1. What were the two versions of the Camp Grant attack that existed among the U.S. public, and who supported each view?
The first version of the Camp Grant attack that existed among the U.S public was that a handful of U.S settlers attacked the Apache settlement near Fort Grant at the dawn of the April 30, 1871. These U.S settlers killed about one hundred and forty four Apaches (mainly women and children) within a little over a half an hour. Before they left, these settlers also took with them about twenty nine Apache children as captives.
This was the view of the Apache.
The second version however, was that of the fort's commander, Lieutenant Whitman.
Lieutenant Whitman claimed that 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. President Grant thought of this as purely murder.
Who supported Version Two?
many newspapers & also president grant.
2. Why was the trial that took place after the attack significant?
the trial that took place after the attack was significant because these specific Apache were under the protection of the U.S government, and they were trying to be assimilated. The government agreed to only use violence as a last resort, so naturally when the U.S settlers were easily angered, the government was disappointed in their own country's actions.
3. Whose views were absent in the accounts of this attack that were told in the United States?
The Apaches views were absent in the accounts of this attack because no representatives of these people were present at the trial.
4. Why have Native American views been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States?
The Native American views have been excluded from the story of U.S expansion that is told in the United States because people like the Anglo Americans just made their stories more popular and dominant which after a while meant that they were the only story being told in the west. Also, Americans only wanted to portray their journey with westward expansion through history books, novels, plays, and radios and movies. They ignored their mistakes, pretending as if they had never messed up in the first place and dismissing the fact that they were in the wrong in trying to change Native American culture and people. Lastly, if the views of the Native Americans are included in the story of U.S expansion that is told in the United States, usually they are portrayed as wild without customs or proper ways of living or in a negative, inaccurate manner.
5. What were the two parts of the U.S. government's assiimilation plan in the late nineteenth century?
1. the government wanted to get all the indian groups onto reservations. they wanted to accomplish this because of the sole fact that policy makers believed that concentrating indian groups on these lands would help the second part of their plan.
2. erase indian cultures to replace them with american culture.
6. Give two examples of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures?
1. indian groups were banned from practicing their religions and cultural ceremonies.
2. indian children were taken from their homes and sent to boarding schools where school officals would cut their hair short and change their names. lastly, they forced them to speak english.
7. What effect did the railroad have on U.S. settlement of the West?
The railroad helped the population of the U.S settlement in the West grow because more supplies were faster shipped to the west with the transcontinental railraod, which in turn could provide for more and more people.
8. How did westward expansion fuel U.S. industrialization?
Helped transport many goods to and from the west and east in a lesser time.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
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 Spanish Name(s): Pima
Broad Group 2 Name for self: Nnee 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 a few of the tribe withdrawing themselves to the desert. These few members came back only when they were in need or on the course of their yearly migration.
3. Why did Apache groups raid Spanish settlements?
The Apache groups raided Spanish settlements because they needed supplies. They were not close to the Spanish, so they did not communicate. This led to the Apache needing new goods food and animals, which the Spanish had. The Apache eventually began to raid and steal from the Spanish. The Spanish were a good source of supplies for the Apache.
5. How did Spanish and Apache views of the peace created by the establicimientos de paz differ?
The Spanish's views of peace created by the establicimientos de paz was that they believed they were in a period of peace. The Apache however believed that the peace was between the local bands and communities. the peace was maintained through obligation: the Spanish provided gifts of rations and the apache in turn provided military assistance.
Broad Group 1 Name for Self: O'odham Spanish Name(s): Pima
Broad Group 2 Name for self: Nnee 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 a few of the tribe withdrawing themselves to the desert. These few members came back only when they were in need or on the course of their yearly migration.
3. Why did Apache groups raid Spanish settlements?
The Apache groups raided Spanish settlements because they needed supplies. They were not close to the Spanish, so they did not communicate. This led to the Apache needing new goods food and animals, which the Spanish had. The Apache eventually began to raid and steal from the Spanish. The Spanish were a good source of supplies for the Apache.
5. How did Spanish and Apache views of the peace created by the establicimientos de paz differ?
The Spanish's views of peace created by the establicimientos de paz was that they believed they were in a period of peace. The Apache however believed that the peace was between the local bands and communities. the peace was maintained through obligation: the Spanish provided gifts of rations and the apache in turn provided military assistance.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Title: New Settlers in the West
List three reasons why people in the United States moved west:
1. there was rich, fertile land for farming. great forests full of timber, and a wealth of mineral resources to be discovered. this land was better for farming than the land on the east side of the country, and would have supplied them with everything they needed. logically, it was better for them to be in the west.
2. they needed more space because of their large economic growth. if they moved west, they'd be able to build new colonies with all of their people.
3. it was a great opportunity. this gave a lot of people freedom. freedom to do things like give women the right to vote eventually, provided some rights for free african americans, and gave some religious groups the freedom to practice their beliefs without being punished.
2. How did westward expansion contribute to sectional tensions in the United States?
the westward expansion contributed to sectional tensions in the united states, because the different sections of the united states lived in different ways. for example, in the article it says that the north's industry was based on small farms, transportation, and trade, whereas the south's main industries were based on large farms and factories in which the slaves would be forced to work, because they were very cheap labor. this was a huge disagreement for the north and the south because they couldnt seem to agree, the way the two sections lived was too different to change.
3. What was the Peace Policy?
the peace policy was created to have the government set certain sections of land aside to make reservations for the native americans and have them all live there. this policy however was not entirely peaceful because if an indian was not living on a certain one of these reservations, he or she would be considered to be hostile which is when a us army battalion was dispatched to meet this threat.
1. there was rich, fertile land for farming. great forests full of timber, and a wealth of mineral resources to be discovered. this land was better for farming than the land on the east side of the country, and would have supplied them with everything they needed. logically, it was better for them to be in the west.
2. they needed more space because of their large economic growth. if they moved west, they'd be able to build new colonies with all of their people.
3. it was a great opportunity. this gave a lot of people freedom. freedom to do things like give women the right to vote eventually, provided some rights for free african americans, and gave some religious groups the freedom to practice their beliefs without being punished.
2. How did westward expansion contribute to sectional tensions in the United States?
the westward expansion contributed to sectional tensions in the united states, because the different sections of the united states lived in different ways. for example, in the article it says that the north's industry was based on small farms, transportation, and trade, whereas the south's main industries were based on large farms and factories in which the slaves would be forced to work, because they were very cheap labor. this was a huge disagreement for the north and the south because they couldnt seem to agree, the way the two sections lived was too different to change.
3. What was the Peace Policy?
the peace policy was created to have the government set certain sections of land aside to make reservations for the native americans and have them all live there. this policy however was not entirely peaceful because if an indian was not living on a certain one of these reservations, he or she would be considered to be hostile which is when a us army battalion was dispatched to meet this threat.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Indian Removal Act
Why did the United States fight or negotiate with dozens of Indian groups for the lands in the Louisiana Territory?
The United States fought/negotiated with dozens of Indian groups for the lands in the Louisiana Territory because the US demand for land was strong. The Americans needed more space with all of the people that they had. They tried to civilize the Native Americans but it just didn't work out, and they mostly just got in the way. It was much easier to just negotiate with them for their lands. Unfortunately, most of the tribes were not okay with the circumstances of this negotiation. These tribes in the end were given an ultimatum to move willingly with compensation or be forced out of their homes. This is when the United States started fighting with the Indians rather than continuing on negotiating with them.
2. In what ways did the Cherokees assimilate U.S. values and customs?
The Cherokees assimilated U.S values and customs in many ways. First off, they created a republic modeled on the government of the Americans. They did this because they saw how successful it was with all of the powerful Americans around them, and decided to try it for themselves. Next, the farmers of this tribe began to grow cotton. Some even used slaves in their plantations just like the whites, another assimilation from the Americans. Lastly, they adopted a written constitution in 1827 declaring itself an independent nation, similar to the United States' constitution.
The United States fought/negotiated with dozens of Indian groups for the lands in the Louisiana Territory because the US demand for land was strong. The Americans needed more space with all of the people that they had. They tried to civilize the Native Americans but it just didn't work out, and they mostly just got in the way. It was much easier to just negotiate with them for their lands. Unfortunately, most of the tribes were not okay with the circumstances of this negotiation. These tribes in the end were given an ultimatum to move willingly with compensation or be forced out of their homes. This is when the United States started fighting with the Indians rather than continuing on negotiating with them.
2. In what ways did the Cherokees assimilate U.S. values and customs?
The Cherokees assimilated U.S values and customs in many ways. First off, they created a republic modeled on the government of the Americans. They did this because they saw how successful it was with all of the powerful Americans around them, and decided to try it for themselves. Next, the farmers of this tribe began to grow cotton. Some even used slaves in their plantations just like the whites, another assimilation from the Americans. Lastly, they adopted a written constitution in 1827 declaring itself an independent nation, similar to the United States' constitution.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Myths as Historical Sources
1. Summarize this legend in 2 - 3 sentences.
This legend is basically that there were these two Indian tribes, the Pawnees and the Kiowas. The leader of the Kiowas was Saynday, and one day Saynday was thinking of leaving his people because of the lack of life on his lands, and also in the future all he saw was death and being caged in and wanted to abandon everyone. As he was leaving for his new life however he met Small pox, who said he was coming to kill the Kiowas. Saynday told him instead he should go for the Kiowas enemies, the Pawnees because the Pawnees had left few Kiowas left so if Smallpox went after the Pawnees there would be more people to kill, which pleased him, and he left the Kiowas to kill the Pawnees instead accidentally telling Saynday the only thing he's afraid of is fire just before he left.
2. What changes does Saynday notice when he looks at the landscape?
He notices that "the world has changed". In the Legend, it says "Where the buffalo heards used to graze he saw white-faced cattle. The Washita river, which one ran bankful with clear water, was soggy with red mud. There were no deer or antelope in the brush or skittering across the high plains. No white tipis rose proudly against the blue sky; settlers' soddies dented the hillsides and the creek banks." Basically, the land is just unappealing to him now.
3. What is the relationship between Smallpox and white men?
Smallpox tells Saynday that the relationship between him and the white men was very nice. He says he is one with their people like Saynday is one with the Kiowas. He calls himself their companion, which is pretty ironic since he's probably the last companion they'd ever want.
4. According to this legend, in what ways do the Kiowas see themselves as different from white people?
According to this legend, the Kiowas see themselves as different from white people because they see the white people as powerful and ignorant like most native americans at the time. I can tell, because Saynday talks about how he sees the Kiowas in the future being fenced in like white mens cattle, without the ability to break the fences in fear that the barbed wire will tear their flesh.
Also, the white men always count all the cattle sheep chickens children living and dead and the Kiowas count only the enemies they touch. Saynday makes this seem more humane than the whites because he goes on to say, "men are not cattle, anymore than women and children are."
5. What do you think was the relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees?
The relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees definitely isn't a positive one. In the legend, Saynday mentions the Pawnees a few times to Smallpox, trying to persuade him to attack their village instead of his. You can tell the Kiowas and the Pawnees are enemies because they've fought eachother. Saynday states in the story that the Pawnees left the Kiowas with few people alive, alluding to the fact that they did in fact fight.
This legend is basically that there were these two Indian tribes, the Pawnees and the Kiowas. The leader of the Kiowas was Saynday, and one day Saynday was thinking of leaving his people because of the lack of life on his lands, and also in the future all he saw was death and being caged in and wanted to abandon everyone. As he was leaving for his new life however he met Small pox, who said he was coming to kill the Kiowas. Saynday told him instead he should go for the Kiowas enemies, the Pawnees because the Pawnees had left few Kiowas left so if Smallpox went after the Pawnees there would be more people to kill, which pleased him, and he left the Kiowas to kill the Pawnees instead accidentally telling Saynday the only thing he's afraid of is fire just before he left.
2. What changes does Saynday notice when he looks at the landscape?
He notices that "the world has changed". In the Legend, it says "Where the buffalo heards used to graze he saw white-faced cattle. The Washita river, which one ran bankful with clear water, was soggy with red mud. There were no deer or antelope in the brush or skittering across the high plains. No white tipis rose proudly against the blue sky; settlers' soddies dented the hillsides and the creek banks." Basically, the land is just unappealing to him now.
3. What is the relationship between Smallpox and white men?
Smallpox tells Saynday that the relationship between him and the white men was very nice. He says he is one with their people like Saynday is one with the Kiowas. He calls himself their companion, which is pretty ironic since he's probably the last companion they'd ever want.
4. According to this legend, in what ways do the Kiowas see themselves as different from white people?
According to this legend, the Kiowas see themselves as different from white people because they see the white people as powerful and ignorant like most native americans at the time. I can tell, because Saynday talks about how he sees the Kiowas in the future being fenced in like white mens cattle, without the ability to break the fences in fear that the barbed wire will tear their flesh.
Also, the white men always count all the cattle sheep chickens children living and dead and the Kiowas count only the enemies they touch. Saynday makes this seem more humane than the whites because he goes on to say, "men are not cattle, anymore than women and children are."
5. What do you think was the relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees?
The relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees definitely isn't a positive one. In the legend, Saynday mentions the Pawnees a few times to Smallpox, trying to persuade him to attack their village instead of his. You can tell the Kiowas and the Pawnees are enemies because they've fought eachother. Saynday states in the story that the Pawnees left the Kiowas with few people alive, alluding to the fact that they did in fact fight.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Origins and Evolution of Terrorism
1. Why was the hostage crisis at the Munich Olympics a turning point in terrorism?
The hostage crisis at the Munich Olympics in 1972 was such a turning point in terrorism because this horrifying act of terrorism was unlike any other before, and other terrorists learned from this. They learned that you could get your message across far more bold if you were striking at important symbols, in example the olympics... one of the largest sports competitions in the world.
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 realized that supporting terrorist groups provided an effective way for weaker states to strike at more powerful states.
3. The past fifteen years have seen a sharp rise in religious terrorism. What motivates these terrorists?
What motivates most of these religious terrorists is the belief that something has gone terribly wrong with the world in relation to social, political, cultural, and spiritual issues.
The hostage crisis at the Munich Olympics in 1972 was such a turning point in terrorism because this horrifying act of terrorism was unlike any other before, and other terrorists learned from this. They learned that you could get your message across far more bold if you were striking at important symbols, in example the olympics... one of the largest sports competitions in the world.
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 realized that supporting terrorist groups provided an effective way for weaker states to strike at more powerful states.
3. The past fifteen years have seen a sharp rise in religious terrorism. What motivates these terrorists?
What motivates most of these religious terrorists is the belief that something has gone terribly wrong with the world in relation to social, political, cultural, and spiritual issues.
4. How have these new terrorists changed the way terrorism is carried out?
These new terrorists have changed the way terrorism is carried out today by becoming more violent and wishing to kill/harm more people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)