Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:53 am Post subject: 4/14
I am writing real early today...its new, fun and very liberating...everybody should try it.
I thought today's reading held some positive and negative stuff (like all of this book!!!).
The negative, sad stuff coming from the information about Trail of Tears, an event that no matter how many time I hear or read about makes me deeply sad, and the description of "Old Faith." The Old Faith was a disappointing thing to see happen to the once strong Iroquois Confederation and Indians all over the world. It was a mix of cultures and dare I say a white flag of surrender.
The positive, optimistic and new (for me) information came from the excerpt on Tecumseh. I have to say he is such an amazing character. His course of action/campaign may have been (not certain) the first of its kind in North America and maybe even the New World. He took a courageous approach, united all Indian people without help of the oppressors/whites, tried to better his people and rid them of outside pressures. Men like Malcolm X, Che (although a little too violent) must have read and learned a lot about Tecumseh. My question to all today is how do we become more like Tecumseh?, would he be happy with our reservations? Are they a result of separation or segregation? _________________ Melipe Fatho
I’m a very logical person and like formulas and rules, so this reading made me crazy. And the information in this chapter was just about the opposite of common sense. I couldn’t believe how Americans blatantly disregarded the Native American’s human rights and just didn’t use common sense. I was especially dumbfounded by the Presidents’ actions. Jackson legalized hunting Native Americans in Georgia. I think some people may argue that they had a different view of Native Americans and that was why they treated them differently. And maybe it was Page’s writing but all these actions were just for land, they didn’t care who lived on the land they just wanted it.
I got this weird feeling while reading this chapter. At first when the Americans did something nice I was like good finally they didn’t something nice, but in my gut I knew they weren’t going to hold their word, just like they have always done.
I was so happy when the Seminole actually defeated the Americans. I know only 500 Seminoles were alive at the end of the war but it was symbolic in that the Americans could be defeated. While writing that sentence I realized, why I, being American, would want the Americans to ever lose a war. I know the answer is easy, because we were so horrible to them, because of the horrible way Americans treated the Native Americans. But know that I think about it, it was “our people” sending them on death marches. It’s not the British or the French anymore. So my question is how do you guys feel about this idea, that we did this to the Native Americans.
I'm glad Maggie brought up this idea, because it's one that i was very torn by while reading this chapter. On one hand, it's important to be proud of our own culture, and be educated about what our ancestors did before us, what they accomplished for history. On the other hand, I don't think that we should feel responsible for the negative actions of people who were alive hundreds of years before us. I'm not speaking for all of our family histories, but for all of us as Americans, I am wondering about how we should feel about our place in this history. I think that when talking about the actions of "our people" all those years ago, we should not be held responsible, but when considering the injustices still committed against Native Americans today, we have an obligation to speak up and do something.
But returning to the chapter we just read, I found the aspect of prophets really interesting, and how just one man had so much impact on Native American history. The prophets were something I had never really heard of before in Native American history, and I was just wondering, do you think or know if the Native Americans believed in prophecy before Tecumseh?
It always interested me how much control European presence had over Indian conflict. The Algonquins (my tribe) and the Iroquoi always had some overlapping territory that was constantly disputed, and the introduction into fur trade provoked some big battles, similar to the iroquoi and Catawbas in this chapter.
"But for the Indians, the American Revolution was an unmitigated catastrophe of incalculable proportion"
Transitioning from land/trade problems and skirmishes to a full out European conflict is definitely very complicated.
Imagine earth is visited by extraterrestrials and they sort of take control. After a while we wake up and the aliens are fighting the mothership for independence and ownership of OUR earth. Crazy.
Americans vs. Natives? Jake Page clearly has antagonists and protagonists, and he gives us a strong idea of what is right and what isn't. I also don't think it's fair to judge our place in history no matter how much I want to, I would rather people to be held accountable for their individual actions rather than the 'Europeans' doing this or that.
I also think our history with the natives is a shame.
Do you find that there are antagonists and protagonists in the reading?
To answer Abby’s question, I do think that the Native American’s believed in prophecy before Tecumseh. We have read a bunch about Native Americans believing in dreams and we have read some of their stories. I think their dreams and stories were like prophesies of sorts; they put faith in dreams/stories, and thought that they would bring good luck and power and help to their people.
This reading was pretty upsetting. It was jam-packed with information about how the U.S. screwed the Native Americans over. I thought it was really messed up when Jake Page talked about how the Native Americans were immersing themselves deeper and deeper into the U.S. culture, even having slaves and plantations. This was messed up because it was so many layers of oppression: The oppressed were oppressing the oppressed. This was also messed up because despite the fact that the Native Americans were trying to be agreeable with the white men and live like them, the white people still thought that “…even if the likes of the Cherokees had produced the trappings of civilization, underneath they remained savages,” (254). No matter what Native Americans did, they would never be accepted or respected by the U.S.; they would always be just a nuisance, savages who were in the way of U.S. expansion.
Do you think Tecumseh helped or worsened the overall situation and tension between the Native Americans and the U.S.?
As most of you have said, this chapter was about the Americans brutal treatment of the natives Americans during their time of relocation. It somewhat amazes me that people who were clearly recognized as second class citizens, that is if they weren’t considered barbaric savages, could enslave other human beings when they themselves were victims of the same oppression. This is one thing I found interesting and wish Jake could have touched on a little more. There were however, two sides to Indian-Slave relations. Jake touches briefly on the southern tribes who held true to their culture taking in slaves and treating them as one of their own. To me, this shows how much of an effect the European way of life has over a people. The difference between the natives who stayed true to their ways of life, and the natives who adopted the European lifestyle show the incredible impact it had on peoples morals.
Should Native Americans get the land that belong to their ancestors back today? If so, how could we make it work for Native Americans and Citizens of the U.S.A.?
Hi gang, so my internet has been down for three days now. I'm writing this on my iPhone which is not the easiest thing to do so bear with me on spelling errors.
So a lot of this reading was repeating what I had already known/ read about the Seminoles because the creeks sort of became a pArt of the Seminoles due to the three major wars that were fought over land.
I found it interesting that The reading talked about the choices the indians had to make. For example: on page 254 page talks about the fact that Jackson gave the Cherokees two choices: either leave or be subject to American laws. This didn't appear to be a choice at all to me because if they stayed they were considered second class citizens and even allowed to be hunted in some places.
I think it's interesting that we think of a tribe joining another tribe as simple and easy, but tekumseh spent his entire life trying to accomplish tribal unity across the US. The creeks were forced into Seminole territory and so many other major wars and events were going on at the time that we don't really hear about the Seminole reaction.
We do know that the seminoles were extremely accepting of black slaves, but knowing that can we assume that they were accepting of the creeks? I'd be interesting in hearing more about any Indian vs. Indian land conflicts that occured due to the US government.
I think I am mainly going to talk about what Maggie brought up in her post, and her question, because as I read this chapter, that is mostly what I thought of. I definitely found myself siding with the Native Americans, and it isn't like by doing that, I am disgracing America or anything (or at least it isn't to me). I often hold the view that just because you live in and are a citizen of a country, does't mean that you have to like or respect that country or it's past. Whenever I learn about the history of the United States, I never respect the vast majority of "our ancestors" and their choices. This is no exception, and if people continue to focus on the continuation of these problems in modern day society as the descendants of these two groups who need to uphold their pride for their ancestors or whatever, then it will never go anywhere.
Also, Abby's question: I remember reading in some of the early chapters about specific prophecies in certain tribes (I can't remember any of the specifics, just that there were). So I know that at least some Native Americans believed in prophecy, but I can't be sure about the specific group of Native Americans that dealt with the prophets and Tecumseh.
We have read a lot about feuding tribes and the disjointedness of different groups of Native Americans, and how hard it was for them to join together, or express unity. Tecumseh comes along and fights for tribal unity, do you think that he was just an idealist who longed for what he fought for while knowing that it may be impossible, or do you think that he was confident in the possibility of tribal unity with the right leadership?
So I'm really glad the deadline was extended for this section so that I read it because I found it UBER INTERESTING. There were like three pages in a row that I was just fascinated by (from 252-255) everything on them, so I'm going to just focus on those.
On 252 Page wrote "The [Cherokee] 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" (252). It surprised me that they would adopt the European lifestyle and act 'civilized' so that they wouldn't be kicked out... thereby being able to retain more of their culture than if they had been forced to move. Quite a smart strategy, in my opinion, and rather counterintuitive.
Oh, also from that page, Page was writing about a chief or something who was only 1/8th Cherokee but had the "complete trust of even the most traditional full-bloods." I wonder if being 'purebred,' or however you say it for humans (having pure lineage? I'm blanking on the word) was important for certain tribes, and if that affected life. Based on stereotypes I might assume that they would immediately accept everyone and everything (as long as they weren't being directly threatened by it). But when I think more about how proud many of the people were of their tribe, I could imagine some being less than inviting to those from outside their tribes.
So that's what my question is about. How do YOU feel about this? Are you surprised? Does it make sense? Thoughts?
I had always heard of Andrew Jackson being a stingy president, but this chapter worsened my opinion of him even more so. Completely conscious of the strict laws of the Constitution, Jackson deliberately ignored them, essentially forcing the Indians out of their homeland, by rationalization of manifest destiny. The fact that he was not even considered for impeachment is mind-boggling. My guess is that nobody in America wanted the Indians around, so they wanted to get rid of them by any means necessary, even if it meant letting a president break the law.
Tecumseh resisted the American laws and treaties in just about the most respectable way he could. He tried peaceful negotiation at first, (which failed) followed by militant protest, (which got him killed). The biggest shame is that no one from the Indian side was brave enough to rise up and take the leadership role that Tecumseh had, so his vision of a free Indian state couldn’t be pursued. The Seminoles, on the other hand, kept up their resistance even after their major leaders had died which in turn, helped them defeat the Americans. Also, their familiarity with the land, having home-field advantage, helped them clinch the win. America has always seemed to be in the position of fighting in an unfamiliar territory, which hasn’t helped in battle. Back in the days of Vietnam, the North Vietnamese could launch swift attacks and then retreat back to their familiar hiding places. Even today in Afghanistan, the Taliban base themselves in the secluded, rugged mountains and caves, perfectly convenient for initiating attacks and then quickly hiding again.
Can we really blame the Taliban and the North Vietnamese for defending themselves? We were and are basically doing and did to them what we did to the Indians by kicking the door in on their territory after all...
Alright, so before I continue on reading I really want to talk about one part that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. (This also stood out to me in the movie.)
"He announced that all Indian lands were common property of all Indian people and could not be signed away by any merely tribal chief, and that all previously signed treaties were therefore invalid." (Page 246).
I just feel that this quotation tells us so much about Tecumseh's character. In my paper I talk a lot about why this makes him so ingenious etc. but looking past the strategy, I find it somewhat humorous that he feels so entitled. I don't want to repeat myself too much, so I guess a question to the class is do you think his "assertion of authority" is what made him so successful? (Was this in his strategy or was it a characteristic that simply worked in his favor?) I don't know if anyone can actually answer that haha.
Also another question:
I got pretty confused on the Red Sticks section. I have reread it now three times, and to my understanding it was a ritual and a group of people? Because at first Page says, "Tecumseh is said to have given various of their leaders bundles of red sticks that would mark the time when they should rise up" (Page 250). Then later it seems as if it become its own tribe? Clarification f=would be greatly appreciated .
To answer Lila's question, I think that Tecumseh just had good leadership skills and also was able to see what a strong course of action would be. I think that he had good judgement, was level-headed, and good strategic skills. I do think that much of his success, or the fact that he is regarded as a great leader comes from his ability to see strategy , both when it was working successfully, and when it was not working successfully. He also showed that he had the ability to adapt his strategy when his methods of protest seemed to fail. These are aspects of good leadership. I also think that Maggie was right in saying that he shares similar characteristics with more recent political activists. Tecumseh seemed ahead of his time in many respects.
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
.