Native Americans were the first people to live on the continent formerly known as the New World. When European nations discovered the continent, they set out to claim lands and expand their empires. When the United States had achieved its independence, it set out to expand over the continent. This is known as Manifest Destiny, and Americans felt they had a right to take every inch of the continent. This expansion first started in 1787 with the Northwest Ordinance, and continued until 1890 with the end of the Plains Indian Wars and the Battle of Wounded Knee. The native people naturally did not want to give up their lands, and this brought them into conflict with the American government.
The Native Americans had a negative relationship American government and white people. In 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian removal act which was an effort to remove members of the 5 civilized tribes to “Indian territory” west of the Mississippi river. The natives were removed by President Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren. When the people of the Cherokee nation were removed, over 25% of the people died along the way in what was known as the trail of tears. Natives had no choice but to accept removal and go quietly to Indian territory.
Many natives said that the treaty was deceptive and fraudulent because it sounds like it should be helpful when in reality, it was detrimental to them. A native american chief said what many of them were thinking: “Ah! My life and the lives of my people were then at stake for you and your country. I then thought Jackson my best friend. But, ah! Jackson no serve me right. Your country no do me justice now” (A Native of Maine: The Trail of Tears). This shows that the natives had lost faith in the US government and view it as an enemy to their way of life. Helen Hunt Jackson, writer of A Century of Dishonor, wrote about how the Native Americans were mistreated by the US government.
127 our experts are availableright now
She says that the relationship that the government shares with the natives is riddled with treaties broken by the US and promises that never came to be, and also that almost all of the conflicts in the plains with the natives have been in someway initiated by the US army (Jackson 502). Repeated conflict and violation of treaties by the US government would indicate a strained and one-sided relationship. Much of the conflict was over land and resources, like in the 1830’s and in the Plains wars. Chief Seattle, a native american chief of the Duwamish and Suquamish, said that he would accept the white mans proposition to move to a reservation in exchange for peace. The natives were being asked to move in order for the white men to gain new land. Chief Seattle says “Then we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White Chief seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense darkness” (Seattle).
This shows that the natives have no choice but to sacrifice their ancestral homelands for peace. If they do not give up their lands, then they will have to wage a losing fight against the US. Being forced to give up land is an indication that the relationship shared is not constructive for the natives. The government also tried to make natives more like the white people in order to prevent conflict. One way they tried to do this was by splitting up families, and taking children away from their homes to “civilize” them. By trying to make the natives more “civilized”, it shows that the government did not understand their way of life and tried to change it to make it more like their own with no regard for customs and traditions.
Currently, the US government is doing its best to treat the natives better and see to it that they are treated fairly after multiple centuries of mistreatment. Beginning in the 1960’s, the government has tried to grant natives with the full rights of American citizens, and has tried to allow tribal governments control — to some extent — over their respective areas. The government has also tried to allow economic freedom to the natives. Natives have won many settlement cases that go back many decades and conflicts (Native American Policy Update). This shows that the relationship between the government and the different groups has gotten better. Legislation has been passed on healthcare, education, and civil rights. President Obama established the White House Council on Native American Affairs in order to further government and native relationships. President Obama had tried to involve more of the federally recognized tribes into the making of legislature concerning the native people (Native American Policy Update).
As a result of passing more legislation improving the condition of natives, the relationship has gotten more positive for the natives; however, it may be argued that what is being done is not enough to make up for centuries of mistreatment. The federal government is responsible for many of the schools that native americans use but due to budget cuts, these schools have “poor quality of education, manifested in lower scores in reading and math on national assessment tests and a high dropout rate (twice the national average)” (Native American Policy Update). The poor quality of education results in a higher than average unemployment rate on the reservations, as well as a really high poverty rate.
Federal funding for health care is not enough to last a whole year for the native americans. Because the funding is not enough, there is a really high infant mortality rate, and natives are more likely to die from about any disease when compared to people that are not on the federal funding program known as the Indian Health Service (IHS). The funding for the IHS is also much lower than the funding for any other government health program (Native Americans). This shows that the government is not doing enough for the natives, and is evidence of a still somewhat strained relationship. Though the relations between the government and the natives have improved over the decades, much more work is needed to make right all the wrongs.
Many arguments have been presented, with some being more convincing. The argument presented by Helen Hunt Jackson relies greatly on pathos; she write about how the natives have been mistreated, and relies mostly on appealing to the emotions of the reader. But she has presented no tangible evidence — like statistics, accounts of each and every tribe being betrayed, etc — to support her argument. This weakens her argument because it is now just based on emotion. Chief Seattle had a strong argument because he was a person being directly affected by the decisions of the white men.
The case for the government and native relations in the past was not very arguable because it is widely known that the natives suffered greatly at the hands of white people and the US government during their thirst for lands. In present times, it can be argued that the natives are not getting as much aid as they should, but is obvious that the relations have gotten much better over the last few decades. Both of the articles that argue about native americans in present times are convincing because they provide tangible evidence to back up their claims. They also provide the facts and do not side toward one side or another because they argue for both. The articles read are overall, provide adequate evidence to back their claims, though some need more tangible evidence to make the argument solid.
Over the years, relationships with native americans have gone from frequent skirmishes, to those that are seen between separate governing bodies. Much of the progress in the relationship has happened in the last 50 years. Many natives still do not get what they deserve in terms of education, healthcare and basic amenities. From the time natives came into contact with white men in 1492, to the end of the plain wars in the 1890’s, they have been murdered and betrayed. Now there is change on the horizon and the condition of natives is getting better. They now have basic education, basic healthcare, and have a improving relationship with the government. Who knows what the future holds for native americans and the government.
