When you think of Native Americans (Indians) you think of people who were savages, inimical, and barbaric that fought the “cowboys” in watching movies and television shows. While, some can argue about their way of life as being barbaric you cannot argue that they were badly mistreated and taken advantage of. I will be comparing and contrasting documents from Red Clouds and Flying Hawks Speech and Helen Hunt Jacksons “A Century of Dishonor.” These documents will show that at the time Native Americans weren’t treated equal. That not everyone had equal rights and that white settlers and government were greedy. The documents have a lot of similarities: the major idea of both documents is that the Native American’s were mistreated, lied to and taken advantage of. The Native’s had their lands, way of living, beliefs, and property stripped from them. For example, Helen says that one of the Indian Affairs Superintendent stated, “so long as they are not citizens of the United States, their rights of property must remain insecure against invasion.” (Helen Jackson, pg2). Also, that the Indian Department was belie, they did little or nothing to help the natives and were basically nugatory. Another similarity is the time period. Red Cloud’s speech was in 1890 and Helen Jackson’s book was in 1881 with the exception of Flying Hawk whose speech was in 1936.Which shows that when all this was going on both parties had a strong opinion and were involved. Finally, they wrote these documents to tell their story, to share their feelings toward the situation and to share the wrong doings to Native Americans by the government and white settlers. While the majority of the documents have the same ideas and topic, they have differences. Red Cloud and Flyi... ... middle of paper ... ...se of these documents was to tell their recollections of the events that took place about Native Americans in their time period. Red Cloud and Flying Hawk’s speech was aimed at a world audience or anyone who would listen to their sufferings whereas Helen Jackson’s book was toward the government of the United States. In conclusion, the natives were horribly treated; the government took from them everything and forced them to join the American culture. The natives had no rights or liberty, and had their dignity taken away. The government broke promises and only did things if it made a profit. When the government finally fixed some of the damage, it was already too far to repair. Many Natives lost their lives and there are just some things you can’t change, which is undoing the past. Works Cited Red Cloud speech flying hawk speech Helen Jackson, Century of Dishonor
In the fourth chapter titled “Native Reactions to the invasion of America” in the book, “Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America, the author James Axtell shares with us an essay he wrote and shared at a conference at Vanderbilt University. Historical accounts are followed beginning at the arrival of explorers and settlers until the 1700’s with various Native tribes in North America. Axtell’s goal is to educate us on the multitude of ways Native Americas reacted during various periods of colonization, and the various methods that the Native Americans perished. Axtell also educates us in his essay on the ways that Native Americans tried to ultimately prevent their extinction at any cost. Overall, the authors intent is to educate us
Hunt Jackson was one of the very few whites to sympathize with the mistreatment of the indians. felt strongly had very contrasting approach. Stated in the excerpt, “... among these three hundred bands of indians one which has not suffered cruelly at the hands either of the government or of white settlers.” Simply put, the lives of all indians had been affected due to the lies and broken promises made by the government. In order for the lives of Indians to change, cheating, robbing, and breaking promises must cease. Hunt Jackson differentes the argument compared to Chief Jackson when it comes to the prescription of what needs to happen to the Indians. It was supported that not all Indians at the same time should be given freedom. Owing to the fact that almost all Indians were a “barrier to civilization”, for Western civilization was unknown as a daily practice. In addition, there is much distrust that can be viewed and sights of possible danger toward the whites. All in all, Chief Joseph and Helen Hunt Jackson shared common beliefs toward the fact that Indians deserve equal treatment, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, while Helen hunt Jackson opposes the idea of full citizenship to all indians, Chief Joseph finds it a necessity to be at peace and
It is not out of line to expect Native Americans to live like their ancestors, and I agree with the way that O'Nell made the government look like the wrongdoers. She talks like "indians" are just part of stories or like they have not kept up with the times. This book points out many of the problems for native americans by bringing out problems in identity, culture, and depression dealing with the Flathead Tribe in Montana. The book is divided into three parts to accomplish this. Part 1 is about the American government's policies that were put on the reservations and how it affected the culture of the Flathead Tribe attached to that reservation. This is the base for is to come in the next two parts, which talk about how lonliness an pity tie into the identity and depression.
And that in itself is deserving of merit. The book also has its flaws. From my perspective, Remini could have incorporated primary sources from chieftains, as well as Indian administrators, within the text to give the added opposing perspective of Jackson. Albeit, Remini incorporates quotes from Chieftains, many come from secondary sources (e.g., General Coffee or John Eaton’s accounts of correspondences with Indians). Although Remini claims not to be exonerating Jackson, he makes the case that Jackson did what he thought was the only realistic measure to saves the Indians of the southeast and western frontier from “annihilation” (244). From Jackson’s perspective, he believed he had done the Indians a “great service” (246). History would prove the inverse to be
...convince us Indians that our removal was necessary and beneficial. In my eyes, the agreement only benefited Andrew Jackson. It is apparent that Jackson neglected to realize how the Indian Removal act would affect us Indians. When is the government justified in forcibly removing people from the land they occupy? If you were a Native American, how would you have respond to Jackson? These questions need to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not Jackson was justified. After carefully examining these questions and considering both the pros and cons of this act, I’m sure you would agree that the removal of Native Americans was not justified under the administration of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was not able to see the damaging consequences of the Indian removal act because of his restricted perspective.
The timing of the events, shown through the documents helps uncover some of the where and whys about why the treatment of the Native Americans shaped America’s beginnings. The main timing and reason was colonization. As the European settlers began to colonize the Americas, they saw that they could use the Natives and treat them however they wanted because it was free or low-costly labor. The ill treatment of these people caused many to rebel and revolt against the colonists, or in many circumstances, it caused the Native populations to decline dramatically in numbers. This decimation of the Native American populations left small amounts of people to care for the land, shaping the United States’ environment for future generations. This is part of the reason why many Natives felt resentment to the colonists both in the present time and the future. The order that many of the events happened also affected the issues that first caused the colonization of the Americas.
With hope that they could even out an agreement with the Government during the progressive era Indian continued to practice their religious beliefs and peacefully protest while waiting for their propositions to be respected. During Roosevelt’s presidency, a tribe leader who went by as No Shirt traveled to the capital to confront them about the mistreatment government had been doing to his people. Roosevelt refused to see him but instead wrote a letter implying his philosophical theory on the approach the natives should take “if the red people would prosper, they must follow the mode of life which has made the white people so strong, and that is only right that the white people should show the red people what to do and how to live right”.1 Roosevelt continued to dismiss his policies with the Indians and encouraged them to just conform into the white’s life style. The destruction of their acres of land kept being taken over by the whites, which also meant the destruction of their cultural backgrounds. Natives attempted to strain from the white’s ideology of living, they continued to attempt with the idea of making acts with the government to protect their land however they never seemed successfully. As their land later became white’s new territory, Indians were “forced to accept an ‘agreement’” by complying to change their approach on life style.2 Oklahoma was one of last places Natives had still identity of their own, it wasn’t shortly after that they were taken over and “broken by whites”, the union at the time didn’t see the destruction of Indian tribes as a “product of broken promises but as a triumph for American civilization”.3 The anger and disrespect that Native tribes felt has yet been forgotten, white supremacy was growing during the time of their invasion and the governments corruption only aid their ego doing absolutely nothing for the Indians.
Native Americans lived on the land that is now called America, but when white settlers started to take over the land, many lives of Native Americans were lost. Today, many people believe that the things that have been done and are being done right now, is an honor or an insult to the Natives. The choices that were made and being made were an insult to the Native Americans that live and used to live on this land, by being insulted by land policies, boardings schools and modern issues, all in which contain mistreatment of the Natives. The power that the settlers and the people who governed them had, overcame the power of the Natives so the settlers took advantage and changed the Natives way of life to the
...by the American government and rightfully rebelled. This rebellion, unlike the others, was successful, as Red Cloud forced the Bozeman Trail to be closed. Nonetheless, it demonstrates the American Government’s oppression of Native Americans.
Two-hundred years ago, there was a scientific study on the brains of Native Americans called the craniology and phrenology. The Europeans examined only indigenous people’s heads and were forbidden to use any European’s brains. The Europeans did three experiments, such as decapitating the tops of the heads and filling them with sand to see if their brains were smaller than blacks. The Europeans also looked at the bones and said that if the bones were in a certain way (such as natives cheek bones being up higher) the person was thought to be stupid. The last experiment the Europeans did to American Indians was that they had a small devise that they would put on the head and it would slice the brain open. There would be an award for retrieving a male’s brain that was five cents. By retrieving a woman’s brain the price would be three cents, and lastly a child’s brain which would be two cents. This is when the term redskin was invented (Poupart, 2014).
The removal of Indian tribes was one of the tragic times in America’s history. Native Americans endured hard times when immigrants came to the New World. Their land was stolen, people were treated poorly, tricked, harassed, bullied, and much more. The mistreatment was caused mostly by the white settlers, who wanted the Indians land. The Indians removal was pushed to benefit the settlers, which in turn, caused the Indians to be treated as less than a person and pushed off of their lands. MOREEE
In Thomas King’s novel, The Inconvenient Indian, the story of North America’s history is discussed from his original viewpoint and perspective. In his first chapter, “Forgetting Columbus,” he voices his opinion about how he feel towards the way white people have told America’s history and portraying it as an adventurous tale of triumph, strength and freedom. King hunts down the evidence needed to reveal more facts on the controversial relationship between the whites and natives and how it has affected the culture of Americans. Mainly untangling the confusion between the idea of Native Americans being savages and whites constantly reigning in glory. He exposes the truth about how Native Americans were treated and how their actual stories were
In the book Bad Indians, Miranda talks about the many issues Indigenous People go through. Miranda talks about the struggles Indigenous people go through; however, she talks about them in the perspective of Native Americans. Many people learn about Indigenous People through classrooms and textbooks, in the perspective of White people. In Bad Indians, Miranda uses different literary devices to show her perspective of the way Indigenous People were treated, the issues that arose from missionization, as well as the violence that followed through such issues. Bad Indians is an excellent example that shows how different history is told in different perspectives.
What makes A Century of Dishonor an important book is that it chronicled the government of the United State's continual mistreatment of the American Indian. In it Jackson exposed the government by documenting how treaties were made and broken, how the Indians were robbed out of their lands, and how bad reservation life was for them. Up until 1881, when Jackson’s book was published, the government was not held accountable for its actions but Jackson was able to blame the government for this maltreatment and criticize its behavior publicly. It is also significant because Helen Hunt Jackson didn’t stop only at revealing government actions but through it advocated respect for American Indians and proposed ways to change the government and its ways and views about Native Americans.
Contrary to popular belief, discrimination of Native Americans in America still widely exist in the 21st century! So you may ask, why? Well, to answer that one question, I will give you 3 of the countless reasons why this unfortunate group of people are punished so harshly for little good reason. So now, let’s get into it, shall we!