Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Limitations and strengths of group dynamics
Limitations and strengths of group dynamics
Limitations and strengths of group dynamics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Limitations and strengths of group dynamics
When faced with difficult choices people are often times forced to make decisions while under pressure. When given a problem humans have the power to choose. The choice made reflects on the human's true self. Break Through! the Bible for Young Catholics, Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl, "Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things." by Maria Godoy, and "The Taking of Indian Lands:Perspectives of Native Americans and European Americans” all show how people react to difficult situations in both positive and negative manners. Break Through! the Bible for Young Catholics, In the book of Matthew shows the difficult decision that Joseph had to make when he found out about Mary's pregnancy. Man's Search for Meaning Focuses on …show more content…
a holocaust survivor’s journey and new outlook on life after spending time in a concentration camp. "Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things." tells the story of a man named Toby who committed fraud and focuses on the ethical problems people face when making bad decisions. "The Taking of Indian Lands:Perspectives of Native Americans and European Americans” informs on both the Native American and European perspectives as the Native Americans had their land torn away from them. The choices people make in hard times can change their whole life. Every decision starts with a choice.
As Frankl said, “Between Stimulus and response there is space. In that space is our power to choose our response” (Frankl). Just because choosing becomes an option does not necessarily make it easy. Choices in life are not always as clear cut. Often, individuals have a difficult time determining the right choice. A single bad choice can lead one to believe that a person has bad intentions, although this can not always be the case. Godoy explains, “ In general, when we think of bad behavior, we think about it being tied to character:Bad people do bad things. But that model, is profoundly inadequate” (Godoy). The choices people make are not as clear as they appear from the outside looking in. This shows that when looking into the psychology of people making terrible decisions that the person often times does not realize their mistake until well after it has been made. In the article “The Taking of Indian Lands:Perspectives of Native Americans and European Americans”, “A Puritan Minister in Boston Justifies the colonists’ acquiring Indian land for little to no Payment . ‘The Indians made no use of it,’ he asserts, ‘but for hunting’”(National Humanities Center Resource Toolbox , 2). As known, how the Europeans took the Native Americans land without any repercussion deemed terrible. In many ways, all of the Europeans involved in the incident could have a “bad person” label. They faced a choice and they chose to rob the Native Americans of …show more content…
their most precious resource; the land they lived on. Instead though, they could be looked at as people who were in a tough situation and misunderstood how the Native Americans lived. The Europeans in their space given saw that the Native Americans did not use the land in the way they thought benefited them most and they did something about it. Choices have blurred lines and the wrong decisions that are made during these times do not necessarily make that person bad. Tough choices tend to bring the worst out in people. When somebody's life or livelihood becomes at risk, people will do anything to protect that. Frankl explains, “In the bitter fight for self-preservation he may may forget his human dignity and become no more than an animal” (Frankl). People will turn off their sense of humanity to obtain their desired goal. They lose their sense of empathy for other humans to save themselves. When the Europeans settled in the Americas they had a goal to make themselves successful and own land. They were willing to make decisions at the cost of the Native Americans. A baptist minister from Rhode Island explains his reasoning, “By driving out and killing the Indians as punishment for their sins, God was pleased to make ready a place prepared as an Asylum for the New England settlers” (National Humanities Center Resource Toolbox, 4). The New England Settlers needed a political asylum and they found it in America. They needed a new place to live and to make things convenient for themselves and in turn became willing to do anything to get that asylum. They were fighting for their own self-preservation and forgot that the Native Americans were humans too. The New England settlers and other European groups alike were willing to kill other humans to protect their religious freedoms. They had the worst brought out of them and justified it by saying god wanted them to treat people in this manner. Toby’s livelihood became troubled when his business was in debt. At that time he but all human dignity aside and claimed in referring to his fraudulent activity, “I just needed to do whatever I needed to do to fix that” (Godoy). Toby’s intent was to save his business, instead he ruined it and ended up in jail. This selfish act which seemed like a quick fix to his massive life problem ended up being a huge mistake. If Toby would have taken longer to evaluate the situation he may have more dignity. When somebody faces a hard time in their life their reaction the problem can be unethical and cause long term problems that they did not foresee. Although people often react negatively to bad situations, others make the decision that suits the people around them best.
This person, when dealing with a tough choice remains, “Brave, dignified, and unselfish” (Frankl). A person who makes decisions in this way are seen as empathetic and simplistically they are good people. In the Bible Joseph was said to be “A man who always did the right thing, but he did not want to disgrace Mary publicly:so he made plans to break off the engagement privately”(Break Through! the Bible for Young Catholics, Matthew 1:19). He could have easily broken off the marriage publicly, which in turn would have caused Mary to get stoned to death due to her pregnancy that happened out of wedlock. This would have been the easy option for Joseph. Instead he had the intention to break off the engagement privately because his ambitions were not selfish. He thought not only about himself and how his life could be affected but also of Mary’s. According to Godoy, “When we feel empathy toward others, we want to help them out” (Godoy). The concept of feeling empathy for other humans shows what both fraudulent Toby and the European settlers lacked when making their decision. When being empathetic towards others the person must be careful that they are not being tricked though. The way that one makes a decision about a hard choice says a lot about them and “In our response lies our growth and our freedom” (Frankl). This shows growth because if you make one bad
decision you can grow and learn from it and it shows freedom because you have the choice to keep making bad decisions or to change and make good decisions. The times in which an individual is faced with hardship and struggle is the time that reflects that individual's true character. Throughout history, no matter fact or fiction, these times of trouble always bring forth the extraordinary characteristics in man. These tough choices, whether misguided or heroic, seal one’s fate and ultimately alter their path of life.
To many of the English colonists, any land that was granted to them in a charter by the English Crown was theirs’, with no consideration for the natives that had already owned the land. This belittlement of Indians caused great problems for the English later on, for the natives did not care about what the Crown granted the colonists for it was not theirs’ to grant in the first place. The theory of European superiority over the Native Americans caused for any differences in the way the cultures interacted, as well as amazing social unrest between the two cultures.
Cronon raises the question of the belief or disbelief of the Indian’s rights to the land. The Europeans believed the way Indians used the land was unacceptable seeing as how the Indians wasted the natural resources the land had. However, Indians didn’t waste the natural resources and wealth of the land but instead used it differently, which the Europeans failed to see. The political and economical life of the Indians needed to be known to grasp the use of the land, “Personal good could be replaced, and their accumulation made little sense for ecological reasons of mobility,” (Cronon, 62).
People know about the conflict between the Indian's cultures and the settler's cultures during the westward expansion. Many people know the fierce battles and melees between the Indians and the settlers that were born from this cultural conflict. In spite of this, many people may not know about the systematic and deliberate means employed by the U.S. government to permanently rid their new land of the Indians who had lived their own lives peacefully for many years. There are many strong and chilling reasons and causes as to why the settlers started all of this perplexity in the first place. There was also a very strong and threatening impact on the Native Americans through the schooling that stained the past and futures of Native Americans not only with blood but also with emotion. It was all a slow and painful plan of the "white man" to hopefully get rid of the Indian culture, forever. The Native American schools were created in an attempt to destroy the Native American way of life, their culture, beliefs and tradi...
Many colonist viewed the Native Americans as spawn of the devil. In Thomas Morton’s writing he said “if we do not judge amiss of these savages in accounting them witches,… some correspondence they have with the Devil out of all doubt.” (Foner 5) An example of historical content is the Metacom’s War by the year of 1675. The Indians in southern New England didn’t like the new settlers pushing on new religion and harsh treatment. Some of the Indians “converted to Christianity, living in protected ‘praying towns.’” (Jones, Wood, Borstelmann, May, and Ruiz 68) The Indians were ok with the conditions until “a white man shot and wounded a Native American.” (Jones, Wood, Borstelmann, May, and Ruiz 69) Colonist began to even distrust the Indians that were willing to convert to Christianity and moved their “praying towns” to “Deer Island in Boston Harbor” (Jones, Wood, Borstelmann, May, and Ruiz 69) This historical content shows that the colonist didn’t truly trust the Indians even when they were of the same religion, like Morton’s writing said “they have with the Devil out of all doubt” (Foner
The Indians thought of land very differently to the white man. The land was sacred, there was no ownership, and it was created by the great spirit. They could not sell their land to others, whereas the white people could fence off the land which belonged to them, and sell it freely to whoever they wanted. The Europeans didn't think that the Indians were using the land properly, so in their eyes, they were doing a good favour to the earth. To the Indians, the land was more valuable than the money that the white man had brought with him, even though it didn't belong to them.
...convince us Indians that our removal was necessary and beneficial. In my eyes, the agreement only benefited Andrew Jackson. It is apparent that Jackson neglected to realize how the Indian Removal act would affect us Indians. When is the government justified in forcibly removing people from the land they occupy? If you were a Native American, how would you have respond to Jackson? These questions need to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not Jackson was justified. After carefully examining these questions and considering both the pros and cons of this act, I’m sure you would agree that the removal of Native Americans was not justified under the administration of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was not able to see the damaging consequences of the Indian removal act because of his restricted perspective.
When the Dawes Act, a Native American Policy, was enforced in 1887, it focused on breaking up reservations by granting land allotments to individual Native Americans. At that time, people believed that if a person adopted the white man’s clothing, ways and was responsible for his own farm, he would eventually drop his, as stated by the Oxford University Press, “Indian-ness” and become assimilated in American society. The basic idea of this act was the taking away of Native American Culture because they were considered savage and primitive to the incoming settlers. Many historians now agree the Native’s treatment throughout the Dawes Act was completely unfair, unlawful, and unethical. American Society classified them as savages solely on their differences in morals, religion, appearance and overall culture.
When individuals face obstacles in life, there is often two ways to respond to those hardships: some people choose to escape from the reality and live in an illusive world. Others choose to fight against the adversities and find a solution to solve the problems. These two ways may lead the individuals to a whole new perception. Those people who decide to escape may find themselves trapped into a worse or even disastrous situation and eventually lose all of their perceptions and hops to the world, and those who choose to fight against the obstacles may find themselves a good solution to the tragic world and turn their hopelessness into hopes. Margaret Laurence in her short story Horses of the Night discusses the idea of how individual’s responses
It led Columbus to take Arawak Indians as prisoners on his expedition to search for gold. He sailed across islands capturing Indians along the way. He captured 1,500 Arawak men, women, and children sadly but gratefully for them they died on route so some didn’t have to endure the horrible condition that Columbus put them through. However, those that survived were fully naked and treated as animals because that is how whites saw them. Those that survived had to find gold, which was almost impossible wistfully those that didn’t find anything had their hands cut off and bled to death. Due to this inhumane treatment some tried escaping but were unsuccessful and they were hunted like dogs and killed. In addition, the prisoners were forced into war against the Spaniards who were well armed so they had no chance at being victorious. It leads me to believe that the savages were Columbus and his crew. The Arawak’s could take no more heartless and inhumane treatment that they committed mass suicides. To them they’d rather be dead by their own hands then be treated as animals. Columbus atrocious actions “in two years through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians…were dead” (Zinn 1980:107). What is even more barbaric is them thinking they can do it all over again. When Most of the Arawak Indians were killed they ran low slaves so needed
The American version of history blames the Native people for their ‘savage ' nature, for their failure to adhere to the ‘civilized norms ' of property ownership and individual rights that Christian people hold, and for their ‘brutality ' in defending themselves against the onslaught of non-Indian settlers. The message to Native people is simple: "If only you had been more like us, things might have been different for you.”
The removal of Indian tribes was one of the tragic times in America’s history. Native Americans endured hard times when immigrants came to the New World. Their land was stolen, people were treated poorly, tricked, harassed, bullied, and much more. The mistreatment was caused mostly by the white settlers, who wanted the Indians land. The Indians removal was pushed to benefit the settlers, which in turn, caused the Indians to be treated as less than a person and pushed off of their lands. MOREEE
In order to understand the lack of morality on the part of the United States, the actions taken by the group in favor of removing the Indians and their opponents needs examining. The seeds of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 are rooted in colonial times and continued to grow during the early years of the American republic. To comprehend this momentous tragedy we must first examine the historical background of the Indian '"'problem'"' and seek rationale for the American government"'"s actions. This includes looking at the men who politically justified the expulsion of the Cherokee nation and those who argued against it.
However the Native Americans strongly regarded their way of live. In their culture the order of nature, was vastly important. It was understood that there was an order to which nature worked and because of this they were tied to the land. They could not comprehend how the whites could “wander far from the graves of [their] ancestors and seemingly without regret” (Chief Joseph 2). The white settlers came to America and immediately started to conquer the land, without feeling any shame. To the Native Americans that was shocking, for they believed that “even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead...[had] memories of stirring events connected with the lives of [their] people” (Chief Joseph 3). They did not understand how someone could forget their ancestors, and fight nature in such a way that there is room for nobody but themselves. All the same though the white settlers could not see that what they were doing as wrong. They had come to the West to begin a new chapter in life, and if the Native Americans could not accept this, then they had to be dealt with.
The prevailing opinion is that European explorers came to the America’s to peacefully colonize and gradually begin mutually beneficial relationships with the native people. However, Howard Zinn proves that the majority of explorers could not coexist with the native tribes, as the conquerors slowly stole their land, and did not return the initial hospitality most of the natives had showed to them. Therefore, the European colonizers blatantly ignored the rights of the Native Americans and acted with violence towards them. In order to conquer the natives, the colonizers “set fire to the wigwams of the village” and “ [destroyed] their crops” (Zinn).
“The fact that we were unconsciously part of a plan to weaken and cross out the Indianness in you, to pattern your land with our grain and beets and corn and alfalfa now clearly hits me. It is like a blow to the gut to learn that the years spent on the reservation, the times wading in the Wind River, were not the free years of childhood, but the manipulations of a power hungry to exonerate itself, to free itself, to purge the treaties of any real meaning or responsibility. They stole from me my innocence, leaving me a co-conspirator, an enemy to the children I grew with ton the prairie, drove us apart when we could have and should have forged an alliance for our own survival. The force of this unremitting design has killed many of my friends and acquaintances and left me forever with a feeling of unintentional complicity and sadness.” (Wind River, Wunder)