Research Paper On Massasoit

They did not have the ideology of accumulation of things to describe their wealth though some things like beds, could have served a symbol for someone’s power and rank, but those things were to shared or given away to others. The land was owned by people as long as they stayed on that land, after they move due to seasonal change anyone could come there clear the land and make a residence on it. Villages had a collective ownership of a land(specific territory) which they could use for fishing, hunting games and gathering food. There were an agreements between villages in territories on the basis of who would use what land for hunting and agriculture, this agreements could be between 2 or more villages and all of them might share the right to use the land or a specific village. These rights on land for most part were for resources found on the land rather than the land itself as said by williams “not the land but the things that were on the land during the various seasons of the year.”(Cronon, 65). Europeans view of property were different from most of the Indians and Europeans thought of land that could be a personal property which could be sold and bought as a commodity. Europeans found their land to be used by these indians for hunting even after

As a rule, the Native Americans are perhaps the most overlooked sector of the population of the colonies. This war completely varied their knowledge of their land and its value. “We know our lands have now become more valuable,” (Document B). No more would they be fooled by

The Europeans and the Indians had very contrasting ideas of personal wealth and ownership. The Europeans believed that only the rich should own land, and

Both Chief Tecumseh and Chief Seattle use rhetorical devices in order to evoke change in their audience’s actions. Chief Tecumseh calls for his audience to unite against the injustice of the settler’s expansionist ideals. Through the use of comparison, Tecumseh introduces their illogical and flawed ideals. Tecumseh states, “Sell a Country? Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well the Earth?” (Address to General William Henry Harrison). The selling of the Native’s land is compared to the selling of the sea and Earth. This demonstrates how illogical it is for the settler’s to take their land, due to the fact that owning land is a god given right that is for everyone just like air and the sea. Furthermore, it shows the audience, who in 1795

Freedom in America and property went hand and hand; without the ownership of property, indivduals were not granted the privilege of living freely. The security of property was recognized as a foundation of freedom in early America. This was so because without property one was viewed poorly, “those who did not control their own lives ought to not have a voice in governing the state. Political freedom required economic independence”. Therefore, freedom was not awarded to those without control of land and subsequently, control over their own lives. Furthermore, the connection between personal liberty and private property ownership paralleled that of the relationship between land control and complete freedom. Personal freedom is defined as, “the ability to make crucial individual choices free from outside coercion”. But without land, people were already viewed as incompetent for individuality, so it would be impossible for one to achieve personal freedom. This does in fact make owning land a prerequisite for personal freedom. In conclusion, there is a direct relationship between land ownership and

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”. “From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) has still in himself the great foundation of property;...” (Locke, 1978

The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.

Property: The right to claim and hold property; When it has been laboured for, one encloses it for greater individual profit the profit of the community of Man, it has been laboured for – Natural means of ownership one encloses it – The process of holding legal “deed” for greater individual profit – to build investment equity and avoid poverty of waste the profit of the community of Man – Moral commitment to Human Development (Locke: 1689).

14.Massasoit- A Wampanoag chieftain who helped the Plymouth Pilgrims in their first Thanksgiving after autumn harvests after signing a treaty for peace with them.

The strongest legal arguments in favour of the Native Americans was the dispute over land rights. The Native Americans have lived here in the United States long before anyone else. Their belief in the inheritance of the land is expressed in the Niles weekly register, which states “The land on which we stand, we have received as an inheritance from our fathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our common father in heaven.” By definition, ownership is said to be original, where the owner has brought the property into human control for the first time, as by occupying land or capturing a wild animal, or derivative, where the owner acquires from the previous owner as in a sale. Therefore, the Native Americans maintained ownership of lands in which they did not either sell or lose in treaties that were signed. The removal of Indians from their homes would not only immoral but illegal. Despite having legally acquired

Most of us have learnt about the Trail of Tears as an event in American history, but not many of us have ever explored why the removal of the Indians to the West was more than an issue of mere land ownership. Here, the meaning and importance of land to the original Cherokee Nation of the Southeastern United States is investigated. American land was seen as a way for white settlers to profit, but the Cherokee held the land within their hearts. Their removal meant much more to them than just the loss of a material world. Historical events, documentations by the Cherokee, and maps showing the loss of Cherokee land work together to give a true Cherokee

In Chief Seattle’s (Si'ahl) “Speech on the Signing of the Treaty of Port Elliot, 1855,” he addressed the U.S Government and pleaded for the fair treatment of his people and the respect of their native culture. Born in 1788, Chief Seattle was from the Suquamish and Duwamish tribes and inherited his position as Chief of the Duwamish from his maternal uncle. In his speech Chief Seattle expressed no ill intentions towards the white man for wanting to “buy their land,” although owning the earth was unknown idea to his people. He understands that the white man are many and his people are few and they are no longer are in need of such vast land. With this “purchase” they will also be protected from invading tribes from their new brother’s in arms, although he does struggled with the differences in their newfound God and how they will ever truly be brothers. If they did agree Chief Seattle had one condition. They never be denied the rights to visit the burial grounds of the ancestors, because every part of that soil was sacred. In terms, Chief Seattle valued the earth as a precious living being that shouldn’t be owned.

With the federal government’s support, many Native tribes have constructed Native Governments and Corporations where the rights to land and money are placed to their own responsibility. What this actually means is that the rights of the people’s land and monetary bonds are transferred from governmental trust to

Milarepa’s captivating life story depicts a man willing to commit sins on behalf of his mother’s command to one that decides to leave his family, in order to achieve enlightenment. This autobiography allows him to remain to be a beloved yogin because of his drastic and fulfilling spiritual transformation, thus encouraging Tibetans to seek a similar path to nirvana in their lifetime. However, Milarepa proves that one’s journey to liberation and enlightenment has to be earned and fought for spiritually and psychologically.

E. M. Forster expresses his personal struggles with owning property in his essay titled “My Wood”. Through the fame and fortune presented to him after his most prominent novel, A Passage of India was published, he had the opportunity to expand his horizons and purchase land. Often times, countless individuals believe owning land and experiencing economic growth in a personal matter may make someone feel enlightened or perhaps powerful. However, for Forster, the experience only brought upon feelings of misery and self-condemnation. E.M. Forster’s presents his central question in the first paragraph when he asks, “What is the effect of property on the character?” (246). Forster refers to the contradictory nature one feels with owning