically, when I say that things aren't inevitable, I mean for instance that the United States government could have chosen not to expand and think it's worth asking why "expansion" was such a critical motivating factor. The British had opted, in the wake of the pre-American Revolutionary eighteenth century wars, to deem all land west of the Appalachian Mountains off limits to colonial settlers. This was difficult to enforce but still, a very capitalist society such as Britian made that choice. Why not the United States? Similarly, there were many attempts at resisting American expansion - notably by the Sioux in the northern Great Plains during the second half of the nineteenth century, when the U.S. was already torn and exhausted by Civil War (the Sioux knew this too, so I'm not sure you can really call them naive!). A series of military campaigns forced the U.S. army out of its bases in Montana and Wyoming during this time and the American government was ready to ceded much of what is today South Dakota and Wyoming until the Black Hills Gold Rush forced the military into a second series of wars in the 1870s and 1880s. There were more than a few points when things could have gone in alternate ways - that they did not does not mean that history is stuck along some track and Indians were doomed from the get-go. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie Weiner on May 31, 2016 1:20:02 GMT
Response to Question 1: I agree with your statement that says, "the use of diplomacy, trade, and sovereignty" contributed to the American ideals. Although in the past this is something that is highly overlooked, the Indians did have a generous impact. You also mentioned from the podcast, that the Indians had a fairly structured and "civilized" way of life before the Europeans arrived. I believe this is an important aspect to remember when looking at what is considered the "new world." Is it really a new world if they already had a so called "system" in place? Or is it a new world because this so "system" was changed and became culturally integrated upon European invasion. When I was reading and listening to this week's articles and podcasts, I questioned this a lot and writing a response on whether or not after 1500 was considered a "new world" was difficult for me. So, I partially side with you on the "half true" argument as well. 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 robgallagher on May 31, 2016 21:53:14 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. I agree with you that nothing is inevitable in history. Events can be avoided. I believe that the removal of Indians could have been avoided if the United States and the Indian nations could have negotiated for land. I understand that each side had its own goals. The Indian nations wanted to keep their land they had held for generations from outsiders. While at the same time, the young United States wanted to expand its land and move west. I believe there could have been a peaceful way for the Indian nations and people of the united states could have lived together in peace. Like you said in your post, the first document talked about how Georgia acknowledges the rights of the Indians. If our country acknowledged the Indians and their rights, both sides could have negotiated in order to co exist in peace. |
|
|
|
Post by emiliar29 on Jun 21, 2016 17:37:30 GMT
Question #1
I agree with Merrell's assertation that North America after ~1500 was a "new world." Throughout my experience with North American history, I have been of the school of thought that the term "new world" was problematic, because Native peoples had inhabited this country long before European settlers, colonizers, and the African slaves they eventually brought over. I thought the term was wrong and caused erasure of Native peoples and their vast cultural differences. Now I see that with the introduction of foreign occupants, the "new world" became just as new to Natives as it was to the settlers to whom the landscape and environment was truly a new experience. The moment settlers set foot on North American soil, it became a new world for everyone already living here.
Both Merrell and Hoxie talk about Native American history being removed or excluded from the narrative of the new world, and Natives being placed outside the history of "progress" in North America. Hoxie implies that based on the scale of timelines that we have traditionally seen in our history textbooks, that our narrative wants us to believe that "history" doesn't begin until about 1492. Timelines showing 12,000-6,000 BCE gloss over thousands of years in which Native peoples were evolving into humanized societies on this continent. Although Hoxie asserts that settlers entered into a diplomatic world that already existed between various Native cultures, and speaks at great length about the reclaiming of Native American history (especially in the 1970's), and that their world was already very well established, I have to hold fast that we can still call it a new world, simply because the old way of life that was known to Native inhabitants was disrupted.
With Denevan's essay, he gets right to his point in the title, "Pristine Myth." His assertion is that Natives had already manipulated the land long before settlers arrived. While this is true (cultures that sustain themselves on the fruits of the earth must all manipulate it in some way or another), the fact is that white settlers came and razed entire cultures and nations of Natives. Their old world was destroyed and they were forced to adapt to the new. Natives had cut down portions of forest to create their own lands to raise crops, but settlers came and destroyed the forests that Native people hunted and gathered in.
To wrap up, Merrell discusses the fact that Natives were not the only people dying of diseases they had never before been exposed to. He says that the swamps and lowlands harbored illnesses that settlers had not built immunity to. As I wrote earlier, North America became a "new world" for everyone the moment that settlers disembarked their ships.
|
|
