Native Americans lived in the western territories of the American continent for more than 10 millennia. In the late 19th century, approximately 250,00 Native people lived in the American West.1 Nevertheless, the brutal expansion of American settlers significantly altered the indigenous way of living and resulted in thousands of killings. The aim is to understand the logic and reasoning behind such unacceptable actions. At the same time, it is important to understand how the indigenous population fought against this expansion. The main thesis is that the expansionist mindset of the well-equipped white conquerors was a factor in the hard-line approach to Native Americans.
The harsh treatment of Native Americans by the US government is explained by the expansionist and racist thinking of federal powers, which imposed collective responsibility on all American Indians. The literature discussing this period shows that there were some incidents when Native Americans were responsible for the killings of white people.2 Angry colonists took revenge for these crimes not on the guilty, but on the entire population. For example, in 1891, a Sioux delegation described the events of the Wounded Knee Massacre to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington D.C. They claimed that the massacre of nearly 300 Lakota people happened because a young Indian guy fired the gun.3 However, it was absolutely unnecessary to kill all the people. Thus, the whole thinking about the backwardness of Native Americans was the cause of physical and cultural genocide.
However, although American residents were cruel toward Native Americans, they tried to assimilate these indigenous groups. The main reason for these policies was the assumption that homogeneous and culturally similar Native Americans would more easily accept the economic and political intrusion in their lands. This approach destroyed cultural code of many Indian tribes. Nevertheless, assimilation policies improved indigenous people’s quality of life. As Laura C. Kellogg indicates, the introduction of proper education resulted in the enhancement of self-consciousness.4 Among Americans, there was the party of reformers who tried to preserve Indians from white greed and violence. Acknowledging that the co-living of Americans and Indians was unavoidable, reformers tried to establish land rights and educated Natives about their rights.5 Therefore, besides pure assimilation for reasons of power accumulation, there was the stream of approach aimed at helping Native Americans understand ‘the rules of the game’.
Native Americans tried to resist the oppression and intrusion of American residents in the late 19th, but the more powerful weaponry of the latter caused a large number of victims. Helen Hunt Jackson was a contemporary of these events describing the autocracies of white people. She indicates that the main features of white people’s behavior were “cheating, robbing, [and] breaking promises”.6 However, although Native Americans tried to oppose newcomers with the help of prophets and tribe leaders, every time someone attacked Americans, there was harsh revenge. Thus, it seems that the inequality of arms and other means of fighting blocked the resistance movement.
To conclude, this essay discussed the main features surrounding American expansion in the West in the late 19th. To understand the behavior of white conquerors, one should realize how they thought about Native Americans. For these people, Indians were just barriers before gold mines and new profits. They considered Native Americans as backward creatures who could not understand anything about Americans’ economic plans. Nevertheless, the reformers tried to educate indigenous people at the expense of peculiar local cultural identity. The system of schools was based on Americanized knowledge which was fundamentally different from the Native Americans’ perspectives.
Bibliography
Brown, Dee. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
Kellogg, Laura M. Cornelius, Kristina Ackley, and Cristina Stanciu. “Some Facts and Figures on Indian Education.” Quarterly Journal of the Society of American Indians 1, no. 15 (1913): 36-46.
Locke, Joseph L., and Ben Wright. The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, Vol. 2: Since 1877. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019.
Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in American History. New York: H. Holt, 1919.
United States Department of the Interior. Annual Report of the Department of the Interior. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1892.
White, Richard. “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own”: A New History of the American West. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.
Footnotes
Joseph L. Locke and Ben Wright, The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, Vol. 2: Since 1877 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019), 28.
Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970), 44.
United States Department of the Interior, Annual Report of the Department of the Interior. Vol. 2. (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1892), 179-181.
Laura M. Cornelius Kellogg, Kristina Ackley, and Cristina Stanciu, “Some Facts and Figures on Indian Education,” Quarterly Journal of the Society of American Indians 1, no. 15 (1913): 40.
Richard White, “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own”: A New History of the American West (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 111.
Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York: H. Holt, 1919).
The first encounters between the Spaniards and the Native Americans occurred in 1492 when Christopher Columbus arrived at the shores of North America thinking that it was India. In his writings, which I have chosen as the primary focus, he described the Native Americans and the first encounter with them. After he had learned that they had not produced iron weapons, had worn almost no clothes, and had overall been less developed than the Europeans, he decided to find out about their treasures and sent them as slaves to Europe. He also wanted them to be converted to Christianity (Levine 36). On the other hand, Bartolomé de las Casas, fifty years after Columbus’s voyage, began advocating for stopping the atrocities that were being committed by the colonizers against the indigenous people of America. He was against the enslavement and cruelty against them and claimed that their treasures must not have been the reason for them. However, being a bishop, he shared Columbus’s opinion about making the Native Americans Christian; moreover, because they did not have any religion at all, but only their creation theories (Levine 41). Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca was also against the cruelty towards the Native Americans. In fact, he was a true explorer who described different tribes of the Native Americans in detail and performed a faith healing practice there (Levine 47).
Thus, there are two main Native American creation theories, namely Salinan creation myths and Cherokee creation myths. The former is rather simple and claims that the Bald Eagle created a man out of clay and a woman out of a feather and made them alive, whereas the latter claims that the world was suspended on four cords from the sky where all animals lived who once decided to create people on the ground below them (Levine 22). In general, the essence of these two theories is the same, namely the deification of animals and plants and regarding them as people’s creators. Certainly, these theories would not have been taken seriously by the Europeans in general and these three explorers in particular, as they totally contradicted the stories written in the Bible which were overwhelmingly significant in the late medieval period. Therefore, all three explorers of the American continent would have agreed on this particular point and wanted to convert the Native Americans to Christianity (Levine 33).
Work Cited
Levine, Robert S. et al. The Norton Anthology American Literature. 9th ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2017.
One of the most shameful stains on the American history and one of the heaviest burdens borne by the American nation historically is the way the federal government treated Native Americans for many decades from the 17th century. Native Americans were persecuted, chased out of their lands, deprived of what they had, and forbidden to practice their culture. The federal government constantly saw a threat in the Native American populations and was greedy for their property, which is why the rights of those people were repeatedly violated, and even the most important right—the right to life. A 2009 series of documentaries titled We Shall Remain is dedicated to the history of Native Americans, and its third episode, The Trail of Tears, is particularly about the forced removal of Cherokee from their lands in the southeastern territories of the United States in the 1830s. In this episode, Russell G. Townsend, a historic preservationist, said, “What we [the Americans] did in the 1830s to the southeastern Indians, it is ethnic cleansing.” Based on the evidence presented in the documentary, I agree with Townsend. Ethnic cleansing is defined as making a particular population more homogeneous through oppressing and repressing a weaker ethnic group by a stronger one. The federal government did both oppressing and repressing, as the Indian population was not only forced to live by the rules of the white people but also constantly persecuted, and the forced removal of Cherokee, known as the Trail of Tears, is an example of how it was carried out. The removal was designed as an act of oppression, and it was implemented in a cruel way, which is why it fully qualifies for being considered ethnic cleansing.
This idea can be supported by two things: the decision to remove Cherokee and the way it was implemented. First of all, it should be discussed what the federal government pursued with the removal. There were two main reasons: to chase Indians farther so that they become a lesser threat and to take away their property. As it is put in the documentary, “White settlers began to close the circle, ‘like vultures,’ said one federal officer, ‘ready to strip the Cherokee of everything they have.’” This intention of the government should be definitively condemned because no people should be removed from where they live and robbed, but it is not only the intention that made the Trail of Tears such a tragic page of the American history—it is the implementation, too. Cherokee were not only told to leave and robbed, but also removed with cruelty and under inhumane conditions. As a result, approximately 4,000 Cherokee died in the process. It is also noteworthy that the Cherokee population that lived in the southeastern territories had adopted the “whites’ lifestyle,” and they lived by the rules of the federal government, which is why it can be doubted that they were a threat to the United States in any way. And even if they had been, the way they were removed was a crime against humanity. I agree with Townsend who said, “The United States gained a lot of land, and farms, and taverns, and ferries, and things like that. But a loss for the American government is the blemish, the stain it places upon our national honor.” I think that one of the main aspects of the historic effort to wash this stain off is to admit that the Trail of Tears was ethnic cleansing, to condemn it, and to ensure that it will never happen again.
(From the perspective and in the voice of Charles Sumner.) Now that several years have passed since the execution of John Brown, it is becoming obvious that this man’s life, and especially the circumstances of his death, were of historic significance, and I believe it to be safe to assume that, for a long time henceforth, his figure will remain extremely controversial for our national history. John Brown called himself an abolitionist, and so dare I, but let me declare it here and now that, while I ardently support the antislavery movement, I may not support every antislavery advocate or his ways of participating in the movement. Political struggle is hard, and it is only knowing that we struggle for the right thing what helps us continue it, and we, slavery opponents, should work together, but I am also certain that we should not employ methods employed by John Brown, for those methods are hideous, while our purpose is righteous, and they would only soil it. As a person who experienced violence from a proslavery senator in Congress and was beaten unconscious, which was an unheard-of thing, I say let violence be their ways, not ours. Of course, in his address to the court, John Brown stated that he intended no murder and no insurrection, but I believe his actions were stating otherwise. Some hate John Brown for what he did for the antislavery movement, for how he ignited it and inspired, and I condemn those people and do not stand with them. Some praise John Brown and think him to be a martyr—I cannot say I stand with those people either. A zealot, Brown had played a significant role, and perhaps our force, the force of the free states, would not be such as it is now if it had not been for the hardihood of John Brown, but we, the proponents of freedom and justice, to chase the ugly harlot of Slavery out of this land, should appeal to human reason and conscience instead of terrorizing or murdering.
(From the perspective and in the voice of Samuel A. Cartwright.) Looking back at how antislavery sentiments have been spreading among the Americans shows that abolitionism is much more of a state of mind than a political position. Blinded by the idea that slavery is bad, abolitionists ferociously attack their opponents without taking an opportunity to look at the facts or listen to arguments. They have proved to be immensely irrational whenever it comes to objective reasoning. We know that it has repeatedly been claimed that slavery is bad for our economy because it is an unproductive kind of labor. However, the statistical data state otherwise, but what is statistics to those whose minds are contaminated by what they call struggling for freedom? It is nothing for them, for the phantoms of justice and equality do not let them think. John Brown is a vivid example: a man driven into madness by his perceived mission to save and liberate, he took up arms and killed innocent men to prepare a civil conflict from which no-one in our country could benefit. Many have called him a martyr, yet he is nothing but a murderer. We should all learn from his example how irrational ideas spoil the mind of a man and make him fall into fanaticism, and this is to show us how abolitionism is fundamentally harmful and destructive.
Every historical event, especially such large-scale and influential as a civil war, is a complicated process where identifying causes and effects is always challenging. In history, nothing happens for no reason, and wars cannot explode where there is no gunpowder for them and no sparks. When examining the history of the American Civil War, one discovers many developments that seem to have been leading to it inevitably, but it is only so in retrospect. For people who lived in the 1850s, the perspective was different, as some warned that the war was coming, while others were certain that is could be avoided. However, reflecting on the historical processes of those times after one and a half centuries allows arguing that the conflict between the two parties was too serious to have been resolved without an armed confrontation. In his Congress speech in 1856, Charles Sumner said, “[P]ortents hang on all the arches of the horizon threatening to darken the broad land, which already yawns with the mutterings of civil war.” Numerous signs can be seen in the antebellum era that showed how the war was inevitable.
One of such signs is Bleeding Kansas. A symbolic state in a sense, as it is situated in the very center of the modern United States, Kansas had become a battlefield for the opponents and proponents of slavery, and the political struggle was accompanied by fierce violence. According to Eric Foner, “a sporadic civil war broke out in Kansas in which some 200 persons eventually lost their lives.” This indicated how irreconcilable the free states and the slave states were. Many felt the inevitability of a wider war, as Charles Sumner said that “the whole country, in all its extent, [was] marshalling hostile divisions, and foreshadowing a strife which, unless happily averted by the triumph of Freedom, will become war fratricidal, parricidal war with an accumulated wickedness beyond the wickedness of any war in human annals.” It was also an indication of an upcoming war that, after his speech, Sumner was beaten in the hall of Congress with a cane by another Congressman, which had never happened in the American parliament before. Finally, the attempts of the federal government to remove the issue of slavery from the agenda and the congressional debate were constantly failing. According to Foner, “the new Fugitive Slave Act…made further controversy inevitable.” This reveals the most important argument of those who think that the war could have been avoided. If the federal government had not been striving to control the states to the extent of prohibiting them from having slavery, and if it had allowed some states preserve the institution of slavery, some say the war would not have happened. However, this argument is debatable because the country had come to a point where the interactions between the North and the South were impossible as long as the latter had slavery and the former did not. The states were too highly interconnected economically to become separated from each other, but their conflict based on the acceptability of slavery was too grave to let them be part of a single country. Therefore, a civil war was inevitable.
The issues of race and national identity are of great importance for the existence of the modern world. However, in the past these issues were also very significant due to the fact that racial discrimination was much more severe in that time. Because of this, I think that we should study history, and the history of Native Americans as viewed in the Canadian historical literature is one of the aspects to study. Thus, the current paper will compare and analyze the arguments from the book by Bumstead and from the article by Trigger so that to see the actual facts from the history.
The thesis of the article by Bruce G. Trigger called “The historians’ Indian: Native Americans in Canadian historical writing from Charlevoix to the present” is that the attitude towards native inhabitants of America changed with the course of time from a good to a worse one. This is explained, according to Trigger (1988) by the fact that at first Great Britain was interested in the Aboriginal people and portrayed them in a positive light, while France was in conflict with them and portrayed them negatively. Furthermore, Britain lost need of the Aboriginals’ help and their image in historiography acquired completely negative character¹.
The evidence used by the author is the historical context and specific examples. For instance, he argues that in 1759 Aboriginals took the side of Britain in its war with France. After this, French historians depicted aboriginals only negatively. Moreover, about 1820, English historiography changes its attitude towards Aboriginals as soon as the War of 1812 was finished and Britain needed no support overseas. Thus, Trigger calls the works of historians of those times the “justification of the present” 2.
Consequently, the evidence provided by the author of the article supports greatly the argument that the author provides in his paper. From these pieces of evidence, it can be clearly seen that the author has a good command of the topic and knows much than the traditional historiography can present3. Thus, compared to the book by Bumstead, the article by Trigger presents a greater range of ideas.
As to why it is so, I can suppose that the fact that ideas about the changes in the historians’ attitudes towards Native Americans are not expressed in the book because its author supports the traditional point of view. In other words, Bumstead probably keeps to the point expressed in the historical literature last and portrays Aboriginals in this way. One can not say that Bumstead’s attitude towards them is negative but it lacks the scope and does nit discuss the development of historical thought on Native Americans in Canada, as well as in the historiographies of other countries 4.
Taking into consideration all the above said, I can state that the argument of Bruce G. Trigger is quite logical in its essence. First of all, this argument is provided with specific examples of historic events that serve better as evidence than any hypothesis. Secondly, the purely logical point in this argument can not be doubted as no contradictions can be seen between the loss of interest in the help of aboriginals and the shift of their depiction in Canadian, and European, historiography to the negative. Besides, the logic of the argument can be explained by the author’s archeological background due to which Trigger possesses actual facts discovered during his work and is able to operate with them making logical conclusions.
References
Bumstead, J. M. A History of the Canadian Peoples. Oxford University Press, USA. 2007.
Trigger, B.G. The historians’ Indian: Native Americans in Canadian historical writing from Charlevoix to the present. In R. Fisher and K. Coates (Eds.) Out of the background: Readings on Canadian Native history. Mississauga, Ontario: Copp Clark Pitman, pp.19-44. 1988.
See Trigger, B.G. The historians’ Indian: Native Americans in Canadian historical writing from Charlevoix to the present, pp.19-44. 1988.
Ibid., p. 19.
See Trigger, B.G. The historians’ Indian: Native Americans in Canadian historical writing from Charlevoix to the present, pp.19-44. 1988.
See Bumstead, J. M. A History of the Canadian Peoples. Oxford University Press, USA. 2007.
Following the success of Spanish explorers and conquistadors in what is now called South America, other European nations began exploring Northern America in the hope of finding similar riches and resources. The desire for raw materials was twofold; first, the resources would increase the nation’s wealth by exploiting them. Second, there was the need for new trade routes after the Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople increasing trade costs with the East (Corbett et al., 2017). The English began their exploration of the Americas later than the French and Spanish. While also desiring resources, some English colonists fled religious persecution in England.
The Colombian exchange was the name given for the complex movement of goods and diseases between Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Staples of modern agriculture like potatoes, chocolate, and beans, as well as diseases, such as syphilis, were transmitted from South America to Europe and Africa. Slaves were bought and shipped from Africa to North and South America, while livestock like pigs and horses entered America from Europe for the first time (Corbett et al., 2017). This rapid movement of capital and ideas would accelerate the European economies and revolutionize agriculture.
In South America, the Spanish, following their initial conquests, enslaved and exploited the native population. The North American Natives were not enslaved in the same manner; however, both native populations were decimated by disease. Over the centuries, Europeans had developed antibodies against smallpox, mumps, and measles, but the natives had no protection (Corbett et al., 2017). As a result, millions of Native Americans died from diseases across both North and South America. Knowledge of immune systems and germs did not exist at that time. However, Europeans would have been familiar with the concept of disease transmission, as they knew how to use quarantines to suppress outbreaks. As the Europeans cared little for the Natives, no preventative measures were taken, putting at least part of the responsibility for the epidemics on the Europeans.
Reference
Corbett, P. S., Janssen, V., Lund, J. M., Pfannestiel, T. J., & Vickery, P. S. (2017). U.S. history. OpenStax.
This research proposal will give an overview of what led to relocation of the Cherokee Native Americans from their native lands in Georgia to Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
In brief the Trail of Tears as this relocation is usually referred to, is the US government enforced relocation of the Cherokee Native Americans from their native lands in Georgia to Tahlequah, Oklahoma (Calloway, 2008 p.34). This march was a distressing and tedious one for the Cherokee Nation. As a result more than 4000 deaths occurred during the march and afterwards in Oklahoma (Calloway, 2008 p.36). Approximately, 20% of the Cherokee Nation died either during the march, or shortly afterwards due to diseases such as dysentery among others (Calloway, 2008 p.36).
The Cherokee Nation call this march the Nunna daul Isunyi, or the Trail where We Cried (Steele, 1994 p.18). The march was exceptionally difficult, spanning over 1000 miles. Nearly, 2000 people died on the Trail of Tears, so cause for weeping is not hard to understand (Steele, 1994 p.18).
My thesis is that, the issues that determined this devastating decision by the US government started long before 1838, when Cherokees were forced to set foot on the Trail of Tears (Steele, 1994 p.23).
Expansion and land treaties in the areas surrounding Georgia in the 1800s resulted in the Compact of 1802 (Calloway, 2008 p.34). Part of this compact was an agreement to relocate Native American populations living on lands defined as Georgia (Calloway, 2008 p.45).
The Cherokee Indians, who affirmed themselves in 1827 to be a distinct nation, protested this relocation decision by the US government (Calloway, 2008 p.53). Several lawsuits went before the US Supreme Court contesting the right of the US government to forcibly relocate members of the Cherokee Nation (Calloway, 2008 p.22). Further, not all were in support of the actions that led to the Trail of Tears (Steele, 1994 p.23). In particular, Davy Crockett and writer Ralph Waldo Emerson contested the actions taken by the US government, and either spoke or wrote impassioned appeals on behalf of the Cherokees (Steele, 1994 p.23).
The treaty that was ratified by the US government, ostensibly giving up claim to any lands east of the Mississippi by the Cherokees, was not signed by any Cherokee leaders (Calloway, 2008 p.34). However, Presidential support first by Andrew Jackson and then Martin Van Buren was for the forced relocation (Calloway, 2008 p.34). Thus in 1838, at gunpoint, Cherokee people were removed from their homes and set off to march on the Trail of Tears (Calloway, 2008 p.46).
Most of the Cherokee Nation, about 17,000 people, was forced to march on the Trail of Tears, and much of the relocation was actually conducted and supervised by Cherokee leaders (Calloway, 2008 p.24). It should be noted that, the Cherokee group was extremely westernized as compared to some of the other Native American groups (Calloway, 2008 p.27). They lived in villages, made use of the American political system, and wealthy Cherokee people might own slaves (Calloway, 2008 p.27). Actually, 2000 slaves also marched on the Trail of Tears with their Cherokee owners (Calloway, 2008 p.27).
About 1000 Cherokee people were exempt from the enforced march because they lived on lands already owned by individuals who opposed the march (Steele, 1994 p.42). Additionally, about 400 Cherokee people in North Carolina also evaded the Trail of Tears (Steele, 1994 p.42). Nevertheless, most in the Cherokee Nation endured the indignities and the suffering of this forced march (Steele, 1994 p.44).
Perhaps, because of the Cherokee’s strength as a nation, and ability to work with the US government, the Cherokee Nation recovered from their devastating losses and has remained one of the largest groups of Native American people in modern days (Calloway, 2008 p.37). Efforts have been made in the past to commemorate and compensate for the intense suffering inflicted on the Cherokee Nation by the US government (Calloway, 2008 p.27). A 2000 mile trail called the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail was dedicated in 1987 (Steele, 1994 p.23). The trail crosses through nine states and serves as a reminder of the injustices committed by the US government toward the first Americans (Calloway, 2008).
Works cited
Calloway, Colin G. First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History. Third Edition. New York and Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s Press, 2008.
Steele, Ian K. Warpaths: Invasions of North America. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
The United States of America is a diverse nation, and different groups of people engage in various activities. In recent months, a number of events involving the Native American community have taken place. This report aims to review the current prominent events for the native American tribes. Specifically, incidents involving culture, healthcare, discrimination, territory, and changes in the law and official guidelines will be discussed.
COVID-19 Vaccination in Alaska
The COVID-19 pandemic and different measures and vaccination drive against it is the top news story in many communities. The USA is one of the world’s leaders in immunization, with some regions in the state of Alaska showing the highest vaccination rates for adults aged 16 and older (Bohrer, 2021). The regional tribal health organization states that over 80 percent of the state’s eligible residents received at least one dose of the vaccine (Bohrer, 2021).
Such isolated communities as St. Lawrence Island have been at the forefront of the campaign to protect the community’s lives. In remote areas, where the toll of previous flu and tuberculosis epidemics has been substantial, the local government achieved the highest vaccination rates in the country (Bohrer, 2021). According to Bohrer (2021), the Indian Health Service is responsible for the distribution of the doses in the region, with the organization managing to extend eligibility quicker than the rest of the country and exchange doses with communities outside of the state. Overall, Alaska illustrates the exemplary vaccine roll-out, with most of its Native American population being inoculated.
However, due to the climate and the geography of the state, the logistics of the vaccine drive have proven to be challenging. In Tanana, Alaska, the drop in temperatures below 40°C resulted in the healthcare team being unable to fly out to the city and provide vaccine doses to over a hundred people (Bohrer, 2021). Due to poor weather conditions, two planes could not start, prompting the third plane to be commissioned to pick up the medical team and transport it to Tanana (Bohrer, 2021).
However, in many remote cities and villages accessible only by air, most citizens have already been vaccinated. For example, over 90% of people living in the isolated community of White Mountain received their doses (Bohrer, 2021). Thus, Alaska is one of the leading states in the vaccination roll-out even with the encountered logistics issues.
Native American Land Updates
The issue of land being returned to the Native American community has been a highly debated one in the United States. Currently, the US Interior Department is working on overturning the policies implemented during the presidency of Donald Trump, which hindered “efforts by tribes to establish, consolidate and govern their homelands” (Brown, 2021). Recently, Deb Haaland, the first Native American Interior Secretary, released an order allowing Bureau of Indian Affairs officials to authorize the transfer of private land not located on reservations into federal trust (Brown, 2021). However, until the surrendered territory is transferred into the trust, the legal title is given to the federal government (Brown, 2021).
The fee-to-trust procedure will help protect the tribal land from the acquisition by individuals and businesses and its exploitation that does not benefit the tribe. Thus, this will allow the Native American tribes and individuals to use their ancestral land without having to pay local and state taxes to the government.
Native American land ownership has been substantially reviewed in recent years. Thus, from 2017, off-reservation trust land decisions can be made only by the assistant secretary in the headquarters of the Interior Department (Brown, 2021). However, today the decision is being disputed by the National Congress of American Indians, as it allowed off-reservation acquisitions without tribal consultation (Brown, 2021).
The Interior Department aims to overturn this ruling to afford more control over their territory to the Native American tribes (Brown, 2021). Today, the department seeks to ensure that each tribe has its own territory “where its citizens can live together” or use it for economic activity (Brown, 2021). Overall, when addressing the issue of Native American land, the US Interior Department aims to reverse policies that removed control over their territories from the Native American community.
Tribal Friendly Future
Many people have argued that the relationships between tribes and the federal government should be addressed to ensure all individuals are appreciated. The Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland has argued that the Biden administration should focus on restoring and upholding nation-to-nation relationships with Native American tribes that suffered substantially during Trump’s presidency (Agoyo, 2021). Along with ensuring that tribes have more control over how their lands are used, Haaland announced new policies that will help Native Americans to reclaim their ancestral territory (Agoyo, 2021). Furthermore, measures to guarantee all tribes are treated equally by the federal government.
The department allowed the state to re-establish their territory through the fee-to-trust procedure offered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was earlier available in 48 other states (Agoyo, 2021). Thus, the tribes of Alaska are now granted control over their ancestral land that previously was taken from them.
Furthermore, several other bureaucratic roadblocks and policies preventing Native American tribes from regaining control over their territories and opening businesses were recently re-assessed. Biden administration approved a legal option that minimizes the Supreme Court’s Carcieri v. Salazar decision (Agoyo, 2021). The Carcieri v. Salazar case allowed rejection of the Native American lands to be admitted into the federal trust, limiting the control of the tribes over their ancestral territories (Agoyo, 2021).
The new policy will allow the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to be involved in all fee-to-trust applications, ensuring that the process is unbiased and objective. The federal government views the bureau’s involvement as a logical measure as regional officials are more familiar with the needs of the local Native American community and can respond to them better (Agoyo, 2021). Overall, the new policies ensure that Native tribes have control over how their land is used and removes a number of bureaucratic barriers.
The Death of a Nomadic Innu
The nomadic Innu were among the first people in North America to come into contact with European explorers. Since they spent the majority of the year deep in the interior of Quebec-Labrador, the group was less well-known than other aboriginal groups from further west. Last week, the tribe in Labrador paid their respects to Sebastian Penunsi, an elder who died at the age of 91 (McCann, 2021). He was born in 1930 and lived on the land for most of his life (McCann, 2021). Penunsi was among the last individuals from nomadic Innu and one of the few who have followed the caribou herds across the Labrador Peninsula, as his ancestors did before him (McCann, 2021). His death is an immeasurable loss for the tribe as he was a respected elder.
Sebastian Penunsi was a renowned advocate for Native American rights and has contributed significantly to the representation of the Innu in the country. Penunsi collected information on the tribe’s ancestral territory and participated in mapping important sites of the tribe. Notably, his map was used in land negotiations with the Innu (McCann, 2021). The elder was also involved in the construction of land travel and hunting routes in the tribe’s territory, ensuring the protection of the nomadic Innu’s sacred sites (McCann, 2021).
Furthermore, Penunsi testified in court to the customs and traditions of his tribe and was a witness at a constitutional hearing on the subject of Innu hunting of caribou (McCann, 2021). According to MP Peter Penashue, Penunsi actively fought to protect and preserve the Innu culture and way of life (McCann, 2021). His passing is viewed as one of the most significant losses for the tribe as the elder was actively involved in preserving the knowledge of the nomadic Innu and the survival of the tribe.
The Genocidal Past
Recently, the Native American community remembered the genocides committed against it by the first European settlers. On April 24th, 2021, President Joe Biden became the first leader of the United States to publicly acknowledge the Armenian genocide by discussing the Ottoman-era mass slaughter of Armenian people (Giago, 2021). The president paid tribute to the millions of Armenians who were prosecuted and killed in Europe by the Ottoman Empire, apologizing for its actions and vowing to do better in the future (Giago, 2021).
However, the president was widely criticized for failing to recognize the genocide of indigenous people in his speech, which began when the pilgrims arrived on the continent. Millions of Native American lives were taken by the colonizers, who saw the people of the continent they chose to settle on as the barrier to their westward expansion (Giago, 2021). Thus, failing to acknowledge the Native American community can be viewed as somewhat hypocritical of the president.
The conflicts between the indigenous tribes and the European settlers are some of the bloodiest in American history. According to the historian Tyler Quinn Farkas (Giago, 2021), the actual numbers of lives lost to the genocide of the Native American people are covered up by the government.
Farkas argues that the number is at least two or three times higher than the official of 100 million fatalities (Giago, 2021). Thus, the failure to mention the persecution of the indigenous people was viewed as a mistake and an insult by the Native American community. According to Giago (2021), despite the centuries of attempts to eradicate the Native American cultures and traditions, the tribes continued to survive in the face of great adversity. Overall, President Biden’s formal apology to the Native American community and paying respect to millions of lost lives would be seen as a welcomed gesture.
The Statues That Tell the Truth
The history of a country can be told through a plethora of media, including art and architecture. The statues erected in the memory of different individuals often reflect whom the vast majority of people view as worthy of honor and what characteristics are praised in society. Recently, the state of Washington decided to replace the statue of Marcus Whitman, a white protestant, with one of Billy Frank Jr., a Native American activist who passed away in 2014 (Egan, 2021).
Billy Frank Jr. was a leader of the Nisqually tribe who fought for equality for Native American people and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama (Egan, 2021). In contrast, Marcus Whitman was a priest who tried to convert indigenous people to Christianity against their will (Egan, 2021). The replacement of Whitman’s statue in the National Statuary Hall Collection can be viewed as a progressive step in honoring all Native American people and their contribution to the county.
Nevertheless, the replacement is not welcomed by everyone in the country. For example, former Senator Rick Santorum argues against it, claiming “there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture” (Egan, 2021). This statement illustrates that the equality that Billy Frank Jr. fought for is still unacceptable to some people who refuse to see the crimes committed against the Native American community by the European settlers.
Furthermore, the replacement of Whitman’s statue by one of Mr. Frank Jr. can be viewed as symbolic justice, as the former represents the oppressive and genocidal past of the Unites States (Egan, 2021). However, in the discussion of symbolic justice, it should not be forgotten that Billy Frank Jr. was a remarkable man who earned the honor of being commemorated in the Capitol. The erection of his statue should not be viewed as an issue of race but rather as an issue of merit.
Native Americans are Dying from COVID-19 at Twice the Rate of White Americans
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected various populations globally, with the virus spreading from China over the world at an unprecedented pace. In the United States, some communities were impacted more than others, with higher levels of infections and deaths. According to Lakhani (2021), Native Americans are disproportionately affected by the current pandemic. Official statistics reveal that one in every 475 indigenous individuals has died from the virus, compared to one in every 645 African Americans and one in every 825 white Americans (Lakhani, 2021).
However, it can be argued that the actual death toll is much higher, with some cases of COVID-19 being not being reported. In addition, not all states provide an accurate recollection of how many Native Americans were affected by and died from COVID-19 (Lakhani, 2021). Thus, the pandemic proves to be particularly dangerous to the indigenous people of the country, with the official numbers requiring additional investigation and verification.
Furthermore, the cultural implications of the pandemic need to be addressed. According to Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear, an assistant professor of American Indian studies (Lakhani, 2021), the long-term impact of the pandemic is difficult to calculate, with many families and tribes decimated by the virus. Community cohesiveness and resilience were significantly affected by COVID-19, with many tribes losing their elders and leaders (Lakhani, 2021).
The broader implication for Native Americans is the loss of their culture. With many of the pandemic victims speaking dying languages and being the teachers in their tribes, younger generations of Native Americans may not be able to learn more about their culture (Lakhani, 2021). Within the community, social distancing and personal hygiene measures are being encouraged, with many people assisting the homeless and helping them focus on their health and safety (Lakhani, 2021). Overall, the effect of the pandemic on the Native American community is illustrative of the longstanding inequalities in the United States.
A Huge Victory
The issue of Native American land and how it is affected by the border between the United States and Canada has been a highly disputed one for decades. Historically, the ancestral territory of some of the northern tribes straddles the modern border, raising the question of the legitimacy of the Native Americans in Canada. In April of 2021, Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the members of tribes whose land extends across the international border can claim Aboriginal rights in Canada without requiring the application for residency or citizenship (Kunze, 2021). Thus, the ruling allows for the members of the northern tribes to be viewed as aboriginal citizens, with their culture and tradition being granted legal protection.
Furthermore, the ruling opens up the border for the members of the northern Native American tribes. According to Kunze (2021), Canada’s border crossing substantially limited the list of items that indigenous people could bring with them to the country, even if their use were strictly traditional and ceremonial. Thus, some of the Alaskan tribes could not perform the potlatch ceremonies in Canada, having an adverse effect on their customs (Kunze, 2021).
In addition, both American and Canadian tribes could not engage in the practice of barter due to the border. One of the tribes that will be affected by the new ruling is the Chilkat Indians, who dwell near the American Canadian border and, before the law, were often subjected to border checks. Overall, the Supreme Court ruling allowed the free movement of Native Americans on their ancestral lands, granting them unprecedented privileges on the territory of another country. It is expected that awarding Native Americans with Aboriginal rights in Canada will help restore and further the relationships between tribes in the two countries.
Conclusion
In summary, recently, the Native American community experienced several significant events that will affect them in the future. For example, many tribes received certain territorial privileges as the fee-to-trust procedure was amended, while some of the northern tribes were granted Aboriginal rights in Canada. In addition, most of the tribes were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and saw the death of its many elders.
1875: A recount of the events that the Native Americans were faced within 1875
It is nearing midnight, and my family is preparing to retire to bed. Today has been a peaceful night, save for the wind that causes the fire to make a cracking sound. Through a wide crack on the wall of our hut, I can see the moon outside shining brightly. The prevailing atmosphere does little to contain the mounting tension in our village following revelations from our tribal leaders that very soon the white man shall invade our land.
We are members of the Sioux Indians, and specifically, we are part of the Oglala tribe. We occupy the Western prairies and the Northern Great Plains, near Canada (Johansen, 2006). It is not the first time that I have had of villages being invaded by the white man. He intends to take our ancestral land, effectively forcing us to live under reservation under his terms. Initially, the coming of white settlers into our lands did not pose any danger.
However, in 1849, the talk was a life that the railroad needed to be constructed to facilitate the transportation of gold that had been discovered in California. I also remember my mother narrating to me once how in 1854, an impetus and ignorant army lieutenant “set out from Fort Laramie to investigate the matter of a stray cow and provoked a fight that caused the deaths of his entire command”- The Grattan Massacre” (Dobak, 2005).
Thus far, our way of life involved practicing Sundance and buffalo hunting. We had initially moved from the North East heading towards the Southwest because of the mounting hostility between our tribe and the vicious Ojibwa, who were lucky to have guns as weapons, thanks to the Europeans (American Indians, n.d). There was a rumor circulating last year (1874) that gold had been discovered in the Black Hills. Col. George Custer is believed to have been behind this rumor, and soon enough, we witnessed an increase in the number of white settlers. Following the occupation of our land, we had no choice but to move. I vividly recall that on the day that we were meant to move, it was extremely cold.
1876: Invasion of the lands occupied by the Native Americans by the white man
My Oyate (people) have refused to move away from our village, and this makes Colonel George Custer be a very displeased person. I have heard rumors circulating in the village that the white man is on his way here to remove us from our village, and forcefully take us to reservations. Every other day, the warriors are preparing for the impending war with the white man. At night, the warriors smoke the peyote as they pray.
My mother is confident about the wisdom of our leaders and believes that one day we shall be free from the invasions of the white man. My father calls my mother from outside the hut, informing her of his intention to go for a hunting spree. We are expected to wait for his return from the hunting trip (Ager, 2008). My mother insists on the need to always uphold the Sioux tribe culture, as we enjoy the buffalo meat that father has brought home from his hunting trip.
While still camping on the Powder River, the white man attacked us. Our warriors fought back bravery, and the war results in the death of Colonel George Custer. Days have now turned into a week ever since we defeated the white man but our people are being killed by the U.S government. As a result, our Oyate (people) have had to once again move towards Southwest Dakota, where we hope to assimilate into the reservations. At our new area of settlement, the land is scarce and it is now very hard to hunt for buffaloes. We are now in 1876, and we have integrated with the additional tribe, but we do not get along well. On the reservation, the white man is king, and our tribal leaders are powerless.
1881: Settling in the new reserves in South Dakota
We still practice the Ghost Dance that has become quite popular ever since the victory we had over the white man. The Mighty Bull, a great leader of our Sioux tribe, joins us from his exile in Canada, where he had moved following the 1876 war with the white man. He tells us that we need to hold dear to the land that we now have and not fall to the temptation of selling it to the white man.
1887: Assimilation with the other tribes
I am 24 years old today and can attest to knowing better about the ways of the white man. I am obliged to ensure that the children in the reservation know about our culture, lest it becomes forgotten. This year, we have also witnessed the passing of the Allotment Act. However, our tribal leaders were not in agreement about the act. Accruing to the Allotment Act, the land is owned individually by the tribal members. Since we cannot be able to live off the land soon enough, we could lose what we have to the white man.
1890: Inter-tribe wars
I have now been teaching for three years. Today, I heard the news about the killings of two of our tribal leaders; The Mighty Bull and the Wise one, our Sioux chief. Specifically, the Mighty Bull had died following battle injuries sustained while fighting with a group of his people. I am quite saddened by this news. Nonetheless, our Sioux leaders shall continue to be remembered by future generations.
1934: A reflection of the changing lives of the Native Americans and what the future holds for its rich culture
I am now an old man of 71 years and our ancestors are still mourned by our people. Nearly 300,000 Native Americans lost their lives in battles between 1800 and 1900 (American Indians, n.d). The Reorganization Act has also been established and according to this Act, all of us in the reservations are now expected to assimilate the way of life of the white people, including forming a government that has been duly elected.
Conclusion
I am fearful of the fate that could befall our Oyate (people). All that we can do now is to pray and hope that the successive generations shall continue to take the price of our unique cultural heritage.
Reference List
Ager, S. (2008). Omniglot. writing systems & languages of the world. Web.
American Indians (n.d). American Indians. Web.
Dobak, W. A. (2005). The Blue Creek and the First Sioux War 1854-1856. Kansas History, 28 (1), 74-74.
Johansen, B. E. (2006). The native peoples of North America. New York: Rutgers University Press.
European settlers began to troop into North America later in the 15th Century as missionaries, trappers, explorers, and traders. The settlers were mainly made of French, British, and the Spanish who interacted differently with the natives depending on their primary mission. The British were principally looking for land due to their rapidly growing population. The French were mainly interested in trading opportunities offered by the new land. As for the Spanish, their primary objective was occupation. This paper seeks to briefly explain how the French, British and the Spanish dealt with Native Americans.
The main interaction point for the British and the Native Americans was the Eastern shoreline. Unlike other settlers, the British did not have much interest in the Native Americans. They only depended on the Indians to help them adapt to the harsh environment. They gradually began to interact with the natives who educated them on how to cultivate and cope during winter times. The relationship would gradually change as the British settlers developed theirs on survival skills. A trade relationship was established where by the natives would exchange food and luxuries for guns. In the meantime more settlers were arriving and thus the need for more land to settle them. Thus animosity began to grow as the new settlers were offered land that was already settled on by the natives. The French settlers had their own reservations about the British and in the end they combined forces with the Indian natives to wedge war against the British settlers. This resulted in a major conflict for the control of North America and was eventually won by the British.
The Spanish settlers had no particular way of dealing with the Natives. A portion of them thought they were bringing Christianity and civilization to them. Others believed that the natives were entitled to their land and no one had a right to take it away from them. Thus they would introduce them to Christianity and school them on European civilization. However, some Spanish settlers brutally annihilated the Native Americans, slaving them in one of the worst slavery conditions ever witnessed on earth. It has been reported that an average slave did not last for a single year under the Spaniards. They were subjected to work without proper food in the plantations and mines; as a consequence, many Native Americans died. It is estimated that up to 40% of the natives died during the 16th century Spanish rule.
Interaction between the French and Native Americans was largely on a mutual basis. Soon after their settlement in America the French established trading posts that mainly dealt with fur. The French setup forts in Indiana and solicited protection from the Natives against the growing British population. A part from trading, the French had also assumed the task of spreading the gospel to the natives. The rapidly growing population of the British settlers led to the war that had them on one side and French and natives on the other. The war would later escalate to a major battle for the control of North America.
This paper sought to find out how the British, Spanish and the French interacted with the Native Americans. It has been established that the British settlers initially had good relations with the natives but this changed with the changing circumstances mainly due to the need for land. The Spanish were undecided on what to do with the natives; as a result different factions treated them differently, some spreading the gospel to them while the majority others unleashing terror in one of the worst slavery practices even witnessed on earth. To the natives, the French were generally good people who interacted with them on a mutual basis dealing mainly in trading activities.
Nursing is a profession that encompasses the natural attributes of care. Nurses have to take care of the patient professionally while enhancing the personal responsibility of care. It is part of the human nature that one cannot abdicate to anyone else.
The two-year-old Native American girl had sustained a large second degree burn on her right leg. As part of the follow-up process, the public health nurse had to pay a visit to the family to take care of the wound (Boykin & Schoenhofer, 2001). The treatment consisted of applying the ointment and bandaging the wound. The child’s mother thought that it was also her responsibility to ensure that the wound healed fast (Smith, Turkel & Wolf, 2013). She used to remove the bandage to air the wound. It was because she thought that by covering the wound, the nurse was causing it to gain a lot of heat which would delay the healing process. But the nurse was trying to prevent an infection due to the prevailing circumstances in the house (Boykin & Schoenhofer, 2001). All of them were applying their caring roles for the girl, and yet in different ways; one as a profession, and the other as a responsibility and care as a parent (Reed, Shearer & Nicoll, 2004).
Anne Boykin and Savina Schoenhofer – Nursing as Caring
Nursing as Caring theory is a wide theory with very many aspects that cover care (Boykin & Schoenhofer, 2001). There are a few assumptions that Anne Boykin and Savina Schoenhofer considered as very important in accommodation of this theory. One is that persons are caring by virtue of their humanness. It is in the human nature to be a caring person (Masters, 2012). Persons live their caring from moment to moment. The mother to the Native give would always ensure that she did her best according to the knowledge she had to care for the girl.
Persons are whole or complete at the moment of care (Alligood & Marriner-Tomey, 2010). One can only reach fulfillment in life when he or she cares for others. Personhood is living the life grounded in caring (Smith, Turkel & Wolf, 2013). One can enhance personhood through participating in nurturing relationships with caring for others. Apart from that people understand and think about nursing as a discipline and profession (Boykin & Schoenhofer, 2001). Caring for human beings is innate. One, therefore, needs to develop the full potential of caring as an ideal and lifelong process (Boykin & Schoenhofer, 2001).
The theory promotes the basic requirements of nursing and advances principles that make it a standalone theory. However, it can also work with other theories to promote diversity (Boykin & Schoenhofer, 2001). Nursing promotes nurturing caring that is essential for the wholeness of a person. Caring is also a process that everyone grows through and ends up practicing in life (Alligood & Marriner-Tomey, 2010).
Madeleine Leininger- Culture Care: Diversity and Universality Theory
Madeleine was a nurse who, through experience, learned the importance of caring in nursing. She discovered that it was central to the development of the profession (Leininger & McFarland, 2006). When she worked in a child guidance home, she found out that recurrent behavioral patterns in children appeared to have a cultural basis (Alligood & Marriner-Tomey, 2010). The reason nursing was not doing well was because there was a lack of cultural and care knowledge. It led her to come up with the new phenomenon that she called transcultural nursing (Leininger & McFarland, 2006).
The theory was supposed to provide care that worked together with one’s or a group’s cultural beliefs. For instance, the mother of the American girl had believed that the healing of the wound was dependent upon the balance between heat and cold things (Leininger & McFarland, 2006). The ointment was providing healing by cooling the wound. However, the bandage added too much heat due to the covering of the wound. It is the reason she always removed the bandage to air the wound and allow it to heal naturally (Leininger & McFarland, 2006). The clinician had to discuss the matter with the mother so that they can come up with a common solution. It was to encompass the mother’s traditional views while accepting the modern treatment. They applied the culturally congruent care that Madeleine had come up with, years into her discoveries.
She outlined some assumptions to go hand in hand with the key terms she developed for this theory. Care is the essence and central focus of nursing. Caring is very important in a person’s life especially for health and well-being, and among other areas of concern (Masters, 2012). Culture care is a broad and holistic perspective that guides the nursing care. For anyone to promote the culture, there are values that influence its operation and existence. The values include religion, language, spiritual, social, and political view. All these are just part of the enormous list of essential assumptions (Leininger & McFarland, 2006).
Observation to the Case Study
It would be prudent for the patient to have a session with the clinician. The can then set the stage for the treatment at the initial stages. The plan would enable the nurse to understand the patient. It would make the patient gain confidence in the nursing services. Once they involve care into their work with the patients, nurses can find it easy to associate with all patients.
References
Alligood, M., & Marriner-Tomey, A. (2010). Nursing theorists and their work. Maryland Heights, Mo.: Mosby/Elsevier.
Boykin, A., & Schoenhofer, S. (2001). Nursing as caring. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Leininger, M., & McFarland, M. (2006). Culture care diversity and universality. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Masters, K. (2012). Nursing theories. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Reed, P., Shearer, N., & Nicoll, L. (2004). Perspectives on nursing theory. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Smith, M., Turkel, M., & Wolf, Z. (2013). Caring in nursing classics. New York, NY: Springer Publication.