Hi everyone,
So like most people I was also really surprised that Jon Ross was only 1/8th Cherokee, but I agree with Isaac in that “someone who is predominately not-Native American be their representative because he would be respected more by non Native Americans.” He needed to be able to discuss issues with the NAs and non NAs to make decisions and solve disagreements.
Also I agree with Max about finding these readings to be pretty depressing. The NAs just don’t ever get a break! Ah it’s so frustrating that the colonists can do whatever the fuck they want like make new random laws and rules to make the NAs angry, and make them look like bad guys, which gives the colonists reason to want to get rid of the NAs.
Oh my god, also I agree with Zach that Jackson was a huge asshole, he really pissed me off! I didn’t understand why he hated the NAs so much to treat them that terribly. On pg. 245 it says that he believed that, “The idea of the tribes establishing separate governments and laws was unacceptable.” So the NAs having opinions, ideas, and a voice was unacceptable. Whywhwhywwhywhwy.
Also on pg. 255 it said that “…despite centuries of treaties, the Indians did not retain ‘complete sovereignty, as independent nations.’” I don’t understand what they had to do, for the colonists to recognize them as human beings.
Question:: Why do you think Jackson thought that the NAs having a separate government was unacceptable?
So I’m sorry if my post is really short, word flipped a shit and lost my original post so I’m going try to piece it back together. To try and answer Max’s question, I think that their fate would have differed slightly. I think that even if they were completely willing to relocate, eventually they would have stopped being so willing. I think that the government would have kept asking them to move and move until they little to no land. Then the Native Americans would have hopefully realized that they were treated unjustly and perhaps have fought back, except they would have had many more people. However, part of me thinks that it would have basically amounted to the same fate. The government would have felt threatened by the Native Americans because their numbers would not have dwindled due to their compliance with relocation. I think that the government probably would have done something to severely hurt the Native American population.
Going along with that here is my question, do you think that it was ever possible that the Europeans/Americans could have lived together with the Native Americans? Does one group always have to be in control/ have more power?
wow for some reason it didnt post my PREVIOUS POST !! well it is gone forever now.
It seems as if the Americans are repeatedly wronging the Native Americans, however the Natives very quickly adopted
the rules of the Americans. I am not entirely sure why the Americans continiously relocate the Natives. It seems
ridiculous because there was no clear reasoning for it, let alone justification ( which i think was just the fact
that they had the ability to do so in the first place ). There was NO awknowledgement that the Tribes were steady,
independent nations. Also, why was it ok in the Americans eyes that the Miccosukees and Seminoles did not move
and stayed in the same location since 1680? that is a long time to avoid relocation from a virul government.
also i agree that individual states may have attempted relocating the tribes, but it would have been more difficult
on a smaller scale like that. and it would not pass in all states.
All times are GMT + 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
