October 13 Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Washington *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
231
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by GrandOpossum3621
October 13 Questions
1. After quoting President Obama, Dunbar-Ortiz writes: “The affirmation of democracy requires the denial of colonialism, but
denying it does not make it go away” (116). Using her concept of “populist imperialism” (106), how would you explain her
argument in your own words?
Dundar-Ortiz’s concept of “populist imperialism” depicts the idea that wars for
conquering nations and land, wars to show power can be led by the people. The young men of
the nation that help promise opportunity, to “expand economic opportunity, democracy, and
freedom for all” (106). This narrative helps push what argument Dunbar -Ortiz originally makes
that states, “The affirmation of democracy requires the denial of colonialism, but denying it does
not make it go away” (116). It is a political strategy that indoctrinates the masses to believe that,
if the notion is pushed hard enough, pretending something isn’t colonialism makes it not
colonialism. Populist imperialism pushes the idea that it is just a group of people attempting to
gain authority and power against just one group of people, or community, over and over again.
When in reality they classify everyone other than themselves in the ame group, as inferiors.
Making it easier for themselves to be seen as higher authority. Them doing this proves that it is
colonialism, that they are gaining power in destructive ways.
2.How do you make sense of some Indigenous nations allying with the Confederacy and African Americans (“buffalo soldiers")
fighting against Indigenous peoples?
It can be quite difficult to make sense of Indigenous nations allying with the Confederacy
and African Anericans fighting against other Indigenous people, however it seemed to be what
was necessary for the time period. During this time, Abraham Lincoln was instated into
presidency and during this time he campaigned for free land, which got accepted. However this
land was already occupied by Indigenous nations, so 5 nations signed treaties with the
Confederacy to fight alongside them if they let them keep their land. At this point in time it was
looking good for the Confederacy and poor for the rest of the United States. They had many
different people with different background experiences with essentially all the same end goal, to
be free.
3. Some of the words that Dunbar-Ortiz uses to describe and explain U.S. policies against Indigenous communities include:
“foreign wars,” “ethnic cleansing,” “counterinsurgency,” “final solution,” and “genocide.” How do those words make you feel?
Would you use other words instead? If so, why?
The words Dunbar-Ortiz uses to describe and explain U.S. policies against Indigenous
communities make me feel grief and resentment. Taken out of context, the words she uses portrays
the idea that whatever is happening seems to be the only way, which inevitably leads to
destruction. Taken back into context I believe the words Dunbar-Ortiz chose shows a great amount
of insight into the true and disheartening lives in which Indigenous people had to endure in that
time period. What sadness they had to go through and fight to do what's best for their communities
and nations.
4. What did freedom mean to Black women in Atlanta? What strategies did they use to liberate themselves from slavery?
Freedom to Black women in Atlanta meant a lot, they were treated as if they were
animals. Savage beings that got used and thrown away. Black women were suppressed, they
were treated as if they were filthy that they didn’t deserve anything. Men would get beaten if
they were caught having sex with black women. To black women freedom meant happiness, it
meant a chance to live a full life, with a family and to be treated as if they were actual human
beings. Over the years they used many strategies in order to liberate themselves from slavery.
One of those being escaped, by leaving they were defying the law and would be punished if they
were caught, however, they were getting punished either way. They would pretend to be ill,
break property, and relatively do anything that would get them out of labor so they could
essentially boycott the system. These women were smart, relentless, and strong, they did
whatever was necessary to be free.
5. How was Justice Roger Taney’s historical interpretation of race and the founding of the United States correct and/or incorrect?
Ultimately, what did the
Dred Scott
decision rule about race and slavery?
Justice Roger Taney’s historical interpretation of race and the founding of the United
States was incorrect. On all accounts no matter fact or not, he ruled in favor of slavery. His
opinion was announced to be “wicked,” “atrocious,” and “abominable” (DredScott v. Sandford
367). The decisions he had made were seen as repulsive to others and took the facts from the
case out of context. Ultimately, the
Dred Scott
decision ruled that race and slavery that it is only
allowed in some selected territories. People were ecstatic that most places ruled against slavery
saying it was a,
“landmark in constitutional history as an example of the Supreme Court trying to
impose a judicial solution on a political problem. Some Americans, particularly Southerners and
Northern Democrats who were indifferent to slavery, praised the decision as a valiant effort to
end the politi-cally explosive debate over slavery in the territories” (367). It was a decision that
upset many other people, such as slave owners, and larger political parties. Race and slavery has
been an arguable topic for centuries and this further goes to prove that point.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help