Moving Back Place

Doing so will help citizens to expand their conceptions of the land and begin to appreciate it’s many resources. Which is equally significant when one considers the recent climate changes and negative effects of human pollution of the earth. Some opponents argue that intrusions of sacred Native American land and that harnessing natural resources from said land is irrelevant in today’s day and age. But it must be argued that this assertion is false and that current events such as the recent standoff at Standing Rock Reservation over crude oil pipelines in North Dakota have proven that this issue is still alive and well in American society.

Explorers found gold in the Black Hills, a very sacred ancestral burial ground for the Lakota Indians but disregarded the Indian culture for their own gluttony. PBS historians described the Black Hills Expedition as: “After the Civil War…the U.S. government began to focus on its territories in the West. Thousands of white settlers set out to conquer the region, while the native populations were attempting to remain on the land they had occupied for centuries. Skirmishes between the U.S. government and the Native American populations grew increasingly frequent and brutal.” (PBS). Basically, thousands of white settlers moved out west in an attempt to conquer the region and be able to govern themselves, but the natives that had been there for centuries did not want to leave. This idea of “taking the land” caused disputes and tension between the races because of American and Indian cultural misunderstandings of the land. The Americans saw land as a prize while Natives thought of the land as a shared gift from God that everyone lived off of together. This ultimately caused frequent and brutal arguments between the U.S. Government and Native Americans. The natives saw the white Americans as disrespectful to mother nature and therefore there was no more respect between the whites and Indians. So at this point in time, tension is building up and there is no

Another reason why the Cherokee shouldn’t move is because the Americans had treated the Cherokee with disrespect. One way the Americans had treated the Cherokee disrespectfully is contacting the military to transport or move them to their new home. Another thing is and was that horses were stolen and hundreds and died from disease and malnutrition on the journey to the new land. Even though the Cherokee didn’t move to the new land when they were asked nicely. The Americans didn’t have the rights to force them to move because they had been there before they

This would be great for farmers to grow new crops. Also, this brought about large grasslands for cattle herders. But what about the people that were displaced in this situation? Did they not have a say in it? He does not describe abandoned dwellings as those of people that would have benefited from having their land razed. The people who originally had their pieces of land along the construction route, must have felt quite a bit “Indian” at the moment. Who else would come in, take your land away, and relocate you for their benefit? The wonderful United States of America would be the answer to that question.

The American people had a great relationship with the land. In “American Progress” it shows how people are wanting the land out west, so they are moving to the west. As the Americans and new technology are moving west, they’re pushing the Indians out of their own land. In the article “on Manifest Destiny,1839,” it states that the Manifest Destiny is the God given right that people can move west, and have a relationship with the land and do as they please with it. In the article it states,” The expansive future is our arena, and for our history.”

In the 1800’s America was trying to get rid of the native Americans and move them further west. Now the question is, whether staying or leaving would be the smartest decision. Some people disagree mostly due to either bias or just different beliefs. However, if you look at the situation objectively leaving would be the smartest decision.

On the Trail of Tears worksheet Document B states, “We will never let our hold on this land go...to let it go it will be like throwing away…[Our] mother that gave [Us] birth”. (1) This explains that the U.S. was expanding so the natives were pushed out of their homes because of the new lands being farmed and the factories being built.

White Settlers wanted to expand with growing population. There were valuable resources in these lands that have not yet been touched. White Settlers wanted

" These lands were taken away barely 50 years after they were assessed. The United States government played a cruel game when it relocated its Indian population (some could argue this as survival of the fittest, evolution). They turned a blind and mostly bias eye when it came to Indian politics and treaties they had made twenty years prior. They made promised that were going to be broken, and which there were no way of avoiding. In short, the government in a way did the same thing to the Indians that Jackson did to the Bank:

The land was the Cherokee's, to begin with before the whites came to America. The United States had no right to force the Cherokee to move. In the Cherokee letter, they stated about the land that, "It is our father's gift. It is the land of our origin and the land of our intellectual birth." When the whites came to America the land already belonged to the Cherokee. Their fathers had given it to them as children and they took care of it. The Cherokee fathers had died on their land. The Cherokee should not have to move to the west away from their homeland. The land was theirs, to begin with. Therefore, the United States should not have taken away their land.

It seems to be a recurring theme in American history that the white people will take land from anyone else. They excuse their actions by claiming to have a right given by God and, if that excuse does not justify their theft, that they are taking the land from lazy incompetent people. Examples of this excuse is found throughout American history and in Europe as well. Before Americans saw profit in taking a chunk of Mexico, they claimed the land of Native Americans on the Eastern shore by pretending that the Native Americans were savages and heathens who should praise the good white people for coming to civilize them and the land. When they saw that the Native Americans did not take advantage of the land the way a white person would they realized

"Evaluate the claim that corporate religious experience is no more than an illusion" A religious experience can be defined as an experience within a religious setting, for example an act of worship such as prayer, or it can be a person’s experience of something which brings them the sense of a ‘higher being’ or a being transcending humanity – usually God. The difference between a corporate religious experience and an individual religious experience is that individual experiences happen to a single person, such as the experiences of St. Theresa of Avila, whereas corporate religious experience happens to a group of people. An example of a corporate religious experience is the Toronto Blessing, when religious worship was occurring within a large

Go Back To Where You Came From is an Australian documentary/reality show in which participants are given the opportunity to experience what the life of refugee and asylum seeker can be like, albeit edited and packaged for an audience. During the course of the three hour long series, the six individuals not only have the chance to get under the skin of a refugee in terms of achieving a greater degree of insight into what being a refugee really means, but also to get on the viewing audiences nerves in perhaps all or any of the of the first three senses described above. Moreover the refugees participating in the series may ‘get under the skin’ of the programme participants and the

Now, when it came to ownership of the land the Native Americans were known for hunting so, they needed their hunting land as well as land to grow crops. They were open for sharing land, “The South’s native people had well-defined hunting territories, fishing grounds, and agricultural plots which they vigorously defended against encroachment. However, they did not regard land as property that could be transferred in perpetuity to another individual or group”. However, the Europeans did not think the land should be shared. So, when they came over they took the land away from the

How would you feel if you were kicked out of your own land? you wouldn’t like it right. Well that is what happened to the Native Americans when they got kicked out of their land by U.S government on may 28th 1830. I am on the side of giving them their land back to the Native Tribes if they want to fix the racial discrimination. An investor visited their land where they only had been living on 7,000 a year. To American Indians this land we have stolen from them means more and it is not just land to them. The Native Americans were here first and we are the ones who took their land and placed them somewhere they do not want to be. Some might argue that we should return the land stolen from the Native Americans as a step towards ending racial discrimination against Native Americans. This may