Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Colonialism and its effects
European colonialism and imperialism
Colonialism and its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
From the moment contact was made between Europeans and Native Americans, different perspectives made the interactions of these civilizations difficult, and often sparked conflict. Europeans saw the world from a vantage point that was wholly different than that of the Native Americans. This paper will use three situations which occurred between Europeans and Native Americans to illustrate just how different the two perspectives often were. These situations were: the Casco Bay Treaty of 1727; the Treaty of Lancaster in 1744; and the dispossession of Cherokee property by Georgia from 1828-1835. This paper will answer some basic questions about the situations, such as: the reasons for the misunderstandings; the resulting occurrences due to the differing perspectives; and who the ‘victor’ of the situations was. Finally, this paper will draw some conclusions about how ideas influenced the operation of power in these situations. The Casco Bay Treaty of 1727 was intended to settle tension which had been occurring between the English, and several tribes of Abenaki Indians in Maine. The Abenakis had apparently been carrying out attacks against English settlers in the region. The English finally forced the Abenakis to sign a treaty in which the Indians promised to “Cease and Forbear all Acts of Hostility, Injuries, and Discords towards all the Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain” and “maintain a firm and constant Amity and Friendship with all the English”. The affair might have ended there; however, the official wording of the treaty that was signed turned out to be different than what the Abenakis thought they had negotiated. The English transcribers of the treaty portrayed the Abena... ... middle of paper ... ...744,” in The World Turned Upside Down: Indian Voices from Early America, ed. Colin G. Calloway (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1994), 101 Canasatego, 101 Canasatego, 102 Canasatego, 102 Katherine Osburn, “Indian Removal: Policy Issues and Enactment,” 5. Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents, (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005), 85-86. Perdue and Green, 3 Cherokee Indians “Memorial of Protest of the Cherokee Nation, June 22, 1836” in The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents, ed. Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005), 87 Cherokee Indians, 88 Cherokee Indians, 91 Atiwaneto “Speech Resisting Colonial Expansion 1752”, in The World Turned Upside Down: Indian Voices from Early America, ed. Colin G. Calloway (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1994), 127
Print. The. C. Wallace, Anthony F. Long, bitter trail Andrew Jackson and the Indians. Ed. Eric Foner. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.
Talking Back to Civilization , edited by Frederick E. Hoxie, is a compilation of excerpts from speeches, articles, and texts written by various American Indian authors and scholars from the 1890s to the 1920s. As a whole, the pieces provide a rough testimony of the American Indian during a period when conflict over land and resources, cultural stereotypes, and national policies caused tensions between Native American Indians and Euro-American reformers. This paper will attempt to sum up the plight of the American Indian during this period in American history.
Jackson, Andrew. “Andrew Jackson: On Indian Removal: The Full Text.” Milestone Documents in American History. Ed. Paul Finkelman. 4vols. Schlager Group, 2008. Salem History Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Talking Back to Civilization: Indian Voices from the Progressive Era edited by Frederick E. Hoxie is a book which begins with an introduction into the life of Charles Eastman and a brief overview of the history of Native Americans and their fight for justice and equal rights, it then continues by describing the different ways and avenues of speaking for Indian rights and what the activists did. This leads logically into the primary sources which “talk back” to the society which had overrun their own. The primary sources immerse the reader into another way of thinking and cause them to realize what our societal growth and even foundation has caused to those who were the true natives. The primary sources also expand on the main themes of the book which are outlines in the introduction. They are first and most importantly talking back to the “pale faces”, Indian education, religion, American Indian policy, the image of the Indians presented in America. The other chapters in the book further expanded on these ideas. These themes will be further discussed in the following chapters along with a review of this
Grinde, Donald, and Bruce Johansen. Ecocide of Native America: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers, 1995. Print.
Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
Looking back on history, there is no doubt that the Indian Removal Act, leading to the “Trail of Tears” was a harsh unnecessary decision that costed many people their lives. Although is it easy to make that assumption today, in 1830 when the Act was being debated and thought up of, it was thought to help the country and the Indians both thrive more than they would without the Act. In 1830 the relocation of the Indians in the Indian Act removal was justified by the appeal and benefits to both Indians and Americans and the lack of common practices between the two.
Stark, H. K., & Wilkins, D. E. (2011). American Indian Politics and the American Political System. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
The speeches and writings from this week on Indian Removal truly shocked me. I have never been informed of the horrifying details of this event. The Indian Removal stories revealed information regarding the occurrences. In particular, I found “The Cherokee Removal Through the Eyes of a Private Soldier” by John G. Burnett the most interesting.
The issue of Cherokee removal was complex, with many different viewpoints. Many Cherokees were opposed to leaving their ancestral lands. Their voices were facets of this debate that are meaningful, especially looking back after their forced removal.
Nearly 300 Indians were forced to sign this treaty. The men were not really representatives of the Cherokee tribe, and they had no authoritative power amongst their tribe members. The Indians in the region did not accept the signing of the treaty. They took it to the Supreme Court of Law and won their case. President Andrew Jackson was determined to get the natives from the region and earn benefits from it. He used force from the military and powerfully removed thousands of Indian tribes from their homeland.
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
Stensland, Anna Lee. “Indian Boyhood by Charles A. Eastman’” The English Journal 66, no. 3 (1977): 59.
The removal of Native-Americans from their homes to the region east of the Mississippi is one of the most tragic and controversial episodes in American History. It affected the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee people. This tragic event killed approximately 2,000 to 6,000 of the 16,543 Cherokee Indians who were forced to move during the winter of 1838. There were many legal and moral arguments for and against this policy. In this paper I will point out the reasons why the argument against Indian removal was a more convincing argument.
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.