Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:43 am Post subject: Post for Tuesday, March 2nd
Hi! So I just thought I'd start the topic with the questions Martha posted on MyCSW and I'll be back soon with my actual post...
What were the effects of the choices made by the groups of Cherokees in your readings?
What accounts for the differences of opinon among the Cherokee people?
Did cooperation with the government benefit individual Cherokees?
How did adopting elements of white culture impact the Cherokee?
How do you imagine the Trail of Tears changed Cherokee culture?
This reading wasn't tooo bad, I suppose. I'll start by saying how blown away I was by some of the little details that Page mentioned that hadn't been brought up in our readings in class today. For example, the fact that John Ross was only 1/8th Cherokee?! LAME. Seems like a cop-out to me. That changes my opinion on things quite a bit. Also, the fact that " Somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of Cherokee agriculturalists were slave owners with larger plantations, leading lives much like those of their white counterparts in the South." (p. 252) That's a minor detail that I have never been told that is pretty important, in my opinion!
Part of me wonders whether the choices the settlers, Jackson in particular, were giving the Native Americans are fair. It seems reasonable, in a way, to say "You can stay here, but if you stay here you must follow our rules. If you don't want to follow our rules, go somewhere else." I guess I just feel like that's how... LIFE... works. It seems only fair. I don't know... Opinions?
Do you guys like Andrew Jackson? Do you think his Indian removal ideas were good?
Oh and also, when the Creeks didn't want to go west and they worked out an arrangement to stay in Alabama.. that was pretty shitty of the Indian commissioner people to essentially fuck over the Native Americans. They knew all along that the Alabamaians (??!? hahahaha) wouldn't allow that and cost the Creeks a lot. They were forced west ANYWAYS. Pretty lame.
I actually really liked this reading and I thought it was well organized and easy to follow unlike other chapters. Like Gina, I also was very surprised that John Ross was only 1/8 Cherokee. I am not quite sure if that meant he was also part other Native American or f he was white. I think Page meant white. If he is mostly white it changes I think how we should look at things. But like Martha has said in class, it gets really complicated when people intermarry and have children. Maybe even though he was mostly white he grew up and identified mostly with the Cherokees. He was really the only one who could decide so it is hard making assumptions about him from just the facts. But him being an important Cherokee leader and mainly white brings up something I found very interesting in the reading. On page 252 they start talking about tribes that have in some ways started to live and take on some European values and ways of live. I found it very interesting that "Most of these large and small economic and political changes were initiated by those tribal members who were the children of Indian mothers and white traders..." "These too tended to be the elites in their tribes, the leaders, the plantation owners, the ambitious." It is amazing and troubling that the idea that whites are superior could take over so quickly in a lot of Native American tribes and therefore the "ruling class" were mostly made up of whites. A good example would be John Ross. I am not exactly sure how this idea came about but it exists throughout the whole world back then and still continues today in some forms. All of our presidents except Obama have been white Christian males and most of the senators are white males. How do you think this idea started? Also do you think that part whites gaining power in the tribes, somehow have benefited them or did it hurt them? Maybe it helped them relate to white people better?
Hi all.
So seeing as I wasn’t in class today and only have tonight’s reading to go off of, I will do my best.
I guess I’ll respond to Gina’s question first. I agree with the fact that if you are in someone’s land you should follow their rules. But whose land was it really? The Americans kept moving into Native American land and then saying, btw we own this now, get out or do what we say. Also the laws made were totally unfair and even malevolent towards Natives. Like the law on page 255 that allows the killing and capture of Native Americans for being in the state. So I disagree with the statement that they should just have to deal with it. They were not really given a choice.
The Trail of Tears is for me, the most horrifying event in Native American history, and one of the most horrifying events in American history. Native Americans were forced to walk over 500 miles. By the end around 4,000 Cherokees died due to the removal.
My question is whose land was it? When the Americans won the revolution did that entitle them to all of the United States? Was it the British’s to give away in the first place? Does coming in and settling in a land give you a right to it?
So, first I would like to respond to Gina's post (which would also include answering some of Ricka's questions.) Andrew Jackson/the settlers were completely unfair. I find it incredibly ironic that they're saying "You can stay here, but if you stay here you must follow our rules. If you don't want to follow our rules, go somewhere else." You must follow our rules, or go somewhere else? They need to remember that they wouldn't be here without the Native Americans! They should be last last ones telling the NAs to "go somewhere else." They have no right to act like they own the place, because no matter what, the Native Americans were here first. They have absolutely no right to kick the native people out of their land.
The Cherokee's assimilation into European culture was particularly interesting, because it "reinvented itself economically and politically in hopes of maintaing much of its deeper culture, its independence, and what remained of its original territories." [pg 252] It seems like they changed to save themselves, but in the end it didn't matter what they did. They were Natives, and had to be moved anyway. However, assimilation did have a small benefit- "Jackson offered the tribes- in particular the Cherokee-" the choice to move or follow the US's rules. [pg 254] Looks like Jackson was a little more open to having the Cherokee around, most likely because of their decision. I don't know how that changed Cherokee culture, but I would imagine a stronger feeling/presence of nativism occurred, since (I feel) they had been betrayed. On the other hand, there were probably different sentiments within the group. On pg 261, Page mentions the Western Cherokees and the Eastern Cherokees. The Eastern Cherokees, who sided with Ross, may have still placed cultural value on the mixing, but this may not be true for the Western Cherokees who left. It's really difficult to try and generalize about cultural changes when a group is divided in itself, especially when they're so willing to adapt to a different culture.
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:21 am Post subject: ihateandrewjackson
This reading really showed me how hard Andrew Jackson worked to pressure the Native American's land out of their hands. The Native Americans were and still are in an unclear/awkward situation. On one hand they are treated like a separate country and on the other considered somewhat part of U.S. For example when the Creeks are "finally annihilated" after their skirmishes with the U.S., they are subject to a treaty making them confess "war guilt" (how manipulative is that?) and they had to "cede two-thirds of their ancestral land". This action negatively affected them and furthered the American power. Jackson seems to be trying to squeeze all the land he can out of the Native Americans (to accommodate for the influx of newcomers) with the promise of preserving sections of land for them. Also the main goal was just to "civilize" and adapt the Native Americans into U.S. citizens (if they won’t just die or disappear that is). Offering land to Natives who become citizen is a clear enough message for me, even if Jackson continued to make supplementary threats. The most convincing section of the reading was the end of pg. 256 where Page talks about how Jackson simply ignored a few new laws (Marshall Trilogy) about protecting Native Americans and their status in the U.S. and how it was "the first impeachable offence by a United States president". Also it is frustrating how his decision there has set the stage for irresponsibility and confusion by the United Sate government today.
Resisting white culture was a large movement supported by prophets and leaders which often led to violence. Though the rewards for assimilating were much better than living in fear.
The Trail of Tears is unimaginably horrific but I can see it being a source of strength and inspiration for modern Cherokee.
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:35 am Post subject: Goood beans are way better than bad bacon
So… I think this reading was better focused on the native Americans point of view than some of the other stuff we have been reading on this topic which I really appreciate. I totally do not care and have heard enough about the U.S. side of this argument and I know what happens so the overall story here is not nearly as intriguing to me as the older native American history. John Ross was 1/8th native American and had an American name and I think was probably pretty white so I’m think people liked what he was doing but he was not living among native Americans. With that being said a lot of the beginning of some of these legal ideas don’t seem so bad and the fact that Andrew Jackson doesn’t go into the situation saying he wants all Indians dead seems somewhat good I guess. The point is these legal agreements all sucked nomatter how nice they sounded and im not exactly sure why. I suppose its possible people were just total dicks back then but I don’t think so.
Its sad that the Seminoles and creeks were moved because the settlers were just racists and wanted to enslave them. That seems really fucked up. I think the original settlers from Europe really sucked in a lot of ways. Do you think people were racist and mean or had a practical reason to want to move these native Americans because it doesn’t seem that hard to live with them to me.
I just though I would start by getting that out of my system seeing as he is the master of douchebaggery. Andrew Jackson was a true pioneer, if one can bear to call him that. But he definately did lead the way in a manifest destiny sort of style, on page 253 I thought that Page described him very well in saying, well I guess that whole first paragraph under 'The Marshall Trilogy'. He just did whatever he pleased, only trying to aid the White people of The United States. He clearly viewed the Native Americans as savages and did everything he could, with the exception of outright mass massacre, nice repetition right there!
One part I thought was really cool was the fact that there were black seminoles and I totally wish that there had been more of this in every period of time ever. I like to see a successful melding of two cultures, where the slaves were just accepted into the tribe successfully, they were not attatched to any "American Values" as the new colonists were and I think that that allowed for an accepting transition and I feel as the the American Indians were receptive to other cultures and in this way if nothing else, I was happy to see the success. I am curious if anyone else has some ideas on why this finally worked? was it the joint oppression?
I was also really surprised that John Ross was only 1/8th Cherokee. It wasn't clear if the rest of that 7/8ths included some other Native American tribes, but my guess is it was European. 1/8th is a really small amount...I'm not sure I figured it out right but I think that means that one of his great grandparents were Cherokee? And that's it? That definitely makes me wonder how this changed his views and how he led people. At the same time though, the reading said even the most traditional Cherokees trusted him, and that is really impressive that he managed to hold onto that part of his heritage and that culture so strongly. It could have just died out with his one family member way back that was Cherokee, but he kept it going so it must have been really important to him.
Something I thought was strange was in the beginning of the part on the Trail of Tears, where it said one of the things Choctaws died from was "marauding by whites," (257). I can't decide if I'm surprised by this or not. It seems so unbelievable that after invading people's homes, declaring their land yours, uprooting them from their land and forcing them to walk over 500 miles to a new home the Europeans STILL messed with them some more. Then on the other hand, these people had messed with them so much already, what does some additional "marauding" (whatever that involved) mean to them? Probably didn't even think about it.
Question-- Why do you think the authors of the things we read in class today chose to leave out the fact that John Ross was only 1/8th Cherokee?
maybe im the only one but im beginning to find these readings to be cyclical and depressing. i wrote about this in my paper but it seems like the colonists repeatedly make new laws and rules to incite the anger of the indians and giving the colonists what they see as just reasoning to kill them/push them farther away.
this whole cycle kinda reminds me of the reading about the rain forest and diseases and stuff, how the first wave of settlers brought diseases killing native people then the next ones came and saw America as wilderness cause so many people were just dead. in the same way the colonists saw the Native Americans as brutal savages yet the vast majority of uprisings and violence on the part of the Indians was in reaction to the dumb laws and stuff that the colonists were trying to impose.
i wonder how the fate of the cherokees and other native tribes may have differed had they been willing to relocate?
While it was surprising that Jon Ross was only one eighth Cherokee, it makes sense that they would have someone who is predominately not-Native American be their representative because he would be respected more by non Native Americans. I was really interested to learn that between 5 and 10 percent of Cherokee agriculturists owned slaves. I don’t see how it would be accepted by the US for someone with brown skin to enslave someone with darker brown skin if of things that made someone “eligible” to be a slave was skin color. I kinda chuckled to myself when Page talked about how “The tribe reinvented itself economically and politically in the hope of maintaining much of its deeper culture, its independence, and what remained of its original territories.” Because one of my potential theses for the essay we just had to write was that the best way for the Native Americans to maintain their culture was by assimilation into White Culture and keeping it alive through secret private practice. I imagine the Trail of Tears changed Cherokee culture by making it much more difficult for future generations to know who they are ancestrally. This is because the families being forcibly removed would most likely not be able to stay together for numerous reasons so the families and thus the culture would be fragmented.
So lets get the obvious surprises out of the way. First 1/8 Cherokee? Really? I have to laugh because I mean yes, that does qualify John Ross as Cherokee, but barely? Very Possibly. I feel like the fact that I am like 1/12 Icelandic does not qualify me to identify myself as icelandic, I mean I would feel silly saying it, and you all would have a hard time believing me, so yeah just a little comparison for perspective. I have to thoroughly agree with Isaac's point, because It was the first thought that crossed my mind as well. Of course the white dudes want a (mostly) white dude leading the Natives, that way they can, through the mostly white dude, get exactly what they want. John Ross I'm sure was more allied with the White Leaders anyway. As for Cherokee's owning slaves, as we know, oppressed groups love to oppress the few people below them. So in that sense it makes complete sense why Cherokees owned slaves. Oppresion 101 folks. To Kai, I am not surprised at all that maurarding occurred during the Trail of Tears Trek, to be quite honest. My view of White America at this period of time is not high at all (native american issues and all others included). Morales were very screwy so at the time, I'm sure these people thought they were stealing (marauding?) from no one important. Doesn't make it right at all, and I consider these people fools. Fools I say!! Anyway thats about what I got from the reading
Q: Do you guys Think John Ross was acting as somewhat of a Puppet leader for the White Europeans?
-I was surprised at how much slavery the Native Americans had, mostly because it always seems like a group thats being oppressed wouldn't want to oppress another group. But surprisingly thats usually not the case. I'm pretty sure we talked about this in class a little, but i think what we came down to is that oppressed groups like to become oppressors because they dont want to be the bottom of the social class and by having slaves it puts a few more people a little lower then themselves.
-It seems that the Native Americans move around and relocate soo often that when it said that the Seminoles and Miccosukees still live in same place as in 1680 I was very surprised. But it also gave a little bit of hope and made it seem like this book might not be all depressing. The fact that they could stay there for hundreds of years and still be there today meant they weren't pushed out of their land and that's kind of happy.
-My question is Do you think if disease didn't keep killing off so many people back then, the same amount of people would have died anyway from war or violence?
I find it amazing what people can justify. The reasons that they give for why it was moral to relocate Natives and saying that it was alright to kill Native people for being on the land. It seems that in general people want something or do something and then the justification comes after their lust. I am a little surprised that Jon Ross was only 1/8 Cherokee it seems as though he was just used as a kind of merger that both peoples were supposed to be able to relate to which I guess is my response to vanhalensabbath's question. I don't really know how he rose to that status but it seems that it defiantly had to do with the fact that he was mainly white. reginabell I was surprised that the Natives had slaves and large plantations. It is amazing to me that the Natives were adopting the vices of their oppressor so soon. However it is important to remember that people are people no race is better than another when looking at things like that, and the Jon Ross thing as well. Also saying that one party can stay in an area if they follow the rules of the majority otherwise they must move is fair. The reason it seems unfair in this circumstance like CelinaFernandezAyala said is that the Natives were there first. Not as bad as just killing the Natives which they also did by Georgia state law.
My question is do you think that there are many things today that we wrongly justify after we have made up our minds about something, and on what scale?
I always forget how lame the US political system was back in its early days. For instance not only did Jackson completely ignore the supreme court ruling that the Indian tribes are domestic nations , but he even openly acknowledged that he was doing so to the public. possibly saying the famous lines "Chief Justice Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it. This instance and several others mentioned in the reading demonstrate how little power the federal government really had over the states. I personally believe that even if Jackson had not forcefully removed Indian tribes from their land, the individual states would have done the same by taking advantage of the week federal government. What do you guys think?
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
