The Transformation of the “Indian Problem”
In this paper, I plan to examine the marked transformation and the history of the so-called “Indian Problem.” The idea of an “Indian Problem” began with the arrival of white settlers in North America, and for them, it was a problem of safety, security, and land acquisition. Around 1890, the “Indian Problem” became an issue of how to help the Indians go extinct humanely, or to assimilate into white culture. The current conception of the “Indian Problem” started after World War II, and the pursuing civil rights movement. People saw that the Indians weren’t going extinct and that they were keeping their cultures alive, and the “Indian Problem” shifted to undoing the damage that the policies of the federal government had caused. I will be discussing the fact that the profound problems which characterize the “Indian Problem” now are a direct result of the actions taken in response to previous conceptions of the “Indian Problem.”
The “Indian Problem” emerged as an issue for white settlers who perceived Indians as savages, as a sub-human race. Because white settlers viewed Indians this way, they thought it was okay to use excessive military force. Through 19th century, this military force was used to conquer Indians and move them from their native lands and resettle them. Sicknesses that the white settlers had brought with them devastated the Indian population because Indians had not encountered these illnesses before, and they had no natural immunity to them. Additionally, white-Indian relations seem as though they were fragile from the start, perhaps with both sides over-reacting at times. Leaders of the new English colonies often used aggression and murder to try to intimidate the Indians into submission, and into giving food to the English. Angered at this treatment, Indians began fighting back, and killing, too. In some instances, the white settlers raided and stole food from the Indians. This worsened the already fractured relations between the two groups. Unprovoked attacks and kidnaping alternated with friendship and trade. From their experiences, Indians realized that these early Europeans were powerful and dangerous people who could not be trusted. However, the Indians had the advantage of sheer numbers and an understanding of the land. For the English, their experiences strengthened their idea that they were superior to these “savages” in many ways, including culture, technology, societal organization and religion.
It had previously been the policy of the American government to remove and relocate Indians further and further west as the American population grew, but there was only so much...
There are many different theories out there that could help researchers understand more of why people like Evans do things such as form an alternative life outside of their own, especially since the internet has made it easier to create an entire world where no one has to know who one really is or if they are being completely honest. Many people do abnormal things on the Internet, but there are the few that there behaviors suggests abnormality to the extreme. The nature of these events are becoming less rare, but the reason why individuals need this alternative lifestyle for fulfillment is not widely research but the future hopefully will hold more answers.
“ [They] spent most of the conquest and colonial periods reacting and responding to the European strangers and invaders” (99). Both sides were different in many ways; Their communication, transportation, culture, and the way they survived differentiate the Europeans from the Native Americans. They both acted as wisely as they could when this encounters began after the discovery. “[Tribes] worked mightily and often cleverly to maximize their political sovereignty, cultural autonomy, territorial integrity, power of self identification, and physical nobility” (100). The Europeans were stronger, had better technology, better weapons, and had plenty of experience fighting people like the Native Americans. They could have easily conquer them , but they had a problem of resources, reinforcements and survival. Native American were many but they lacked the knowledge and experience of war and evolution. Europeans were technologically evolved and were experienced at fighting wars, but they ...
The New England colonists were in constant contact with Indians since their arrival. Conflict was unavoidable between the two polar opposite cultures. The colonists sought to convert the Indians into Christians and attempt to civilize the "barbarians." Also, the expansion of colonies into Indian Territory was a major concern among the Indian tribes. King Phillip's War was the result of the ongoing tensions between the two cultures. Both the colonists and the Indians grew increasingly suspicious of each other eventually leading to war.
American Indians shaped their critique of modern America through their exposure to and experience with “civilized,” non-Indian American people. Because these Euro-Americans considered traditional Indian lifestyle savage, they sought to assimilate the Indians into their civilized culture. With the increase in industrialization, transportation systems, and the desire for valuable resources (such as coal, gold, etc.) on Indian-occupied land, modern Americans had an excuse for “the advancement of the human race” (9). Euro-Americans moved Indians onto reservations, controlled their education and practice of religion, depleted their land, and erased many of their freedoms. The national result of this “conquest of Indian communities” was a steady decrease of Indian populations and drastic increase in non-Indian populations during the nineteenth century (9). It is natural that many American Indians felt fearful that their culture and people were slowly vanishing. Modern America to American Indians meant the destruction of their cultural pride and demise of their way of life.
One may be surprised to learn that the turnout rate of individuals voting in Canada's federal elections has never reached 80% (Elections Canada). In fact, it has been decreasing since the middle of the twentieth century, as shown by an increase in voter apathy. An electoral system is designed to provide those who live in democratic governments with the opportunity to vote – in an election – for the candidate whose platform coincides with their political beliefs. This can be achieved through a direct democracy, where citizens are directly involved in the decision-making process, or through an indirect democracy, where citizens elect a delegate to act on their behalf. In a direct democracy, all citizens would be present during governmental meetings and have the opportunity to give verbal input. As one may expect, this would be extremely difficult to coordinate with Canada's population of 34.88 billion (Statistics Canada). Canada uses an indirect democracy, which allows for two basic forms of electoral systems in which representatives are elected. In the simple plurality electoral system, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected, regardless of a majority or not. It is commonly known as the “first-past-the-post” system, which alludes to a horse race; the winner passes the post with the highest number of votes, and only need to garner more votes than their opponents. The successful candidate wins all the seats in their riding or constituency while the candidates who places second or third will receive no seats, regardless of how many votes they lose by. Proportional representation is the second form of electoral system used in Canada; the percentage of the votes received by a party is proportionate to the numb...
"Miller light and bud light…either way you end up with a mighty weak beer!" This is how Jim Hightower (a Texan populist speaker) described the choices that the U.S. electorate had in the 2000 elections. This insinuates that there is a clear lack of distinction between the parties. Along with numerous others, this is one of the reasons why the turnout is so low in the U.S. elections. In trying to explain the low figures at the U.S. elections, analysts have called American voters apathetic to indifferent to downright lazy. I disagree that the 50% (in recent elections) of voters that fail to turnout to vote are lazy and that they have just reason not too. I will also show that the problem lies within the system itself in that the institutional arrangements, electoral and governmental, do not create an environment that is conducive to mass participation. I will address these main issues and several others that have an effect on voter participation. In doing so I will compare America to other established democracies.
Pammett, J., & LeDuc, L. (2003). Explaining turnout decline in Canadian federal elections: A survey of non-voters. Elections Canada, 40.
Pammett, Jon, and Lawrence LeDuc. 2003. Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal Elections: A New Survey of Non-Voters. Ottawa: Elections Canada.
Beginning in the 1860s and lasting until the late 1780s, government policy towards Native Americans was aggressive and expressed zero tolerance for their presence in the West. In the last 1850s, tribal leaders and Americans were briefly able to compromise on living situations and land arrangements. Noncompliance by Americans, however, resumed conflict. The beginning of what would be called the "Indian Wars" started in Minnesota in 1862. Sioux, angered by the loss of much of their land, killed 5 white Americans. What resulted was over 1,000 deaths, of white and Native Americans. From that point on, American policy was to force Indians off of their land. American troops would force Indian tribe leaders to accept treaties taking their land from them. Protests or resistance by the Indians would result in fighting. On occasion, military troops would even lash out against peaceful Indians. Their aggression became out of control.
The growing pan-Indian activism that was becoming increasingly strong in regions of the United States helped develop the American Indian Movement. Educated young urban Indians were becoming involved in rights issues and insisted on self-determination in the 1960s era of prote...
In the early days of English settlement in the American colonies, the Indian-European relationship of each area was the determining factor in the survival of the newly established colonies. By working together and exchanging methods of food production and survival, an English colony could maintain its population and continue to support the arrival of new settlers. However, a colony that had trouble maintaining ties with their Indian neighbors had a tough time attracting settlers and adapting to their environment. The role of the Indian helping the white man in North America played an important part in the survival of the American colonies. In the Jamestown colony, very few people survived the disease and sickness which accompanied the low, swampy landscape. In their attempt to survive, they raided Indian villages in search of food and kidnap natives. Because they didn’t see Indians as equal in status, the Jamestown colony’s growth was limited. In fact, as the winter of 1609-1610 arrived, the colony was barricaded by Indians who killed off the wild animals of the woods, leaving virtually nothing for the settlers. The result: fewer than 60 people remained when the next English ship arrived the following year. The reason the Virginia settlement ended up surviving was because of the disease the white man exposed the natives to during contact. Weakening the Indian population was the only way the Jamestown population could grow. Things were a bit different in the northern colonies...
School shootings and suicides result from continuous bullying. As a result, after time some side effects of...
Author and Indian Activist, Vine Deloria makes compelling statements in chapters 1 and 5 of his Indiana Manifesto, “Custer Died For Your Sins.” Although published in 1969 this work lays important historical ground work for understanding the plight of the Indian. Written during the turbulent civil rights movement, Deloria makes many comparisons to the Black plight in the United States. He condemns the contemporary views toward Indians widely help by Whites. He argues that Indians are wrongly seen through the historical lens of a pipe smoking, bow and arrow wielding savage. Deloria views the oppressors and conquerors of the Indian mainly in the form of the United States federal government and Christian missionaries. The author’s overall thesis is that whites view Indians the way they want to see them which is not based in reality. The behavior of whites towards Indians reflects this false perception in law, culture and public awareness.
Author and Indian Activist, Vine Deloria makes compelling statements in chapters one and five of his Indiana Manifesto, “Custer Died for Your Sins.” Although published in 1969 this work lays important historic ground work for understanding the plight of the Indian in the United States. Written during the turbulent civil rights movement, Deloria makes interesting comparisons to the Black struggle for equal rights in the United States. He condemns the contemporary views toward Indians widely help by Whites and argues that Indians are wrongly seen through the historic lens of a pipe smoking, bow and arrow wielding savage. Deloria forcefully views the oppressors and conquerors of the Indian mainly as the United States federal government and Christian missionaries. The author’s overall thesis is that Whites view Indians the way they want to see them which is not based in reality. The resulting behavior of Whites towards Indians shows its affects in the false perception in law and culture.