I found the most interesting section of this chapter to be when he was talking about how Native Americans weren't as innocent as is it usually taught they were, and how they came about possessing a lot of their land by conquest (the same way the rest of the world went about it). As I've often said), history is created by those who write it down. If you don't write it down, history will most likely be forgotten within a generation or two. Before the Civil Rights Era, the Native Americans were often looked at as people who needed to be "civilized" and adjust to join white America. During the Civil Rights Era, the view of Native Americans changed to be people who were completely innocent victims, people who held nature in the highest esteem, and who completely did not deserve the evil that befell them (this was the history that I was taught when I was young). I find it interesting that it seems the truth of the matter falls somewhere in between, and I enjoyed Ambrose's description of that. I also found his proposal to return the eastern third of Montana and some of the Dakotas to the Native Americans very interesting and wonder what the average Americans would think if that was seriously proposed. What do you think?
As Barack Obama showed during the last presidential election, words themselves have great importance. In this chapter, Ambrose purports a view that I haven't often heard before. As a youngster, when I learned about the treatment of Native Americans, I learned of it as a "genocide." A genocide is currently defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially of a particularly ethnic group or nation." Ambrose feels that it was not a genocide because most of their deaths were caused by the introduction of European diseases, most of all smallpox. Does that mean that it was a holocaust ("destruction or slaughter on a mass scale") but not a genocide? Is it a genocide if most of a group of people are killed, even if the "killers" don't "mean it?" Do you have to have a goal of murdering all of a certain type of people in order for it to be a genocide? What should be the definition of that word? And if it wasn't a "genocide," do you imagine that Native Americans would find it offensive to NOT have what was done to them termed a genocide? I found the most interesting section of this chapter to be when he was talking about how Native Americans weren't as innocent as is it usually taught they were, and how they came about possessing a lot of their land by conquest (the same way the rest of the world went about it). As I've often said), history is created by those who write it down. If you don't write it down, history will most likely be forgotten within a generation or two. Before the Civil Rights Era, the Native Americans were often looked at as people who needed to be "civilized" and adjust to join white America. During the Civil Rights Era, the view of Native Americans changed to be people who were completely innocent victims, people who held nature in the highest esteem, and who completely did not deserve the evil that befell them (this was the history that I was taught when I was young). I find it interesting that it seems the truth of the matter falls somewhere in between, and I enjoyed Ambrose's description of that. I also found his proposal to return the eastern third of Montana and some of the Dakotas to the Native Americans very interesting and wonder what the average Americans would think if that was seriously proposed. What do you think? This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
7 Comments
Andreina
4/9/2010 12:36:22 pm
Chapter 3
Reply
Andrew
4/11/2010 10:54:24 am
Chpt 3
Reply
Regina
4/14/2010 12:49:53 pm
1. I think that words like genocide or holocaust is a little too strong when talking about what happened with native Americans. Therefore, I cant fit the right word with this sort of thing.
Reply
Katherine
4/18/2010 02:24:47 am
1. I think that the definition for the term Genocide is fine the way it is. Even though the author says that maybe the Indians were not as "innocent" as we are taught, I still think that what was done to them was completely wrong. Maybe small pox and those other diseases did kill many of them, but the White men were also involved in that as well. Even though the author considers Andrew Jackson a great man, I don't because he was one of the men that hurt the Indians, and was involved in their GENOCIDE. I think that Native Americans will totally find it offensive if what was done to them was not called a Genocide, because that's exactly what it was. If I was them I would also find it very offensive if it was not called a Genocide. Okay, about the proposal part I think that it would only be fair if it really was given to them because they deserve it. More than half of their culture was destroyed and all promises were broken and I don't think they were ever payed back for it.
Reply
Justin
4/19/2010 03:21:52 am
1. I think it was a holocaust because most of the deaths were caused
Reply
Randy
4/25/2010 12:55:11 pm
1. I guess it would be a holocaust. What Justin is saying makes sense. The killing wasn't intentional. It was the disease that killed off the Natives. I agree with Justin about having a goal for a genocide. There has to be a reason why a large group of people is being killed. A genocide is if you have a reason for killing so many people.
Reply
7/26/2012 06:48:41 pm
Surely,Chilly location! We stumbled on the cover and I�m your personal representative. limewire limewire
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Assignments:1. Answer any and all blog posts to the left by their due dates (which can be found on SnapGrades) * Ms. Cohen's Contact Information *
|