More handpicked essays just for you.
Settlers effect on native americans
Settlers effect on native americans
Negative effect of settlers on native indians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Sand Creek Massacre
Now that the context is discussed as well as some of the important concepts, the Sand Creek case can be discussed and analysed. In 1864 on November 29th the Sand Creed Massacre took place. During this massacre around 300 Native American women, children and men were slaughtered by British settlers (Breakwell 2014, 353). This mass murder happened along the banks of Sand Creek, a stream in Colorado. In 1864 around 1.000 Arapaho and Cheyenne (Native Americans) lived around this area. The chiefs of these groups were peacemakers and initiated peace talks together with the officials of the British colonialists. After this they believed that they could continue to live in their isolated camp peacefully. However John Evans,
…show more content…
the territorial governor, hoped for another military victory in order to get more recognition from Washington. Together with John Chivington, a colonel in the army, they decided to attack the Natives (Horwitz 2015, 1-3). Chivington is mostly known for his statement "Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians. I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honourable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians." (Herrlinger 2011, 16). On November 29th at dawn cavalrymen appeared in front of these Native Americans. In a response white flags and US flags were waved by the Natives in order to surrender, however it was not effective. The troops opened fire and at least 200 Indians died, of whom mostly children, elderly and women who did not stand a chance against these troops. After this the troops started to burn down the village and carried the body parts of the dead around as some sort of trophies (Horwitz 2015, 1-3). After this terrible event several people spread the story of how the aggressive Indians were defeated by the brave civilized militants. The main spreaders of this story were John Evans as well as John Chivington (Horwitz 2015, 2). The news about the massacre was initially received by the British settlers as something to celebrate. However another side of the story was revealed shortly after. Silas Soule started to spread a different story. He was a militant as well, however he decided not to fight together with the troops. He was disgusted by the way the Indians were treated while they clearly wanted to surrender. According to him even the numbers that were spread by the troops were wrong, instead of 500 only 200 Indians were killed. He furthermore argued that these Natives were no warriors, most of them were peaceful women and children who begged for their lives and tried to hide themselves after the shooting started. He mentioned that these people were killed by Chivington in the name of ‘civilization’ and their skulls were taken as a souvenir (Horwitz 2015, 2). Another lieutenant told the same story as Silas Soule. When this news reached Washington, an investigation was started. Chivington mainly argued that it was impossible to tell which Natives were peaceful and which were hostile. The case ended in the decision that it was in fact a planned massacre of people who had the idea that they were under US protection. The attention from Washington in this time was exceptional, in most cases they did not pay attention to small inconveniences like this. They promised reparations to the Natives. After a trial Chivington lost his career. However Chivington could not be sentenced for his crimes due to the fact that he retired. Soule was shot after testifying by Chivington’s associates. After the Massacre Indians started to unite against the settlers. The British saw this as a problem due to the fact that their main goal of the settlers was to unite their country and increase their sovereignty. Memory and acknowledgement (forgotten misplaced ignored parts) During the colonialism of the American territory in the 19th century there were numerous moments of injustice and human rights abuse as we know it today. However the Sand Creek Massacre is an important example due to its influence in the 19th century and the memory that was maintained after this. This massacre was mostly forgotten. Although this massacre was in a fact a war crime it was analysed by the government of the United States and they did not want to take the blame too publicly. This meant that although the massacre had an enormous influence of the Native Americans, it quickly disappeared from the minds of the American colonialists. It was furthermore not discussed in schools and therefore new generations of Native Americans did not get acquainted with the story. This resulted in the fact that at some point even some of the locals did not remember any of it (Horwitz 2015, 1-3). The whole event would soon fade and be taken over by white memory. By the end of the 20th century it was referred to more often as a ‘battle’ between Natives and White people than a massacre. The colonialist started to refer to it as the founding victory of Colorado as well as a civilization triumph. After this the story was forgotten (Horwitz 2015, 3). However, in the 20th century some new light was put on the situation. The open wound left by the Sand Creek massacre never really healed among the Arapaho and Cheyenne, who later had to move to distant reservations around Oklahoma. In the first place there was a promise concerning reparations in 1865, however these were never paid (Horwitz 2015, 1-3). It is mentioned that, if not forgotten, the memory of the Sand Creed Massacre is occasionally misplaced. Not only the location is sometimes forgotten or misplaced, the event itself is also misplaced in American history. It was seen as an example of a glorified Civil War. However during the end of the 20th century, this massacre started to be disassociated from the Civil War memories. The settlers started to refer to this event as part of the “Indian Wars”. This was not accepted by Native Americans who regarded the Civil War as a war of empire and a contest to increase their expansion (Breakwell 2014, 354). But these were not the only issues with the memory and story of the Sand Creek Massacre.
According to the Arapahos and Cheyenne’s the story of the Sand Creek Massacre has misrepresented and ignored the role of these Natives in the years before the massacre. Their political goals and strategies have not been considered in understanding what happened during the massacre. Therefore it is argued that it is important to acknowledge their role in this horrible event as well, in order to have a clear view on what happened. It must be noted that the treaty between the natives and settlers was made in 1851. The camp that the Arapaho and Cheyenne obtained at the Sand Creek was the result of more than 10 year strategies. It furthermore included taking responsibility in relation to the peace with Americans (Loretta 2015, 364-390). The relation between the settlers and Cheyenne and Arapaho was quite exceptional, there were a lot of tribes who tried to fight the settlers, however these 2 groups main goal was peace (Tobin 2003, 110). In order to maintain the peace they had to sacrifice a lot, however they had to maintain the peace in order to be able to stay alive. The settlers were not really interested in this peaceful coexistence, which was made clear during the massacre. This effort of the natives to maintain peace and be politically involved is often not taken into account when analysing the events of 1864 (Loretta 2015, 364-390). Most investigations focussed on the aspect of death of …show more content…
prisoners of war instead of focusing on the little support that was given to the natives who wanted a peaceful coexistence and an economic adaption. By minimizing the tribes willingness to maintain peace, the army was not as clearly responsible for the massacre. Many Americans argue that the death of the Arapaho and Cheyenne’s could not have been avoided due to the resistance of the natives. However many sources mention that Black Kettle, the tribes leader, mainly wanted to maintain the peace and adapt their economy (Loretta 2015, 364-390). Historic site As already mentioned, the Sand Creed Massacre is often forgotten or misplaced. However in the 20th century more light was put on the case. In order to raise more awareness and teach people the story of the massacre a Historic Site was opened. In 2007 a Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site was opened by National Park Service in order to tell the story and teach people about the tragic events that took place in 1864 (Breakwell 2014, 354). This is the only national park service that contains the word ‘massacre’. Most of national historic sites actually relate to a patriotic monument or the birthplace of a president, therefore a lot of people are shocked to see this site. Most visitors also did not know that the massacre took place during the Civil War, which they do not associate with cavalry killing the Indians. The Civil War however also included expansion to create new territories in order to free settlers from the West. States could become slave states or free states, however Indians occasionally resisted when their lands were taken and they were forced into slavery (Horwitz 2015, 1-3). The Civil War is often seen as a liberation war but it was also a war in which Native Americans were killed and their lands were stolen (Horwitz 2015, 1-3). The historic site seemed like a way to create more awareness, but according to many Indians the exhibit that opened at this site did not represent the truth enough and was also not as negative and realistic as it should be. Due to this interviews with Natives were added in 2013. After 2013 there was still too much anger coming from the Indians, so the exhibition was closed (Horwitz 2015, 3). Another complication with the Historic site was that the National Historic Site of the Sand Creek Massacre was already meant to open in 1998, however this did not immediately happen. Many people from Colorado did not accept the goal and the name of this site, this was the most obvious after 9/11. Citizens argued that it was unpatriotic to start such a memorial while a lot of the people living in Colorado were serving in Iraq or Afghanistan at the time. A historian even argued that the Sand Creek was in fact not a massacre and mention that Black Kettle (the tribes leader) was just “Harbouring terrorists” (Horwitz 2014, 2). Apology and compensation However although the Sand Creed Massacre is often forgotten, misplaced and there are several complications surrounding the memorial (like it is not accurate enough).
There are in fact groups of people who want to compensate and recognize the horrible deeds that happened. An example of this is United Methodist Church who donated 50.000 dollar for a memorial. They wanted to support the development of a learning centre for the 1864 massacre. This money was used in order to pay for research materials as well as other educational measures. The church is known for several of such acts in order to apologize for the wrongdoings of Colonel John Chivington, who was himself a Methodist. In 1996 the Church already made a public apology for the acts of this Methodist. The church mentioned that these are only a small step in the emotional and difficult journey of their church. They mention that they had a horrible role in the American history towards the Native Americans and their recognition of this is actually already too late (Herrlinger 2011,
16).
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
For several hundred years people have sought answers to the Indian problems, who are the Indians, and what rights do they have? These questions may seem simple, but the answers themselves present a difficult number of further questions and answers. State and Federal governments have tried to provide some order with a number of laws and policies, sometimes resulting in state and federal conflicts. The Federal Government's attempt to deal with Indian tribes can be easily understood by following the history of Federal Indian Policy. Indians all over the United States fought policies which threatened to destroy their familial bonds and traditions. The Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe of Maine, resisted no less than these other tribes, however, thereby also suffering a hostile anti-Indian environment from the Federal Government and their own State, Maine. But because the Passamaquoddy Tribe was located in such a remote area, they escaped many federal Indian policies.
Native American’s place in United States history is not as simple as the story of innocent peace loving people forced off their lands by racist white Americans in a never-ending quest to quench their thirst for more land. Accordingly, attempts to simplify the indigenous experience to nothing more than victims of white aggression during the colonial period, and beyond, does an injustice to Native American history. As a result, historians hoping to shed light on the true history of native people during this period have brought new perceptive to the role Indians played in their own history. Consequently, the theme of power and whom controlled it over the course of Native American/European contact is being presented in new ways. Examining the evolving
The article, “Native Reactions to the invasion of America”, is written by a well-known historian, James Axtell to inform the readers about the tragedy that took place in the Native American history. All through the article, Axtell summarizes the life of the Native Americans after Columbus acquainted America to the world. Axtell launches his essay by pointing out how Christopher Columbus’s image changed in the eyes of the public over the past century. In 1892, Columbus’s work and admirations overshadowed the tears and sorrows of the Native Americans. However, in 1992, Columbus’s undeserved limelight shifted to the Native Americans when the society rediscovered the history’s unheard voices and became much more evident about the horrific tragedy of the Natives Indians.
The United States government initially celebrated the Battle at Wounded Knee as the final conflict between Native Americans and the United States military - after which the western frontier was considered safe for the incoming settlers. Over 20 medals were awarded to the soldiers for their valor on the battlefield. However, the understanding has changed regarding what actually took place at Wounded Knee on December 29, 1890. The Hollywood version of the Battle of Wounded Knee accurately presents the case that the Battle at Wounded Knee was actually a massacre of the Sioux - the culminating act of betrayal and aggression carried out by the United States military,
Although the work is 40 years old, “Custer Died for Your Sins” is still relevant and valuable in explaining the history and problems that Indians face in the United States. Deloria’s book reveals the White view of Indians as false compared to the reality of how Indians are in real life. The forceful intrusion of the U.S. Government and Christian missionaries have had the most oppressing and damaging affect on Indians. There is hope in Delorias words though. He believes that as more tribes become more politically active and capable, they will be able to become more economically independent for future generations. He feels much hope in the 1960’s generation of college age Indians returning to take ownership of their tribes problems and build a better future for their children.
“Quantie’s weak body shuddered from a blast of cold wind. Still, the proud wife of the Cherokee chief John Ross wrapped a woolen blanket around her shoulders and grabbed the reins.” Leading the final group of Cherokee Indians from their home lands, Chief John Ross thought of an old story that was told by the chiefs before him, of a place where the earth and sky met in the west, this was the place where death awaits. He could not help but fear that this place of death was where his beloved people were being taken after years of persecution and injustice at the hands of white Americans, the proud Indian people were being forced to vacate their lands, leaving behind their homes, businesses and almost everything they owned while traveling to an unknown place and an uncertain future. The Cherokee Indians suffered terrible indignities, sickness and death while being removed to the Indian territories west of the Mississippi, even though they maintained their culture and traditions, rebuilt their numbers and improved their living conditions by developing their own government, economy and social structure, they were never able to return to their previous greatness or escape the injustices of the American people.
One of the main forms of violence in the Old West was murder; the rising tension between the American soldiers and the Native Americans was a main contributor to this violence. An example of this strain is the Sand Creek Massacre. American soldiers attacked unaware Native Americans of the Cheyenne and Arapahoe ethnic groups. All men, women, and children were killed and/or tortured. There were no survivors. “Two soldiers drew their pistols and shot her [a little girl]”, portraying that these sort of crimes came about regularly in the West (Document G). Another example of this is the Battle of Beecher Island. The Battle of Beecher Island, also known as the Battle of Arikaree Fork, was the armed disagreement between soldiers of the U.S. Army and a few Native American tribes. According to Document H, there were “at least 50 [men dead]; perhaps as many as 200 [men] were wounded” (Document H). Adding on to the uneasiness between the Native Americans and the white soldiers, many killings were encountered by foolishness, not battle. The Native Americans and the soldiers wanted to prove that their race is more macho and better than the other. Even though Document L states that “113 [people] recorded no trouble with the Indians”, Document M detects many problems with the Native Americans resulting in “919” troops killed (Document L, Document M). The white soldiers in the Old West would have loved to kill the Native American’s buffalo popu...
One of the darkest times in American history was the conflict with the natives. A “war” fought with lies and brute force, the eviction and genocide of Native Americans still remains one of the most controversial topics when the subject of morality comes up. Perhaps one of the most egregious events to come of this atrocity was the Sand Creek Massacre. On the morning of November 29th, 1864, under the command of Colonel John Chivington, 700 members of the Colorado Volunteer Cavalry raped, looted, and killed the members of a Cheyenne tribe (Brown 86-94). Hearing the story of Sand Creek, one of the most horrific acts in American History, begs the question: Who were the savages?
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.
Crime manifests itself in various ways in society and oftentimes difficult to pinpoint what drives people to commit certain actions. The Columbine shooting was a particular incident that ended in tears and suffering which resulted in numerous research as to what was going through the minds of these young individuals at the time of the shooting. Therefore, this paper will analyze specifically the role of differential association- reinforcement as altered by Akers in propelling Dylan Klebold to commit such heinous act, while also giving credit to Edwin Sutherland for first formulating the framework of differential association.
With buffalo numbers decreasing fast, Native American tribes faced starvation and desperation. There were many different actions the Americans did to destroy the land of the Native Americans. Western expansion caused a shift in the lives of Native Americans because many tribes, including women and kids, were being murdered by the new settlers. S.G. Colley, a U.S. Indian Agent, writes in a Report for the Committee on the Conduct of War, “That notwithstanding his knowledge of the facts as above set forth, he is informed that Colonel Chivington did, on the morning of the 29th of November last, surprise and attack said camp of friendly Indians and massacre a large number of them, (mostly women and children,) and did allow the troops of his command to mangle and mutilate them in the most horrible manner” (Colley, 1865). This quote shows the Americans were exterminating innocent American Indians for no justifiable reason.
The Cherokee marched through, biting cold, rains, and snow. Many people died during this trip from starvation, diseases, exposure, and vagaries of unknown terrains. Those who recounted this journey in later years spoke of a trip that was filled with tears borne of immense suffering and deaths during this trip and thus the name Trail of Tears. Modern scholars and champions of human rights have described this event as one of the most notorious genocides during the 19th Century. This paper will therefore attempt to prove that, the Cherokee community suffered human right atrocities from the American government shortly before and during the Trail of Tears.
The movement westward during the late 1800’s created new tensions among already strained relations with current Native American inhabitants. Their lands, which were guaranteed to them via treaty with the United States, were now beginning to be intruded upon by the massive influx of people migrating from the east. This intrusion was not taken too kindly, as Native American lands had already been significantly reduced due to previous westward conquest. Growing resentment for the federal government’s Reservation movement could be felt among the native population. One Kiowa chief’s thoughts on this matter summarize the general feeling of the native populace. “All the land south of the Arkansas belongs to the Kiowas and Comanches, and I don’t want to give away any of it” (Edwards, 203). His words, “I don’t want to give away any of it”, seemed to a mantra among the Native Americans, and this thought would resound among them as the mounting tensions reached breaking point.
Similar to this topic, genocide of a group is brought on by the abuse of power. Such as, the white settler’s decision to wipe out a group of Native Americans for their own benefit in expanding their territory. Due to this circumstance, Chief Joseph, a member of this Native American tribe, gives a speech in “Surrender at Bear Paw Mountain, stating “My people… have no blankets and no food”(Joseph).The selfish desires of the white settler’s to secure their high status through new territory and resources drives them to push out their “obstacles”. Hence, they chose genocide for a more effective solution to the problem, leaving the tribe members helpless to overcome survival. However, while some may argue that the genocide of Native American’s shaped America’s history and future, it tore the Native American’s own home down through violence in the process, laying the foundation for more acts of unnecessary uses of power to come.