More handpicked essays just for you.
Native american history and european settlers
Essay on the indigenous people of america
Native american history and european settlers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Similarly, Linden Lark explicitly asserts his views of white supremacy in a conversation with Joe, the main character of the novel and an Indian. The Lark family, a White family living near the reservation, is infamous for their negative views of Indians and their efforts to oppress them. Linden, the antagonist of the novel, epitomizes his family’s racist views. While Joe is working at a gas station on the reservation, Linden arrives to fill his car and engages in a conversation with Joe. Linden exclaims “Having a loving family. It’s pretty nice. Gives you an advantage in life. Even an Indian Boy like you can have a good family and get that sort of start, I guess” (Erdrich, The Round House, 171). Through Linden’s use of the word “even” he …show more content…
One night, Geraldine’s rapist is released, Joe’s father demonstrates the convoluted mess that is Indian law. Beginning his speech, Joe’s father mentions how Johnson v McIntosh (1823) is the most pivotal and detrimental case to American Indians. He states that the case stripped Indians of all of their land, allowed the Federal Government to practice manifest destiny, granted the government absolute title to the land, and only gave Indians right of occupancy, which could be easily retracted (Erdrich, The Round House, 229). Joe’s father continued to list court cases that were oppressing Indians, until he reached Oliphant v Suquamish, a court case that stated Indians do not have the right to try and punish non-Indians on their land (Erdrich, The Round House, 229). These court cases, and a plethora more, harshly depict the federal government’s views on Indians. Time after time the federal and local governments ruled Indians as inferior and took their rights away from them. As the Europeans began expanding west into Indian territory, the government began deciding in the favor of settlers. Rarely in history did the government rule in favor of Indians, epitomizing the ideological view that Indians are inferior to
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.
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
While reading the cases, Joe learns that his father has not solved cases that he thinks are of importance, but at the end we find that these cases set a precedent for the Indians in getting to handle cases against those who commit crimes on their land. He tells this to Joe by stating “These are the decisions that I and many other tribal judges try to make. Solid decisions with no scattershot opinions attached. Everything we do, no matter how trivial, must be crafted keenly. We are trying to build a solid base here for our sovereignty. We try to press against the boundaries of what we are allowed, walk a step past the edge. Our records will be scrutinized by Congress one day and decisions on whether to enlarge our jurisdiction will be made.” (229) Because of these cases, Joe was not able to see at the time how they would affect the lives of those on the reservation in the future, just that his father was not the man he thought he
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.
Wilcox, B. (1996). Dennis Banks runs for justice on behalf or American Indian Rights. Metro, 14-20.Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://siouxme.com/lodge/banks.html
Garrison, Tim Alan. The Legal Ideology of Removal: The Southern Judiciary and the Sovereignty of Native American Nations Studies in the Legal History of the South. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2002.
In "A Better Day for Indians," Vine Deloria, Jr. outlines seven controlling assumptions that Congress has implied its power towards Indians. Congress uses and choses it’s power when it pleases them. This is the first foremost formative role that congress frequents and it goes unnoticed because congress acts in good faith that allows the federal government to render any immoral acts towards Indians. I will describe 3 of the seven with example of each.
The Cherokee Indians, the most cooperative and accommodating to the political institutions of the united states, suffered the worst fate of all Native Americans when voluntarily or forcibly moved west. In 1827 the Cherokees attempted to claim themselves as an independent nation within the state of Georgia. When the legislature of the state extended jurisdiction over this ‘nation,’ the Cherokees sought legal actions, not subject to Georgia laws and petitioned the United States Supreme Court. The case became known as Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia in 1831. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall denied their claim as a republic within Georgia, he then deemed the Cherokee as a ‘domestic dependent nation’. One year later through the case of Worcester vs. Georgia, the Cherokee’s were granted federal protection from the molestation by the state of Georgia. Through the Indian Removal act in 1830 President Andrew Jackson appropriated planning and funding for the removal of Native Americans, Marshall’s rulings delayed this for the Cherokee Nation, and infuriated President Jackson. Marshall’s decision had little effect on Jackson and ignoring this action the president was anxious to see him enforce it.
One example of how President Jackson shirked his responsibilities to the Indian people was by ignoring the Supreme Court’s deci...
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.
The author distinguishes white people as privileged and respectful compared to mulattos and blacks. In the racial society, white people have the right to get any high-class position in a job or live in any place. In the story, all white characters are noble such as Judge Straight lawyer, Doctor Green, business-man George, and former slaveholder Mrs. Tryon. Moreover, the author also states the racial distinction of whites on mulattos. For example, when Dr. Green talks to Tryon, “‘The niggers,’., ‘are getting mighty trifling since they’ve been freed.
In John Grishams’ (1996) film “A Time to Kill” issues surrounding the racism in the Deep South take place and based on a true life experience of John Grisham. The novel, like the movie, opens with a very brutal rape scene. It’s the socio-politics that give this film an energetic and confrontational feel of southern racial politics. Racism was still very strong even some 20 years after the civil war (Ponick 2011). Hollywood and John Grisham wanted to make bold statement about racism and they accomplished this in the closing argument of the courtroom scene.
Earl M. Maltz is a professor at Rutgers School of Law, who teaches constitutional law, employment discrimination, conflicts of law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court. He has written two books and various articles surrounding the topics of constitutional law, statutory interpretation, the role of the courts and legal history. In his article, “The Fourteenth Amendment and Native American Citizenship,” Maltz argues that the status of Native Americans were considered when writing the Fourteenth Amendment, yet discussions on the topic rarely focus on the role that they played. I think that the topic of Native American citizenship rose separately from African-American citizenship and that Maltz’s use of court cases throughout the text furthered
In 1787, the United States Constitution was established and within this document is a list of different amendments. Ever since the 1790’s, the First Amendment of the Constitution has assured Americans the right to “free exercise of religion”. However, the promise of American Indian religious freedom has historically fallen short. The religious freedom for Native Americans has been actively suppressed because their practices and beliefs are often viewed to be unconventional classifications of “religion”. Because of this, the Native traditions are not protected under the First Amendment. Undeniably though, this does not come as a shock because constitutional protection has only recently become applied to Native Americans when they were granted citizenship in the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.
The Sioux, a tribe of Native Americans, have faced religious oppression for centuries, thus hindering their ability to achieve the American Dream. The American Dream should be accessible to all people, but this group of people continues to fight against religious discrimination every day of their lives. When the Englishmen started settling in America, the more harsh and frequent their oppression became. Indian tribes are separated from society by placing them in Indian Reserves to prevent the spreading of their religious beliefs. Judge John Marshall after careful consideration came to the conclusion that all tribes are separate nations, but our society continues to discriminate against their presence on the continent that was theirs first.