Assimilation Of Native Americans

For almost as long as European settlers have interacted with the native peoples of the Americas, they have had a notion: what many call ‘assimilation’. To Europeans, assimilation of native peoples meant for their culture, which they believed to be superior, to be accepted over time by the natives. And as they grew more and more European in language, religion, customs, organization, morals, and behavior, they would slowly shed off all of their old culture which the European culture would be replacing. The Europeans believed this process was for the best for the natives and that they would be happier living ‘civilized’ lives as opposed to practicing their own traditions.

Assimilation policy proposed that ‘full blood’ Indigenous people should be allowed to ‘die out’ through a process of natural elimination, while ‘half-castes’ were encouraged to assimilate into the white community. This approach was founded on the assumption of black inferiority and white superiority. It was assumed that Indigenous people would enjoy the same quality of life as white Australians if they adopted European customs and everyone would live together as a single white Australian community. In actuality, assimilation policy further destroyed Indigenous identity, culture and families. It also was justification for the removal of Indigenous children from their

Native Americans have had a long history of resistance to the social and cultural assimilation into white culture. By employing various creative strategies, Native Americans have attempted to cope with the changes stemming from the European colonial movement into the Americas. There are fundamental differences in world views and cultural and social orders between Indians and Europeans, which contributed to conservatism in Native American cultures. In this paper, two aspects of such cultural and institutional differences of Native American societies will be examined: holistic Native American beliefs versus dualistic world views and harmony versus domination. These two aspects are important in terms of explaining changes (or lack thereof) in

During the 19th century, native americans were treated very poorly. Americans wanted more land, and there just happened to be someone living there. The natives were forced out of their homes into completely new places, marched places without food or care, and much more. The Americans believed what they were doing was right, but many of these events were covered up. Did the motives of nationalism and ethnic cleansing influence native resettlement and result in native assimilation around the turn of the 20th century?

The English ostracized the Native Americans and did not try to assimilate them as much as the Spanish did. There was some trade among the natives and the English, but for the most part the English drove Native Americans off of their homeland.

By the turn of the Twentieth Century, the American Indian population had been dramatically reduced, not only due to the policies adopted by the US government, but also due to disease and malnutrition - both of which had been byproducts of Indian contact with European Americans and American federal policy. Indian land ownership had dramatically declined. After allotment provisions of the Dawes Act, these lands were further reduced by almost two-thirds - from 138 million acres of land in 1890 to 48 million acres by 1934. Indians in all nations had been reduced to membership within a domestic dependent semi-sovereign nation under the paternalistic tutelage of the US government. These were spectacular clashes between the Sioux Indians and white men. They were spurred by gold-greedy miners rushing into Sioux land. The white men were breaking their treaty with the Indians. The Sioux Indians were led by Sitting Bull and they were pushed by Custer's forces. Custer led these forces until he was killed at the battle at Little Bighorn. Many of the Indian were finally forced into Canada, where they were forced by starvation to surrender

Throughout the history of America the thought of assimilation has been fought for and against. Many people, such as the Native Americans, were forcibly stripped of their culture and Americanized. Others, such as the German Americans, willingly assimilated in political views but tried to hold onto their culture. All of these situations lead to hatred from white Americans at some point throughout our history. The Native Americans during the westward expansion, German Americans during WWI, and Japanese immigrants during WWII. Even though some of these people had already assimilated, the fear that remained constant was the belief that people of different races and ethnicities were savages. That other cultures were an affront and could not

There alot of romanticized assumptions on this thread. There is no conclusive evidence that the colonists assimilated with the Native tribes. This evidence along with oral history is very problematic. First one would have to re examine known history as well as look through the understanding of both the tribes and the colonists.

Cultural contact challenged the religious and other values systems of the Europeans by causing some of the peasants to merge Christianity and Paganism. “Of course, many European peasants continued to merge old pagan beliefs in fairies and other nature spirits with their Christian notions”(20). As for the Native Americans, cultural contact challenged their religion because the Europeans tried to force Christianity onto the natives. When with Europeans, the natives would pretend to love Christianity, just so they wouldn’t get punished. When they returned to privacy, they would practice their own religion. Cultural contact also challenged the ethics of the Native Americans. The Europeans had a big demand for fur, especially beaver fur, to be used

The Native Americans went through a lot to get from where they are today in this world. The many battle that Indians had to go through to get where they are today being one too many to count. Native Americans’ lives were so different from how they had it back before the whites came in. The transformation Americans made them go through such as what they ate, how they lived, and what they wore was a big change for them.

Assimilation versus preservation of culture that compares and contrasts pros and cons of complete assimilation and preservation of culture and tries to answer solution of removing cons of each approach and combining of pros of each approach for migrant people to mitigate risks of losing identity and own cultural values and assimilating best values of host culture for personal refinement and harmony balance in host country.

The role of local government in shaping the assimilation of this community is to honor both parties of citizens. Government is the leaderships of group of people with the power to make decisions and carry them out and enforce the law. It exist to control people actions and behaviors. Government also has to give support and protection to citizens. The role of government should give hope and opportunities also. To accommodation cultural assimilations occurs when immigrants adopt their new country’s cultural practice to integrate into societies. Social acceptances is easier for groups who culture and appearance resemble to the majority of the group. Many groups have sever difficulty to integrate into mainstream United States society. The 18 year told that was interviewed was born and raised in Detroit but spent 2 years in Yemen. During his stay they he felt more protected and had better opportunities in American. It seems like his best experiences was the ability to practice his Arabic. Government should also understand and make accommodations to help it easier to assimilation. For example, some of the students had to change school because they were harassed by other students. From their harassment they had to open up their own school. To have a separate school because the minority cannot fit into the massive is similarly to segregations of blacks from white schools. African Americans had to then go to the same school for protection. It also leads to greater

When people leave their country to go to live or study in a new country, it is common for them to undergo a process of adaption to the new country and its culture. This process is often referred to as ‘acculturation’. The American researcher, Scarcella (1998), has outlined a four-stage theory of acculturation. Mesidor and Sly (2015) also describe the acculturation process. These researchers provide the main theoretical background to this essay. For this research a migrant to New Zealand was interviewed, and her experience is discussed throughout this essay. This essay will compare the experience of the interviewee with the theory of acculturation, with final comments on the importance of understanding the process of acculturation.

Immigration is a way to move from one country to another country. In Ethiopia’s case immigration is the incoming of refugees from Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan. The immigrants from these countries are in seek of peace and stability. Generally, when their lives are in danger, they flee to their closest safe country, Ethiopia. Most of these people walked to get to Ethiopia. According to the UNHCR of the United nations, 850,000 refugees from neighboring countries residing in Ethiopia and the country hosts the largest number of refugees in Africa. Ethiopia's immigration without assimilation policy benefits the immigrants in national identities, cultures, and language preservation and are most welcome to enter into the nation. So, national identity, culture and religion are the three aspects of the immigrants are preserved due to Ethiopia’s policy of no assimilation.

Asian immigrants and their offspring encounter vastly different assimilation experiences in the United States compared to early European immigrants, mainly due to their non-white status (Portes and Zhou 1993; Neckerman et al. 1999). Portes and Zhou (1993) consider this racial and phenotypical distinctiveness of post-1965 immigrants in the segmented assimilation theory, which provides three possible paths of integration for immigrants—straight-line, selective, and downward assimilation. Most Asian immigrants and their children experience selective assimilation, where they achieve rapid socioeconomic mobility while holding onto ethnic and immigrant community values and solidarity.