Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
It is hard to conclude whether the solution to the "Indian problem" pursued by the U.S. government in the nineteenth century was successful or not because in this case the definition of "success" is problematic. The exterminationist camp would view killing all Indians as a "success," while for the other camp thoroughly Americanizing Indians was a sign of success. Both goals were problematic, the former calling for a physical genocide and the latter calling for a cultural genocide. The latter policy was adopted by the U.S. government but it was an assault on Native American identity, culture, and the way of life. It also involved violence, as children of American Indians were taken away and placed in the boarding schools by force. It is difficult to speak of a "success" within this context.
But if we accept the definition of "success" as understood by Americans at the time, the...
It caused more problems than solutions. Taking away American Indian children from their parents was hardly an effective way of proving that the American way of life was more "civilized" and "uplifting." Hardly any Indian parent would be convinced. And the matter of teaching in boarding schools alienated American Indian children rather than assimilating them. They returned to their homes sometimes bitterly resentful of the American system, ways of life, Christianity, and the treatment they received at the hands of Protestant educators. Therefore, the policy adopted by the government to solve the "Indian Problem" was a failure.
References
"Tragedy of the Plains Indians: Kill the Indian and Save the Man" (n.d.) Digital History. Retrieved on 15 Dec. 2011 from http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=557>
Removal Act of May 28, 1830 was an act by both Houses of Congress of the U.S., which provided for an exchange of lands with the native Indian tribes residing in any of the states or territories and for their removal west of the Mississippi River, their traditional land, to the prairies. It was signed by then President Andrew Jackson into law. The eviction of these Indian tribes from a
Indian Child Welfare Act History and context of the policy The Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978. This Act was a result of a series of deliberations, debates, and hearings to alleviate a terrific crisis of national proportions: the separation of Indian children from their families. The act was implemented due to the high rate of removal of Indian children from their traditional families and homes, primarily their
Family ties enabled him to straddle both worlds. Led his army in support of the British; remembered for atrocities his army supposedly committed and his attempts to keep tribal lands. Wampum Belt: Wampum=certain sea shells. Used for trade, but not exactly currency. Different colored shells valued differently. Wampum belts were woven to commemorate special occasions/given as gifts. Also used a sort of writing/memory. Hurons: Also called "Wendat." Occupied Ontario area. Iroquoian
It was also discovered that the Moderates did not have sufficient representation in Congress. The Moderates were aware of Tilak's loyalty to the Congress but did not appreciate it. They even thoroughly resisted his entry and that of his friends to it. Tilak then cooperated with Annie Besant in forming two home rule leagues, one in Maharashtra and the other in Madras. Their Lucknow Congress in 1916 healed the
Indian Dance An Analysis of the History and Origins of "Belly Dancing" Indian Dance is described in the West as "belly dancing," but the name "belly dancing" does not do justice to the style of dance which the title conveys. Indian and Middle Eastern dance actually has more of a history to it than what the West views merely as a kind of erotic show. Described as "danse du ventre" by the
77). India / Theoretical / Foreign Policy Shyness (Pant, 2009, p. 251). Pant's latest scholarship on India's foreign policies (2009, p. 253) is far more forceful and impactful than the narrative in his 2008 book. He chides India for not letting go of its Cold War foreign policy strategy. "The Cold War officially ended almost two decades ago," Pant writes (p. 253), and yet India continues to debate "the relevance of