Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aboriginal history culture
Aboriginal history culture
Native Americans and Canadian treaties
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aboriginal history culture
Fishing is a common hobby for all types of people. Native Americans can fish but deserve different fishing rights, rather than the ones they have now. When American settlers immigrated, Indians were reassured they would be compensated. Isaac I Stevens was then appointed as the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, he began to create treaties which included talking about fishing grounds. It was then signed to confirm the fishing rights and other agreed rights. Native Americans should have different fishing rights because they are their own sovereign nation, it’s part of their culture, and it was confirmed in the treaty.
Native Americans should have different fishing rights because they’re their own sovereign nation. According to the Treaty of Point
…show more content…
Elliott, “All which tracts shall be set apart, and so far as necessary surveyed and marked out for their exclusive use,” (Stevens) The Native Americans were given this area but are allowed to be the only people who use it. They are more joined together this way. It’s also meant to show they can use it however they want if they are by themselves, they are even paid if damage or construction is in the reserve. According to the Treaty of Point Elliott, “There is, however, reserved for the present use and occupation of the said tribes and bands the following tracts of land, viz: the amount of two sections or twelve hundred and eighty acres.” (Stevens) They were given a large amount of land and it’s reserved so those who live on it can be free on it. This makes them feel unified and together like a nation, not separated. Because of the Stevens act and the spirit behind it, the tribes should be allowed to continue to be the sole owners of the fishing rights because it will go on to unite the nation. Native Americans should have different fishing rights because it’s an important part of their culture.
According to the Treaty of Point Elliott, “The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands,” (Stevens). Fishing and hunting was part of their culture because they wanted to give back to the Earth. Stevens recognized this and that’s why he included it in the treaties and the tribal nations. According to Background: Treaty Making in Western Washington, “The treaties provided for reservations and acknowledged the importance of “usual and accustomed: fishing and shell-fishing grounds as well as hunting and other resource taking territories for the sustenance of the Indian people” (Harmon). Not just for their culture but the fact some items can be used for trade. If they took that privilege away non Indians would have nothing to gain since trading wouldn’t happen anymore. It would be a loss for both parties. To Native Americans, culture is a large part in their life. It would be very wrong to strip them of …show more content…
that. Native Americans should have different fishing rights because of the signed treaty. According to the Background: The Point No Point Treaty Tribes, “Because the fish returned yearly, the people had a reliable, bountiful annual food supply,” (Danaan). In the treaty, Native Americans were allowed to fish because of their culture, the treaty was then signed verifying that they can fish when they make their yearly visit. According to Background: Treaty Making in Western Washington, “Indians provided settles with foods such as fish, shellfish, meat, and a variety of seasonal crops such as berries,” (Harmon). Indians gifted settlers and traded with non-Indians, since this is stated in the treaty it must be recognized. Although if they don’t follow the rules laid out for them, they may be stripped of their privileges even though they were kind and respectful to others. The treaty was signed and citizen and Native Americans must abide by the rules since it was made official. Native American fishing rights should be different as fishing is a large part in their culture, they’re their own sovereign nation, and Isaac Stevens made everything mentioned official by signing the treaty.
Native Americans were given land and are the only people who can use it, this makes them feel like a nation, culturally, they fish because they feel the need to give back to the Earth and that is the way they know how. When Isaac signed the treaty, everyone agreed to abide and keep their promise to these rules. Native Americans deserve to have good fishing rights since it was agreed on and keeping the promises spoken about. If they weren’t going to be kept, the treaty might as well mean
nothing.
America had a newfound fervor for land already occupied by the Indians. Although the Treaty of Paris ended the war, in the west, war continued. In the treaty the British gave up all claims to the lands, but declared the Indians still owned their lands. America thought the Indians had no real claims to the land so they made treaties to legitimize American expansion.
Although the English and Native Americans were both every different in how they viewed the land, there were some similarities between the two cultures. First of all, both agreed to the terms of a monarchy- the idea that a monarch that ruled over the land was more a symbolic figure of a whole people rather than a rich and wealthy land owner. Even though the English called their monarch a King, and the Indians’ a Sachem, the ideas behind the two were virtually the same. Secondly, if hunters were in pursuit of game, both cultures agreed to the fact that they could cross otherwise strict borders in attainment of the game. This shows that even though both were fairly precise in drawing village borders, food superseded otherwise legal boundaries. Lastly, the English and the Native Americans both were little different in their sense of how land could be bought or sold. Now, this does not mean that they thought viewed property the same or that they us...
The terms of the Treaty included the acknowledgement of Indian tribes’ asking for forgiveness and the English dominating Indian trade and commerce. There were other terms that included the English being able to use Indian land for recreational use and any “remedy or redress” (Calloway 174) being brought to justice based on English laws. Overall, the terms and language used in the treaty is used to place blame of past hostilities on the Indians. The English completely twisted the language in the treaty to favor the English and shows the Indian people as rebellious savages that were begging for forgiveness for King George and the English.
When the word “Native American” is mentioned, the first thing most people will think of is Indian gaming. As many people know, only Native Americans can conduct gaming while people from other ethnicity cannot. This leads to the belief that it is an indirect way for the American government to repay the tribal government for taking their lands. This is partially true. The right to conduct gaming on reservations begins with the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (IGRA). Since its establishment in 1988, hundreds of tribes are able to negotiate an agreement with the governments to operate casinos on reservation lands. However, this is not the only intention of IGRA. Although Congress says that the real purpose of IGRA is to allow Indians to open casinos so tribes can support themselves, it is merely a set of laws that limits the tribe’s right on gaming.
The generalization that, “The decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy,” is valid. Ever since the American people arrived at the New World they have continually driven the Native Americans out of their native lands. Many people wanted to contribute to this removal of the Cherokees and their society. Knox proposed a “civilization” of the Indians. President Monroe continued Knox’s plan by developing ways to rid of the Indians, claiming it would be beneficial to all. Andrew Jackson ultimately fulfilled the plan. First of all, the map [Document A] indicates the relationship between time, land, and policies, which affected the Indians. The Indian Tribes have been forced to give up their land as early as the 1720s. Between the years of 1721 and 1785, the Colonial and Confederation treaties forced the Indians to give up huge portions of their land. During Washington's, Monroe's, and Jefferson's administration, more and more Indian land was being commandeered by the colonists. The Washington administration signed the Treaty of Holston and other supplements between the time periods of 1791 until 1798 that made the Native Americans give up more of their homeland land. The administrations during the 1790's to the 1830's had gradually acquired more and more land from the Cherokee Indians. Jackson followed that precedent by the acquisition of more Cherokee lands. In later years, those speaking on behalf of the United States government believed that teaching the Indians how to live a more civilized life would only benefit them. Rather than only thinking of benefiting the Indians, we were also trying to benefit ourselves. We were looking to acquire the Indians’ land. In a letter to George Washington, Knox says we should first is to destroy the Indians with an army, and the second is to make peace with them. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1793 began to put Knox’s plan into effect. The federal government’s promise of supplying the Indians with animals, agricultural tool...
The land of the Native Indians had been encroached upon by American settlers. By the
Many tribes resisted this policy. Wars were fought as a result. The Sac and Fox Indians in Wisconsin and Illinois reoccupied their lands after having been forced to move west of the Mississippi. They were defeated. The Seminole Indians refused to sign a treaty to give up their lands. They, too, fought and lost a bitter war to remain on their land.
The Cherokees have the right to stay to their homelands and not be moved to different place because they were the first one there and they own it. The Indians should be allowed to stay because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Jackson or the state of Georgia cannot force them to move, only few of their chiefs signed the treaty and they had already created their own nation where they have their own language, printing press, government, agriculture and economic. The Native Americans should be allowed to stay and remain to their
A major struggle for the Native population was that of land. This is a primary issue for several reasons. First of all, the Europeans invaded their land in the 16th century and though not officially, the Indians were essentially “kicked out” of all settled areas. Secondly, they were forced to settle in government provided lands west of the Mississippi River through the Indian Removal Act in 1830. This led to the well-known “Trail of Tears”. As more threats to their land arose, it was essential to the Native Americans ...
Many tribes had reigning governments and tribal counsels as a way of life. With westward expansion brought changes. Many Americans were killing their livestock, the food they ate, and Americans were settling more and more on the Indian lands. In time, Indians began to fight back and take what had been theirs. Once this happened, the Americans decided to make the Indians like Americans, so we took their land and tried to make them Americans.
Starting from the beginning, natural resource consumption has been a process in environmental injustice. The Indian Removal Act passed in 1830 forced Americans Indians from the east to western reservations in a form of ethnic cleansing (Schaefer 146). Donald A. Grinde and Bruce E. Johansen, the authors of Ecocide of Native Americans: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples, make note of a specific quote that non-American Indian settlers phrased during the process, which is “kill the Indian, but save the man” (10). In the book they also point out an interesting fact about how the settlers spoke of the “final solution” well before the Nazis used the phrase. Anyhow, after reforming and internally colonizing Native Americans, the non-American Indian settlers pushed them even further into their corner. A specific occurrence would be the incident at the Great Sioux Reservation. Non-Indians were supposed to keep away from their land and not allowed to hunt. However, in 1874 non-Indians flooded the territory in search of...
In the 30 years after the Civil War, although government policy towards Native Americans intended to shift from forced separation to integration into American society, attempts to "Americanize" Indians only hastened the death of their culture and presence in the America. The intent in the policy, after the end of aggression, was to integrate Native Americans into American society. Many attempts at this were made, ranging from offering citizenship to granting lands to Indians. All of these attempts were in vain, however, because the result of this policies is much the same as would be the result of continued agression.
In 1787 the United States Constitution Article 1 section 8 established a federally mandated relationship between the government and the people of Indian Nations in regards to commerce. Although this agreement and many treaties subsequently thereafter were disregarded on the part of the United States (Smith, 2002), it established an official responsibility between the two nations. In 1921 the Snyder Act, which established authorization for the federal government to provide basic healthcare for members of federally recognized United States Indian tribes, was passed (Wallechinsky, 2010).
The debate over the legality of sovereignty and acquired lands from the native Americans, specifically the Cherokee, has long been debated. The issues involved have included treaties, land sold, and the right of the Government to physically enforce their rules on Indian land "sovereignty". This paper will examine the strategy used by the Federal Governments, the State Governments as well as those of the Cherokee Indians. The three-way relationship as well as the issues will examine how the interpretation of the Constitution changed society prior to the year of 1840.
Contrary to popular belief, discrimination of Native Americans in America still widely exist in the 21st century! So you may ask, why? Well, to answer that one question, I will give you 3 of the countless reasons why this unfortunate group of people are punished so harshly for little good reason. So now, let’s get into it, shall we!