Bureau of Indian Affairs
This is a great day for you and for us. A day of peace and friendship between you and the whites for all time to come. You are about to be paid for your lands, and the GREAT FATHER has sent me today to treaty with you concerning the payment...And the GREAT FATHER wishes you to have homes, pastures for your horses and fishing places. he wishes you to learn to farm and your children to go to a good school; and he now wants me to make a bargain with you, in which you will sell your lands and in return be provided all these things. – Isaac I. Stevens, 1854
The US government’s official role in Indian affairs began as far back as the Continental Congress (1786) when the Indian tribes were still considered independent nations with whom the settlers had to make treaties (Jackson 1). The purposes for these interactions were to buy land and to keep peace between encroaching settlers and natives.
Unfortunately, these first transactions reflected the cultural misunderstandings between the two parties that would continue to plague communication until this century (Taylor 5). The Europeans assumed the Indians viewed land in the same way—individuals owning plots of land for agricultural purposes. Most of the eastern tribes were nomadic and moved to meet seasonal needs for hunting. When the Europeans offered to buy land, the natives did not understand that they would thence be barred from the use of that land for migrating and for hunting. Even at these early stages of negotiations, conflicts arose between the two levels of government as to who had jurisdiction. The federal government alone had authority to make treaties with foreign nations, but the states had to deal with the individual tribes. This led to more local intervention by "agents" of the federal government to actually negotiate between states and tribes (Jackson 15). Another role of these agents was, as Henry Knox stated, "to familiarize Indians with the American way of living" (Jackson 20).
As the bureaucracy began to develop to meet the needs of the westward expansion, the department’s oversight was given to the Secretary of War. This did not seem to be an intentional statement of purpose but rather a decision of convenience because the Department of the Interior did not exist yet. However, Francis Prucha felt that this may have been because the Indians had been viewed as siding with the British during the Revolutionary War and thus were adversaries(319).
In order to better understand the historical context of nuclear development it seems to me as though Iversen dove into a fair amount of investigative journalism. The book focuses primarily on the events of Rocky Flats and her life through a narrative nonfiction interpretation. By providing a journalist approach, Iversen makes it easy for the reader to build a relationship with the characters presented throughout the book. At times I found myself visualizing the intensity of the fires, the whirlwind of emotions from locals, and the lasting environmental impacts that would not only plague Colorado, but taint the reputation of what it means to be human.
Under the Jackson Administration, the changes made shaped national Indian policy. Morally, Andrew Jackson dismissed prior ideas that natives would gradually assimilate into white culture, and believed that removing Indians from their homes was the best answer for both the natives and Americans. Politically, before Jackson treaties were in place that protected natives until he changed those policies, and broke those treaties, violating the United States Constitution. Under Jackson’s changes, the United States effectively gained an enormous amount of land. The removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi River in the 1830’s changed the national policy in place when Jackson became President as evidenced by the moral, political, constitutional, and practical concerns of the National Indian Policy.
As the frontier moved west, white settlers wanted to expand into territory, which was the ancestral land of many Indian tribes. Although this had been going on since the administration of George Washington, during the administration of Andrew Jackson the government supported the policy of resettlement, and persuaded many tribes to give up their claim to their land and move into areas set aside by Congress as Indian Territory. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Resettlement Act, which provided for the removal of Indians to territory west of the Mississippi River. While Jackson was President, the government negotiated 94 treaties to end Indian titles to land in the existing states.
Animal rights have become a very serious issue here in the United States over the last few decades. One issue that has been discussed is whether or not zoos serve a good purpose or are they just a torture chamber for the animals. Locked up in small cages so people can yell at them and stare. Or are zoos the key to save our species in an ever growing human population. Rachel Lu, a philosophy teacher and senior columnist, writes the article, “Let’s Keep Zoos: Learning stewardship is a good thing.”, published April 18, 2014, argues that zoos are worth keeping. Rachel Lu uses her personal experiences to appeal to her audience that zoos are valuable to people especially young children because it gives them a perspective on nature.
In the 30 years after the Civil War, although government policy towards Native Americans intended to shift from forced separation to integration into American society, attempts to "Americanize" Indians only hastened the death of their culture and presence in the America. The intent in the policy, after the end of aggression, was to integrate Native Americans into American society. Many attempts at this were made, ranging from offering citizenship to granting lands to Indians. All of these attempts were in vain, however, because the result of this policies is much the same as would be the result of continued agression.
Times were very hard for Native Americans during the mid to late 1800s. The reasons for their afflictions could only be blamed upon the United States of America. For thousands of years, Native Americans had roamed around the Americas. There had also been many tribes spread across the West that fought between each other in order to have their land.1 It wasn’t until after reconstruction in the United States, that the white Americans started having ordeals with the Native Americans. The main tribes involved in the conflict starting around 1850 were the Lakota people and the Sioux. The relationship between them can only be remembered for broken treaties and wars. It is true that these tribes had only mind there own business for many centuries for the White Americans. It wasn’t around the 1850’s, that the United States were interested in the gold that was existing in the territories the belonged to the Native Americans. This would be the starting point of what historians call the Indian Wars that would last about half a century. The question is though, why? Why were there so many battles between the United States government and the Native Americans? Why was there so many hatred between them? Finally, who caused the violence? Many historians would believe that the government only wanted to have gold and then leave the Indian’s at peace and that they were the ones that acted irrationally. However, this is in fact a lie. It is genuine that they also wanted to rob them from there identity and who the Native Americans were as people. There was something much more than just gold in the Indian Wars. Although it may seem that the United States government only wanted riches from the Native American’s land, they actually wanted to extract t...
Prior to the 1830’s, the United States government did not make it’s aspirations of attaining Indian lands, but rather Indians were given rights to be treated as nations, and protected their rights according to the Constitution. According to the letter to President George Washington from Henry Knox, “The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent, or by the right of conquest in case of a just war” (Doc B). To add on, the United States believed that “intrusions upon the lands of the friendly Indian tribes, is not only a violation of law, but in direct opposition to the policy for the government towards its savage neighbor” (Doc G) was considerate of the Indians’ territories. Therefore, this indicates that the government of the United States did not want to take any risk and was rather cautious against having the desire to obtain the Natives’ land.
The generalization that, “The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy,” is valid. Ever since the American people arrived at the New World they have continually driven the Native Americans out of their native lands. Many people wanted to contribute to this removal of the Cherokees and their society. Knox proposed a “civilization” of the Indians. President Monroe continued Knox’s plan by developing ways to rid of the Indians, claiming it would be beneficial to all. Andrew Jackson ultimately fulfilled the plan. First of all, the map [Document A] indicates the relationship between time, land, and policies, which affected the Indians. The Indian Tribes have been forced to give up their land as early as the 1720s. Between the years of 1721 and 1785, the Colonial and Confederation treaties forced the Indians to give up huge portions of their land. During Washington's, Monroe's, and Jefferson's administration, more and more Indian land was being commandeered by the colonists. The Washington administration signed the Treaty of Holston and other supplements between the time periods of 1791 until 1798 that made the Native Americans give up more of their homeland land. The administrations during the 1790's to the 1830's had gradually acquired more and more land from the Cherokee Indians. Jackson followed that precedent by the acquisition of more Cherokee lands. In later years, those speaking on behalf of the United States government believed that teaching the Indians how to live a more civilized life would only benefit them. Rather than only thinking of benefiting the Indians, we were also trying to benefit ourselves. We were looking to acquire the Indians’ land. In a letter to George Washington, Knox says we should first is to destroy the Indians with an army, and the second is to make peace with them. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 began to put Knox’s plan into effect. The federal government’s promise of supplying the Indians with animals, agricultural tool...
Have you ever seen an animal sitting in a cage all alone with nothing to do. Well, zoos are trying to change that fact. They will allow the animals to live in an environment that is like their home. Many people don't realize this, but zoo are keeping and breeding these animals because they would not survive in the wild alone. In the three passages, ¨The Stripes Will Survive,¨ ¨The Zood Go Wild from No More Dodos,¨ ¨Our Beautiful Macaws and Why They Need Enrichment.¨ All of these articles present one claim, that is that the role of zoos is no longer to keep animal, but to protect them.
According to Marx, the 'capitalist mode of production' is a product of the 'industrial revolution' and the division of labor coming from it. By virtue of this division,...
Karl Marx, in the Capital, developed his critique of capitalism by analyzing its characteristics and its development throughout history. The critique contains Marx’s most developed economic analysis and philosophical insight. Although it was written in 1850s, its values still serve an important purpose in the globalized world and maintains extremely relevant in the twenty-first century.
There are many places where people can go to see live animals such as aquariums, zoos, and safari parks. A pleasant way to define a Zoo is to call it “an establishment that maintains a collection of wild animals”. (Google def) Another way to say that is a facility in which animals are “enclosed in cages for public exhibition”. I believe zoos are ethical; however, changes need to be made to eliminate problems I have discovered. In this argumentative essay, I will be arguing the ethics of zoos and certain problems that need to be addressed that people are not aware of. Zoos are great places to take the family out for the day to have entertainment; however, problems such as captive breeding, length of life, and animal stress need to improve.
...ing pandas pose for pictures. The pandas are starved so they will be more obedient when being photographed. Jill Robinson of Animals Asia: ''They are clearly victims of training using negative reinforcement, constant beating and lack of food until they get the trick right. '' To make sure the bears do not pose a threat to their trainers, they have their teeth and claws filed down. Animals are deprived of their basic right to live healthily.
Zoos display fascinating animals from all over the world for human entertainment, research, conservation, and education. Many scientists conduct studies on animals in captivity that they may not have been able to in the wild. Zoos educate all the visitors that come; they let people know everything that they know about the animals on display. We do learn a lot from these animals, but not all of the animals in the zoo are behaving like they normally would in the wild. Larger animals, such as elephants and orcas (commonly known as killer whales), have trouble with being confined in such a small area. However, many smaller animals benefit from zoos because they provide protection from predators, natural disasters, and poachers. They also benefit from conservation efforts; the babies being born get all the care they could ever need. Some animal rights activists are concerned that the conservation efforts are limiting the gene pool of the species. They argue that the small number of animals able to breed in captivity limits biodiversity and leads to weaknesses in the species overall. Zoos are wonderful places to study and learn about animals, but we need to improve the living standards for animals that struggle with captivity.
Zoo animals are usually kept in very cramped enclosures and do not behave like their wild counterparts. Polar bears, for example, are given about 10 metres of walking space whereas in their Arctic home they roam for many hundreds of kilometres. Similarly, primates, big cats and birds are often confined in cages where they lack exercise and stimulation. Many animals develop unnatural habits such as pacing back and forth or swaying from side to side.