The Relocation of Native Americans from the Region East of Mississippi
The relocation of Native Americans from the region east of Mississippi has been described by historians as acts of genocide. The Natives were relocated from their homelands to Indian territories. Many were affected health wise and, many died from diseases and famine. It becomes a challenging issue as the states policy describes, ` ` no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any state’ . American Indians/ Indians refer to Native Americans in the United States. They are comprised of different tribes, states and ethnic societies. Most of them were hunters and gatherers but, women did small-scale cultivation of staple food like maize and beans. The differences between the natives are believed to cause tension and misunderstanding among them resulted, especially on political grounds. As a result, colonies revolted leading to the establishment of United States of America. This triggered the government to civilize the Natives and advocated for the United States’ citizenship.
Consequently, the assimilation was used as a policy in the administration. European American population increase, increased congestion on Native American land resulting into wars. As a result, U.S Congress advocated for the for Indian Removal Act with the aim of relocating Native Americans from Deep South east of Mississippi River to accommodate European-American population from United States. Government believed that, by decreasing the conflicts, Indians would have an easy time to survive. Most Indians who had nomadic cultures tried to resist Americans resulting into several wars. This forced U.S to sign series of treaties with these tribes and promised them land in the western states also encouraged them to use the European farming methods, but the main problem was that, land in these areas was extremely poor and inappropriate for such methods.
Arguments supporting this policy
Essentially, possible misunderstanding between the general authorities and state government would have ended, as the Natives were promised freedom where their ways of life would be free from States’ powers. On Indians account, the primitive hunter-gather lifestyle would have been substituted with a better and more civilized way of life. This was believed to make them compatible with others in technologies also lifestyles. Also, the opening of the territory between the North (Tennessee) and South (Louisiana) to settlements for the whites was believed to prevent future invasions because of restricted contacts between the two. It was also argued that, freedom from State’s Powers could enable them enjoy happiness and do away with their ways of life, which were believed to be primitive, thereby giving birth to a civilized society. The eviction is also supposed to be in a polite manner so as to compel the aborigines to leave their original ancestors and seek their homeland ancestors in their homeland. The evacuation is also seen to have advantages to both the Indians and the United states, as there would be limited conflicts arising due to collisions that may come about due to conflicts of interest.
Arguments against the policies
The drastic change of lifestyle from hunter- gatherer to restricted areas, many Natives died since, women could no longer do farming, and the little that they grew could not sustain them. Also, efforts to civilize them were not remarkably successful. Many were left helpless and poor, making them turn to slavery, where they worked in cotton farms in order to earn a living. As a result of displacement from their lands, a great enmity developed between the Indians and whites; Indians regarded whites as inhuman and never wished to adopt their ways of life, and this sometimes resulted into wars. Historians argue that, these policies are a manifestation of human injustice where, a particular community desires another to change its way of life and adopt their way of life and this is a disregard and disrespect to other peoples’ beliefs and customs; large parts of Prussia, Europe Russia and Poland were sparsely populated and yet they had to grab land from Indians. It is ironic that, the European Christian laws of nations were not applicable to their pure large nations it controls but to a very small people like the Indians.
Following these arguments, I tend to lean much on the opposing side as, I consider and view the policies being inhuman, dictatorial and unethical. According to human ethics, no nation, society or individual has the right to interfere with other people’s ways of life. No matter the intellectual level or how civilized one is, respect should take the central key for peaceful existence and respect among individuals, especially on matters related with ownership of properties.
In conclusion, land and property ownership has all along been a considerable controversy, owing its origin from the bible since the time of Noah; also it is believed to be a strong rule, with pretence taking the lead. The title to occupancy and ownership of land never depends on how the land is or will be utilized, but rather on the rightful and legal ownership. Clear boundaries should be set, treaties signed and respect immensely promoted between the parties involved on the ownership of a property. Any person or community has a right to continue with its way of life and, direct compulsion to adopt new practices is neither a powerful weapon nor the appropriate way to bring change. Government laws require clear definition on rightful ownership of properties.
|President Barack Obama||Government Censorship: Suppressing Human Rights|
- Government Censorship: Suppressing Human Rights
- Government Surveillance of Communication
- President Barack Obama
- Role of Government Policy in Curbing Bribery in Global Economy