Though I agree with King that the representation of history could also have been done in such a manner where the whites and natives could also have been seen on some amicable terms, however, it was the age of dominance. The whites had developed a sense of superiority complex among themselves against the natives which was clearly recognizable. They distinguished the uniqueness of the natives as a being savages. The whites hypocritically justified how the natives had caused harm to their people and community. The war between Britain and the White Americans clearly justified how much the natives wanted the whites to leave their land as they took the side a foreign enemy who had the same intentions of colonizing and fought against the native Americans.
When the Dawes Act, a Native American Policy, was enforced in 1887, it focused on breaking up reservations by granting land allotments to individual Native Americans. At that time, people believed that if a person adopted the white man’s clothing, ways and was responsible for his own farm, he would eventually drop his, as stated by the Oxford University Press, “Indian-ness” and become assimilated in American society. The basic idea of this act was the taking away of Native American Culture because they were considered savage and primitive to the incoming settlers. Many historians now agree the Native’s treatment throughout the Dawes Act was completely unfair, unlawful, and unethical. American Society classified them as savages solely on their differences in morals, religion, appearance and overall culture.
Also, Warren writes, “What did the new religion portend? Was it a secret plan to unite the tribes against their white oppressors?” The statement above says it all; the white’s were the oppressors of the natives, the white’s automatically believed that the natives are going to rebel, and the “new religion” (to the whites of course) is not acceptable. Whites knew they were controlling and dictate on what the Native Americans could do, but did not see that this oppression was wrong. Having lost everything, Native Americans were not going to let Americans prevent their ability to practice the ghost dance ritual. In the article, “Ghost Dances and Identity” by Gregory E. Smoak, Smoak states “the [ghost] dance for the Lakotas had become a religion of resistance.” Native Americans had nothing to lose, everything was already taken away from them.
Andrew Jackson himself stated, in Document Q, "It is better for [the natives] to treat and move," because, "the arm of the government is not sufficiently strong to preserve them from destruction." Robert V. Remini also states, "The actual removal of the Choctaw Nation violated every principle for which Jackson stood," and "Jackson tried to prevent this calamity but he was too far away to exercise any real control. "On the other hand, Anthony F. C. Wallace insists that Jackson intentionally "oversaw a harsh policy with regard to the Native Americans." In addition, Anthony F. C. Wallace believes, "It was the team of Jackson, Cass, and Herring that supervised the removal of most of the Southern Indians." The president, Andrew Jackson, could have also enforced the Indian Removal act for political reasons.
(Legends of America). Similar, the Native Americans were also referred to as “savages” and other vile names, just like every culture. The Na’vi had a hard time trusting outsider, and the same went for the Native Americans. For example, humans did not care about the sacred land of Pandora, to them it was just another place that needed to be commercialized. The European settlers also had the same idea in mind, and the only way to claim the land was to destroy sacred landmarks and start a war.
These Europeans were likely aware of their encroachment, but neglected it as often nothing was immediately done. Yet the Powhatan massacre showed that Native Americans were very upset by these newcomers upon their lands. “Powhatans targeting of the outlying settlements for the main brunt of the attack may provide the “text” of the lesson- that the English should remain within their proper area,” . This sort of retaliation would have made the Powhatans believe that the Europeans would realize their transgressions and not move further into Native American territory. Thus, from the beginning of European arrival on the North American continent, the Europeans took land from others, and were soon after punished for it.
However, if the other Indians see the Cherokee prospering and keeping their land, then they will follow in example. Without a doubt, the Native Americans shou... ... middle of paper ... ..., yet they still drove out the Indians from their rightful land. However, the government could have issued a stricter security for the Native Americans. This would allow the lives of many Native Americans to be spared during the Trail of Tears. Undoubtedly, the unsafe transportation should have not allowed the relocation of Native Americans.
They opposed the immigrants who settled in their lands, pleading with the colonists to control these squatters lest violence should ensue. “Your people daily settle on these lands…we must insist on your removing them, as you know they have no right to settle,” (Document B). Consequently, this attitude that the Native Americans portrayed may have affected the way Great Britain regarded its newly acquired French land. Great Britain did not want the colonists to settle in the western lands past the Mississippi (Document A). The colonists, however, felt that it was their right to settle these lands.
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.
In the beginning the group wasn’t intended to be malicious but it quickly became a terror... ... middle of paper ... ...ed to write about white privilege, I was reluctant, because it made me focus on a system of unfair practices, the systematic destruction of the dignity of a people, and the reality of no matter what changes America has made, it will still be the same in the future. For America to level the playing field, we would have to travel back in time and re-write its Constitution, to change the institution of slavery, and treat the Native Americans with some measure of respect. Since going back in time is not an option, I guess we are stuck with fixing it ourselves. Though changes have been made for the better, some whites still hold true to ideas of racial superiority. These are the very ideas that continue to fuel racial discrimination into the next generation of American society; hopefully it won’t take two- hundred years to totally achieve racial equality.