1. What were the two versions of the Camp Grant attack that existed among the U.S. public, and who supported each view?
Version One of the Event: The attackers were lead by U.S. settler William Oury and Mexican- American brothers Juan and Jesus, their version of the attack on the Apache at Camp grant is that the "Apaches from this settlement had stoeln cattle and killed local settlers" and it was a form of retribution. Some supporting the version of the event didn't call it an attack, rather an affair.
Who supported Version One? This first version was supported by local settlers
Version Two of the Event: In this version "the attack was not a form of retribution but was a violation of the U.S. Army's peace agreement with the Apache near the fort, and a slaughter of innocent women and children." Some even began to call this attack a massacre because of the extreme levels of violence.
Who supported Version Two? The second version was supported by the U.S. government and reformers.
2. Why was the trial that took place after the attack significant? The trial that took place after the attack was significant because, even though many crimes had been commited against the Apache in the past by many different groups, there was one key detail that changed everything; the fact the the Apache has been under the protection of the U.S. government when they were attacked. Therefore, for the first time ever ( in the history of the Arizona Territory ) non- Apaches had been put on trial for killing Apaches, however the accused were found innocent.
3. Whose views were absent in the accounts of this attack that were told in the United States?
All views except the perspectives of the U.S. settlers or "Anglo Americans" had been absent. The views that had been absent were limited to the Mexican Americans, the Apache, and the O'odham.
4. Why have Native American views been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States?
Native American views have been excluded from the story of the U.S. ecpansion that is told in the United States because Anglo Americans "wanted to remember and tell the history of the West in a way that portrayed them favorably and justified their claims to land and resources" Often, the contributions of other groups/ people were down played, indirectly meaning to make the U.S. seem better by comparison. As a result, stories exclude Native American views, fights, or any contributions they made into creating the West. The U.S. didn't want it to seem like they had done anything wrong and "preferred to see itself as a benevolent force that spread its lofty ideals across the continent."
5. What were the two parts of the U.S. government's assiimilation plan in the late nineteenth century?
a. One part of the U.S. government's assimilation plan in the late nineteenth century was to get all indian groups onto reservations. ( They believed this would make getting rid of their culture a lot easier. )
b. Another part of the U.S. government's assimilation plan in the late nineteenth century was to get the Native Americans to speak English and farm small plots of land so they could be cultured like an average settler. One way of doing this was banning the Native Americans from "practicing their religions and cultural ceremonies", also Native American children were often sent to boarding schools were their hair would be cut short, their names would be changed and they would be forced to speak English.
6. Give two examples of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures?
a. One example of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures is (as I said before) banning their religion and cultural ceremonies.
b. Another example of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures is by sending the children to boarding schools, where they would have their hair cut, their names changed, and would be forced to speak English to better fit in with the settlers culture rather then their native ways.
7. What effect did the railroad have on U.S. settlement of the West?
The effect the railroad had on U.S. settlements of the West is that it largly increased the population, as the reading says "settlers were pouring into the West" The railroad also made it easy to get supplies and other manufactured goods from around the country. Lastly, the killing of Buffalo increased due to the easy transportation of their hides, along side of the necessity of Buffalo for food, clothing, tools, etc.
8. How did westward expansion fuel U.S. industrialization?
Westward expansion fueled U.S. industrialization for many reasons. One reason is because of the railroad, good were easily transported from one side of the continent to the other, making the production of goods a goal for people. Also, the large population made it easy for goods to get made/ grown because so many people were in the buisness. Along side that, "Food grown on western farms became critical for feeding populations in the East" which was obviously a benefit for the West seeing as their good were needed. Overall, because "The railroads brought goods and people westward, and they also linked western industries to markets in the East" westward expansion fueled U.S. industrialization.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Experiencing U.S. Expansion: Southern Arizona - Part II
6. What two threats did Mexico face in its northern frontier in the mid-nineteenth century?
a. One threat that Mexico faced in its northern frontier in the mid-nineteenth century was their conflict with the Indian groups. As the reading says, one threat was "the renewed conflict with Indian groups like the Apache" What had happened is the establicimientos de paz failed and a lot of Mexicans wanted all of the members of the Apache to be eliminated. "The next year, the legislature declared war on all Apache groups, and required all local male citizens to serve in the military or pay a fine " as the reading said. There was basically a huge fude with Indian groups going on during the mid-nineteenth century which was a threat the Mexico faced in tis northern frontier.
b. A second threat they faced is the U.S.; to the North of Mexico. There was also a fude going on between Mexico and the U.S. for the land they both wanted, due to the great natural resources there. As the reading states, "U.S. leaders had long set their sights on this region, with its wealth of natural resources" Mexico had to face this threat in addition to the fude with the Indian groups. However, the U.S. was in a similar situation as Mexico because they were against the Indian groups like the Apache. " At the same time, amny U.S. traders also participated in the campaign against the Apache, killing Apache people and collecting rewards for their scalps" in which way Mexico and the U.S. had something in common.
7. Why did the Gadsden Purchase have such a great impact on northern Mexicans?
The Gadsden Purchase had a great impact on northern Mexicans. "The United States' hunger for land was not satisfied with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo" This treaty gave the U.S. a lot of land, which is mostly
part of what is southern Arizona today. However, since we wanted more land, Mexico leaders gave 30,000 square miles of land for 10 million dollars. Even though this Gadsden Purchase was a lot smaller than the land recieved for the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it had a large impact on northern Mexicans because "This sale moved a number of prominent towns and hundreds of Mexican citizens into U.S. territory"
8. List two ways that cultural misunderstanding contributed to a growing conflict between U.S. settlers
and Apache groups.
a. One thing that went wrong within cultural understandings is that often, the United States would think that they "made an agreement with a number of groups while the Apache believed the peace was only with their own band" so when Apache would still raid, the U.S. thought that their allies were betraying them and their agreements. This problem lead to the growth in the conflict between the Apache and U.S. settlers.
b.Another thing that caused conflict between the Apache groups and the U.S. settlers is when U.S. forces would get involved. Sometimes, the Apache would take captives from settlements in the U.S. and then the "U.S. forces would often seize captives from another group, assuming that any Apache leader could coordinate the return of their people" Basically, the U.S. forces thought that they were taking captives from an Apache group that took some U.S. settlers as captives, but the Apache people they would take as captives had nothing to do with the taking of the U.S. captives. They would punish the wrong people.
9. How did the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase spark a civil war in...
a. Mexico?
These two land transfers sparked a civil war in Mexico because it turned a lot of Mexicans against their goverment. "In Mexico, people were angry about the huge loss of territory sustained by their goverment" A lot of citizens believed the the Mexico leaders had made a mistake and that "Mexico's goverment, economy, and society needed a complete transformation"
b. the United States?
These two land transfers sparked a civil war in the United States because of the gain of all the land, which is opposite Mexico. The reason was because "Debates over the status of slavery in the new territories inflamed tensions that were already at fever pitch" The United States had basically already been struggling with what to do about slavery, and when new territories came into the picture, there was a large fude of what to do, weather the territories would be free or slave.
10. a. What did many U.S. settlers want U.S. policy towards the Apache to be?
A lot of U.S. settlers wanted the U.S. policy towards the Apache to be, to kill them. Most people wanted to rid the west of the Apache all together. As the reading says "Some even advocated for extermination of native groups as a way to make the West safe for U.S. settlement" and "the only thing the Apache understood was violence"
b. In what ways did this clash with the federal government’s Peace Policy?
This policy clashed with the federal government's Peace Policy that Ulysses S. Grant put into play because the Peace Policy was intended to have reservations where Indian groups could settle and be safe. If the U.S. policy towards the Apache were to be violence and complete extermination, then all of them would be gone, including the ones that settled on reservations protected by the U.S. goverment, which completly contradicts the purpose of the Peace Policy.
11. Why were the Apache hesitant to move onto reservations?
The Apache were hesitant to move onto reservations for obvious reasons, such as the United States tricking the Apache to move onto the reservations so that they could exterminate them; almost using the reservations as "bait". Another reason is because it would go against Apache tradition because it "prevented them from making yearly migrations"
a. One threat that Mexico faced in its northern frontier in the mid-nineteenth century was their conflict with the Indian groups. As the reading says, one threat was "the renewed conflict with Indian groups like the Apache" What had happened is the establicimientos de paz failed and a lot of Mexicans wanted all of the members of the Apache to be eliminated. "The next year, the legislature declared war on all Apache groups, and required all local male citizens to serve in the military or pay a fine " as the reading said. There was basically a huge fude with Indian groups going on during the mid-nineteenth century which was a threat the Mexico faced in tis northern frontier.
b. A second threat they faced is the U.S.; to the North of Mexico. There was also a fude going on between Mexico and the U.S. for the land they both wanted, due to the great natural resources there. As the reading states, "U.S. leaders had long set their sights on this region, with its wealth of natural resources" Mexico had to face this threat in addition to the fude with the Indian groups. However, the U.S. was in a similar situation as Mexico because they were against the Indian groups like the Apache. " At the same time, amny U.S. traders also participated in the campaign against the Apache, killing Apache people and collecting rewards for their scalps" in which way Mexico and the U.S. had something in common.
7. Why did the Gadsden Purchase have such a great impact on northern Mexicans?
The Gadsden Purchase had a great impact on northern Mexicans. "The United States' hunger for land was not satisfied with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo" This treaty gave the U.S. a lot of land, which is mostly
part of what is southern Arizona today. However, since we wanted more land, Mexico leaders gave 30,000 square miles of land for 10 million dollars. Even though this Gadsden Purchase was a lot smaller than the land recieved for the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it had a large impact on northern Mexicans because "This sale moved a number of prominent towns and hundreds of Mexican citizens into U.S. territory"
8. List two ways that cultural misunderstanding contributed to a growing conflict between U.S. settlers
and Apache groups.
a. One thing that went wrong within cultural understandings is that often, the United States would think that they "made an agreement with a number of groups while the Apache believed the peace was only with their own band" so when Apache would still raid, the U.S. thought that their allies were betraying them and their agreements. This problem lead to the growth in the conflict between the Apache and U.S. settlers.
b.Another thing that caused conflict between the Apache groups and the U.S. settlers is when U.S. forces would get involved. Sometimes, the Apache would take captives from settlements in the U.S. and then the "U.S. forces would often seize captives from another group, assuming that any Apache leader could coordinate the return of their people" Basically, the U.S. forces thought that they were taking captives from an Apache group that took some U.S. settlers as captives, but the Apache people they would take as captives had nothing to do with the taking of the U.S. captives. They would punish the wrong people.
9. How did the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase spark a civil war in...
a. Mexico?
These two land transfers sparked a civil war in Mexico because it turned a lot of Mexicans against their goverment. "In Mexico, people were angry about the huge loss of territory sustained by their goverment" A lot of citizens believed the the Mexico leaders had made a mistake and that "Mexico's goverment, economy, and society needed a complete transformation"
b. the United States?
These two land transfers sparked a civil war in the United States because of the gain of all the land, which is opposite Mexico. The reason was because "Debates over the status of slavery in the new territories inflamed tensions that were already at fever pitch" The United States had basically already been struggling with what to do about slavery, and when new territories came into the picture, there was a large fude of what to do, weather the territories would be free or slave.
10. a. What did many U.S. settlers want U.S. policy towards the Apache to be?
A lot of U.S. settlers wanted the U.S. policy towards the Apache to be, to kill them. Most people wanted to rid the west of the Apache all together. As the reading says "Some even advocated for extermination of native groups as a way to make the West safe for U.S. settlement" and "the only thing the Apache understood was violence"
b. In what ways did this clash with the federal government’s Peace Policy?
This policy clashed with the federal government's Peace Policy that Ulysses S. Grant put into play because the Peace Policy was intended to have reservations where Indian groups could settle and be safe. If the U.S. policy towards the Apache were to be violence and complete extermination, then all of them would be gone, including the ones that settled on reservations protected by the U.S. goverment, which completly contradicts the purpose of the Peace Policy.
11. Why were the Apache hesitant to move onto reservations?
The Apache were hesitant to move onto reservations for obvious reasons, such as the United States tricking the Apache to move onto the reservations so that they could exterminate them; almost using the reservations as "bait". Another reason is because it would go against Apache tradition because it "prevented them from making yearly migrations"
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Experiencing U.S. Expansion: Southern Arizona
1. What were the two broad groupings of Native Americans in southern Arizona when the Spanish arrived?
Broad Group 1 Name for Self: O'odham "the people" Spanish Name(s): Pima, Papago
Broad Group 2 Name for self: Nnee "the people" Spanish Name(s): Apache
2. How did the O’odham show their unwillingness to fully embrace the Spanish missions?
The O'odham showed their unwillingness to fully embrace the spanish missions by basically not staying on the missions. Some "withdrew to the desert and only visited Spanish settlements in times of need or on the course of their yearly migrations" Overall the O'odham just didn't show full commitment to the change in civilization by not being fully commited to the Spanish missions.
3. Why did Apache groups raid Spanish settlements?
The Apache groups raided Spanish settlements because the Spanish settlements were a new form of resources to them. The Apache groups often had trouble obtaining food, supplies and other things. Most things were very hard for the Apache groups to get and as the reading says "Spanish settlements became a new source for supplies" This is why the Apache groups raided Spanish settlements, in order to get their food and supplies that they needed.
4. What was the cycle of violence?
The cycle of violence all started with the Apache groups raiding Spanish settlements for food. Even though they made sure not to take too much at a time or basically "over-raid" However, even though they didn't take too much at a time, sometimes they did end up killing some of the Spanish people. This ended up starting a cycle of violence because the Spanish "led their first military campaigns against the Apache in the 1690's" because the Spanish were sick of the repeated attacks.
5. How did Spanish and Apache views of the peace created by the establicimientos de paz differ?
In order to create peace among the Apache and the Spanish, they decided that in order for the Apache to settle in the area known as establicimientos de paz they would be expected to help the Spanish fight off some of the Apache groups who were hostile against the Spanish still. Many were settling in this area, and hostile Apache groups were easily overpowered.
Broad Group 1 Name for Self: O'odham "the people" Spanish Name(s): Pima, Papago
Broad Group 2 Name for self: Nnee "the people" Spanish Name(s): Apache
2. How did the O’odham show their unwillingness to fully embrace the Spanish missions?
The O'odham showed their unwillingness to fully embrace the spanish missions by basically not staying on the missions. Some "withdrew to the desert and only visited Spanish settlements in times of need or on the course of their yearly migrations" Overall the O'odham just didn't show full commitment to the change in civilization by not being fully commited to the Spanish missions.
3. Why did Apache groups raid Spanish settlements?
The Apache groups raided Spanish settlements because the Spanish settlements were a new form of resources to them. The Apache groups often had trouble obtaining food, supplies and other things. Most things were very hard for the Apache groups to get and as the reading says "Spanish settlements became a new source for supplies" This is why the Apache groups raided Spanish settlements, in order to get their food and supplies that they needed.
4. What was the cycle of violence?
The cycle of violence all started with the Apache groups raiding Spanish settlements for food. Even though they made sure not to take too much at a time or basically "over-raid" However, even though they didn't take too much at a time, sometimes they did end up killing some of the Spanish people. This ended up starting a cycle of violence because the Spanish "led their first military campaigns against the Apache in the 1690's" because the Spanish were sick of the repeated attacks.
5. How did Spanish and Apache views of the peace created by the establicimientos de paz differ?
In order to create peace among the Apache and the Spanish, they decided that in order for the Apache to settle in the area known as establicimientos de paz they would be expected to help the Spanish fight off some of the Apache groups who were hostile against the Spanish still. Many were settling in this area, and hostile Apache groups were easily overpowered.
Monday, September 19, 2011
New Settlers in the West
1. Read pages 10 - 18 List three reasons why people in the United States moved west.
a. One reason why people in the United States moved West is because it was good for farming, and other types of earthy occupations. As the reading says, "There was rich, fertile land for farming, great forests full of timber, and a wealth of mineral resources to be discovered" Thus, the West was a good place to settle seeing as it was not only good for farming, but logging and mining.
b. Another reason why people in the United States moved West is because of the growing population during the time. " The United States grew from a country of 7.25 million in 1812 to more than 23 million people in 1852" as the reading says. There needed to be more room for all of the population and the West was good place for them to move.
c. A third reason why people in the United States moved to the West is because of religious freedom. People like the Mormons settled in Utah because they "wanted freedom from persectuion for their religious beliefs" For some, the West was simply a place to escape ridicule from others.
2. How did westward expansion contribute to sectional tensions in the United States?
Westward expansion contributed to sectional tensons in the United States because of slavery, basically. The Southern part of the nation was for slavery, where as the Northern part of the nation was for freedom. As the United States expanded farther and farther west, both the North and the South wanted as many new states as they could that way they could have control in congress and "further their economic interests"
3. What was the Peace Policy?
The Peace Policy was a policy put into play by Ulysses S. Grant. The goal of the policy was basically to keep the Indians safe and stop moving them about. In order to this Indian reservations would be put aside by the governmant in order for the Indians to have their own lands, that was protected by the government.
a. One reason why people in the United States moved West is because it was good for farming, and other types of earthy occupations. As the reading says, "There was rich, fertile land for farming, great forests full of timber, and a wealth of mineral resources to be discovered" Thus, the West was a good place to settle seeing as it was not only good for farming, but logging and mining.
b. Another reason why people in the United States moved West is because of the growing population during the time. " The United States grew from a country of 7.25 million in 1812 to more than 23 million people in 1852" as the reading says. There needed to be more room for all of the population and the West was good place for them to move.
c. A third reason why people in the United States moved to the West is because of religious freedom. People like the Mormons settled in Utah because they "wanted freedom from persectuion for their religious beliefs" For some, the West was simply a place to escape ridicule from others.
2. How did westward expansion contribute to sectional tensions in the United States?
Westward expansion contributed to sectional tensons in the United States because of slavery, basically. The Southern part of the nation was for slavery, where as the Northern part of the nation was for freedom. As the United States expanded farther and farther west, both the North and the South wanted as many new states as they could that way they could have control in congress and "further their economic interests"
3. What was the Peace Policy?
The Peace Policy was a policy put into play by Ulysses S. Grant. The goal of the policy was basically to keep the Indians safe and stop moving them about. In order to this Indian reservations would be put aside by the governmant in order for the Indians to have their own lands, that was protected by the government.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Indian Removal Act
1. Read pages 10 - 12 (Stop at "Settlers Move West"). Why did the United States fight or negotiate with dozens of Indian groups for the lands in the Louisiana Territory?
The Louisiana Territory was a very improtant region the United States needed in order for the country to progress. First of all, we didn't have New Orleans which was "an essential port for U.S. farmers along the Mississippi River" and would be necessary as a trading port for us. Also, the amount of land in the Louisiana Territory was quite large which meant there would be lots of room for settlers to...settle. Lastly, there was a lot of pressure on U.S. leaders, from "land speculators, miners in search of precious minerals, and white settlers" whom wanted the land. Thus, the Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Jackson, and eventually all of the Indians were forced to move from their land farther west.
2. In what ways did the Cherokees assimilate U.S. values and customs?
Surprisingly, some Indian groups benefitted from assimilation policies, such as the Cherokees. The Cherokees created a new form of government (a republic ) which was "modeled on the government of the United States" Also, some Cherokee farmers participated in the cotton industry, which was doing extremly well at the time. Some even had African Americans work as slaves on their plantations. Lastly, the Cherokee wrote a constitution for itself in 1827, which declared the Cherokee nation as an independent one.
The Louisiana Territory was a very improtant region the United States needed in order for the country to progress. First of all, we didn't have New Orleans which was "an essential port for U.S. farmers along the Mississippi River" and would be necessary as a trading port for us. Also, the amount of land in the Louisiana Territory was quite large which meant there would be lots of room for settlers to...settle. Lastly, there was a lot of pressure on U.S. leaders, from "land speculators, miners in search of precious minerals, and white settlers" whom wanted the land. Thus, the Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Jackson, and eventually all of the Indians were forced to move from their land farther west.
2. In what ways did the Cherokees assimilate U.S. values and customs?
Surprisingly, some Indian groups benefitted from assimilation policies, such as the Cherokees. The Cherokees created a new form of government (a republic ) which was "modeled on the government of the United States" Also, some Cherokee farmers participated in the cotton industry, which was doing extremly well at the time. Some even had African Americans work as slaves on their plantations. Lastly, the Cherokee wrote a constitution for itself in 1827, which declared the Cherokee nation as an independent one.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Transformation of a Continent
1.How does the term "the West" mask the different perspectives of people at the start of the nineteenth century? (Keep in mind the discussion at the beginning of class today - "Eastward Expansion")
The term "the West" masks a lot of different perspectives of the expansion of the west. One example of this would be westward expansion for someone who lived in South America, or New Mexico. For the people that lived there, it would be considered northern expansion because from their region, they are South of the expansion, not East, thus making it northern expansion, rather then westward. Another way "the West" masks the different perspectives of people is the for someone who lived in Russia, it would be eastward expansion because their starting point wouldn't have been from our east coast, it would be from the west, thus they would be going eastward. Lastly, although some considered the "westward expansion" the "advance of civilization and the winning of a continent" to the Native Americans it was a decrease in their land and the loss of what they had established before we decided to expand.
2. Read page 5. Summarize the three major areas of differences and misunderstadings between the Europeans and Native Americans.
Trade: There was much confusion among the trading category. One example of this is the values trade had for the Indians vs. the Europeans. Indians thought trade was about keeping friendships and basically being nice to one another while Europeans believed the only good reason for trade was to make a profit. A negative effect this had on the Indians is that they learned to rely more on European goods such as guns and horses, rather than their own items. Trading basically became a necessity to their new lifestyle.
Land: Another big issue was land. The indians viewed land as something they belonged to, for different reasons, wheather that be cultural, spirtual, or economic reasons. The Europeans however, believed the land belonged to them, and they did not belong to the land. They viewed land as something they could own and/ or sell which was something the Indians were not used to.
Treaties: Treaties became an issue between the Europeans and the Indians as well. When an some Indians would sign a treaty, the Europeans figured the treaty was valid with all the Indians, but that did not hold to be true. Genrally, the treaty would only be for specific Indian communities not all of the different communities as a whole. Lastly, Indians thought they were getting more than what they signed for in their treaties because of what was said orally at meetings. When in reality, they were only getting what was said in the treaties they would sign, and often did not realise what they were losing in their treaties.
3. Read pages 3 - 7 (stop at U.S. Westward Expansion). How did the arrival of Europeans transform life in the West? (Feel free to bullet point your answer. But use lots of key details!)
The arrival of the Europeans had many effects on the way life was in the west prior. As the reading stated that the Europeans had a huge impact on the west in ways such as "European diseases,rreligions, weapons,goods, and livestock" which "all traveled along Indian trade networks and sparked significant changes among western Indian societies " However "the three that caused the most profound changeds were horses, guns, and disease" To start, horses became a necessity to the Indians, they no longer depended on their own feet to get them where they were going and shaped their lives based on their horses. Some Indians became "skilled horse breeders" while some other Indian groups "became nomads, migrating witht eh seasons to hunt buffalo and care for their horses" They completly transformed their lives to revolve around the new animal they had been introduced to. Guns also became something that were necessary for the Indians survival. There was so much conflict going on that they relied on their new weapons to help get them through it rather then their old ways. Last but not least, the Europeans brought disease. Some of these disease were, smallpox, chicken pox, measles and cholera. These diseases spread quickly through Indian nations, and seeing as the Indians had never been faced with such disease their immune systems were not built to defend them against such. These diesease thus brought death upon many, many Indians, wiping out thousands.
4. Read pages 7 - 10. In a paragraph, explain this sentence from the reading (which is the first paragraph under the heading of "US Westward Expansion."): "The new country's treatment of native people would contrast sharply with the ideals it set for itself."
"The new country's treatment of native people would contrast sharply with the ideals it set for itself." is a statement that is true. The ideals they set for themselves went along the lines of having personal liberty and individual rights and they believed that "thier nation was exceptional" but with the way the settlers treated the Indians, they seem like complete hipocrites. As the packet states they would take land from Indians " by trade, treaty, trickery and violence" which seems to contrast being an exceptional nation or personal liberty because it's not very fair to trick the Indians nor is it "exceptional nation"-like to use violence just to expand land. Some leaders actually thought it was unconstitutional to expand into other territories because it was never stated in the constitution that new land was to be added to the union. In addition, "Many early U.S. leaders believed that land ownership was key to preserving liberty" and taking land away from Indians seems to contrast their ideal of persoanl liberty if they don't get to keep their land and are tricked out of giving it up or violence is used until they do. In conclusion, the way the settlers treated Indians made the new country's ideals seem like they couldn't be fulfilled because their treatment of the Indians was contrasting their ideals.
The term "the West" masks a lot of different perspectives of the expansion of the west. One example of this would be westward expansion for someone who lived in South America, or New Mexico. For the people that lived there, it would be considered northern expansion because from their region, they are South of the expansion, not East, thus making it northern expansion, rather then westward. Another way "the West" masks the different perspectives of people is the for someone who lived in Russia, it would be eastward expansion because their starting point wouldn't have been from our east coast, it would be from the west, thus they would be going eastward. Lastly, although some considered the "westward expansion" the "advance of civilization and the winning of a continent" to the Native Americans it was a decrease in their land and the loss of what they had established before we decided to expand.
2. Read page 5. Summarize the three major areas of differences and misunderstadings between the Europeans and Native Americans.
Trade: There was much confusion among the trading category. One example of this is the values trade had for the Indians vs. the Europeans. Indians thought trade was about keeping friendships and basically being nice to one another while Europeans believed the only good reason for trade was to make a profit. A negative effect this had on the Indians is that they learned to rely more on European goods such as guns and horses, rather than their own items. Trading basically became a necessity to their new lifestyle.
Land: Another big issue was land. The indians viewed land as something they belonged to, for different reasons, wheather that be cultural, spirtual, or economic reasons. The Europeans however, believed the land belonged to them, and they did not belong to the land. They viewed land as something they could own and/ or sell which was something the Indians were not used to.
Treaties: Treaties became an issue between the Europeans and the Indians as well. When an some Indians would sign a treaty, the Europeans figured the treaty was valid with all the Indians, but that did not hold to be true. Genrally, the treaty would only be for specific Indian communities not all of the different communities as a whole. Lastly, Indians thought they were getting more than what they signed for in their treaties because of what was said orally at meetings. When in reality, they were only getting what was said in the treaties they would sign, and often did not realise what they were losing in their treaties.
3. Read pages 3 - 7 (stop at U.S. Westward Expansion). How did the arrival of Europeans transform life in the West? (Feel free to bullet point your answer. But use lots of key details!)
The arrival of the Europeans had many effects on the way life was in the west prior. As the reading stated that the Europeans had a huge impact on the west in ways such as "European diseases,rreligions, weapons,goods, and livestock" which "all traveled along Indian trade networks and sparked significant changes among western Indian societies " However "the three that caused the most profound changeds were horses, guns, and disease" To start, horses became a necessity to the Indians, they no longer depended on their own feet to get them where they were going and shaped their lives based on their horses. Some Indians became "skilled horse breeders" while some other Indian groups "became nomads, migrating witht eh seasons to hunt buffalo and care for their horses" They completly transformed their lives to revolve around the new animal they had been introduced to. Guns also became something that were necessary for the Indians survival. There was so much conflict going on that they relied on their new weapons to help get them through it rather then their old ways. Last but not least, the Europeans brought disease. Some of these disease were, smallpox, chicken pox, measles and cholera. These diseases spread quickly through Indian nations, and seeing as the Indians had never been faced with such disease their immune systems were not built to defend them against such. These diesease thus brought death upon many, many Indians, wiping out thousands.
4. Read pages 7 - 10. In a paragraph, explain this sentence from the reading (which is the first paragraph under the heading of "US Westward Expansion."): "The new country's treatment of native people would contrast sharply with the ideals it set for itself."
"The new country's treatment of native people would contrast sharply with the ideals it set for itself." is a statement that is true. The ideals they set for themselves went along the lines of having personal liberty and individual rights and they believed that "thier nation was exceptional" but with the way the settlers treated the Indians, they seem like complete hipocrites. As the packet states they would take land from Indians " by trade, treaty, trickery and violence" which seems to contrast being an exceptional nation or personal liberty because it's not very fair to trick the Indians nor is it "exceptional nation"-like to use violence just to expand land. Some leaders actually thought it was unconstitutional to expand into other territories because it was never stated in the constitution that new land was to be added to the union. In addition, "Many early U.S. leaders believed that land ownership was key to preserving liberty" and taking land away from Indians seems to contrast their ideal of persoanl liberty if they don't get to keep their land and are tricked out of giving it up or violence is used until they do. In conclusion, the way the settlers treated Indians made the new country's ideals seem like they couldn't be fulfilled because their treatment of the Indians was contrasting their ideals.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Myths as Historical Sources
1. Summarize this legend in 2 - 3 sentences.
This legend is basically about how there was a man named Smallpox, who ran into a man named Saynday (one of the Kiowas ) The man named Smallpox talks of how he brings death to all he encounters and that their are rarely any survivors. Saynday ends up saving the Kiowas by distracting Smallpox and having him go to the Pawnees rather than the Kiowas.
2. What changes does Saynday notice when he looks at the landscape?
When Saynday looks at the landscapes he notices how a lot of once lovely things are now ugly and/or dead. For instance, he notices how the buffalos look like white faced cattle. Another thing he notices is how the one clear river now looks as if it's flowing with red mud. Basically all the life has been sucked out of everything within the landscape.
3. What is the relationship between Smallpox and white men?
The relationship between Smallpox and the white men is that they are alliances. The white men are Smallpox's people, as are the Kiowas to Saynday, as the reading said.
4. According to this legend, in what ways do the Kiowas see themselves as different from white people?
The Kiowas see themselves differently from the white men because they don't "count" live men as the white men do like cattle. But they both "count" the enemies the touch. However, the white men use the term destroy.
5. What do you think was the relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees?
The relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees was obviously bad because Saynday never would have sent Smallpox over to kill them all if they hadn't been enemies. He said that the Pawnees nearly wipped out all of the Kiowas and that is why there are so few. It's almost like Karma, the Pawnees wipped out a lot of Kiowas, so Saynday sent Smallpox over to do the same to the Pawnees as they did to the Kiowas.
This legend is basically about how there was a man named Smallpox, who ran into a man named Saynday (one of the Kiowas ) The man named Smallpox talks of how he brings death to all he encounters and that their are rarely any survivors. Saynday ends up saving the Kiowas by distracting Smallpox and having him go to the Pawnees rather than the Kiowas.
2. What changes does Saynday notice when he looks at the landscape?
When Saynday looks at the landscapes he notices how a lot of once lovely things are now ugly and/or dead. For instance, he notices how the buffalos look like white faced cattle. Another thing he notices is how the one clear river now looks as if it's flowing with red mud. Basically all the life has been sucked out of everything within the landscape.
3. What is the relationship between Smallpox and white men?
The relationship between Smallpox and the white men is that they are alliances. The white men are Smallpox's people, as are the Kiowas to Saynday, as the reading said.
4. According to this legend, in what ways do the Kiowas see themselves as different from white people?
The Kiowas see themselves differently from the white men because they don't "count" live men as the white men do like cattle. But they both "count" the enemies the touch. However, the white men use the term destroy.
5. What do you think was the relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees?
The relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees was obviously bad because Saynday never would have sent Smallpox over to kill them all if they hadn't been enemies. He said that the Pawnees nearly wipped out all of the Kiowas and that is why there are so few. It's almost like Karma, the Pawnees wipped out a lot of Kiowas, so Saynday sent Smallpox over to do the same to the Pawnees as they did to the Kiowas.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Orgins and Evolution of Terrorism
1. Why was the hostage crisis at the Munich Olympics a turning point in terrorism?
This hostage crisis was a turning point because terrorists realised what was important when they were fulfillinf their acts of terror. First of all, they realised the more people that saw what happened, the more terror there would be. They found out that a big crowd led to more terror. Just like the Munich Olympics, their as a large crowd not only at the event but many people were able to witness the event via tv. Also, they realised that striking certain targets due to what they represented would make the terror worse as well. For example, at the Munich Olympics, it symbolised "the unity of humankind to show that sport could not transcend politics" which, inevitably, made the terror worse when the olympics were a target; seeing as the hostage goes against the symbol of the olympics.
2. The reading says that state-sponsored terrorism increased after the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran. What did many governments learn from that event?
Many governments realised that supporting terrorists made it easier for smaller states to "strike at more powerful states" Many governments also realised that with more funding they could easily recruit more people because the terrorist would be paid kindly for their acts.
3. The past fifteen years have seen a sharp rise in religious terrorism. What motivates these terrorists?
Motivation for these terrorists is usually based on religion. As said in the article, four of these cases were "The first world trade center bombing", "Baruch Goldstein", "Aum Shinrikyo" and "Christian Identity". However, in the first case, is seems to be implied that it wasn't only religion, it was because of U.S power, technology and genrally New York itslef because that was what the World Trade center symbolized. In addition, the last case was also not only because of religion, but because they were against the U.S. federal goovernment. Richard Wayne Snell said his attacks were just. Another motivation was the "The World Gone Wrong" belief where people believe something has gone terribly wrong with the world and people are afraid to lose their identity due to "foreighn value systems". A second belief is the "No Other Options" belief where people feel powerless and defeated so they think terrorism and violence is the way to make things right.
4. How have these new terrorists changed the way terrorism is carried out?
The new terrorists have changed the way terrorism is carried out because they don't just carry out their acts now, they plan them. They plan what they are going to destroy based on the symbolic value and what, whatever it is they are destroying reepresents. Also, terrorists think "the more the merrier". They want the event to be known and the purpose is to strike fear and terror into everyone. Not only would the event cause terror because of what they are destroying, but also because of all the people they are killing. Lastly, the new advances in technology of weapons has changed the way terrorism is carried out; between chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, there are many different ways terror can be striken into people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)