module 7 short answers
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
200
Subject
History
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by GrandRose11410
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 1 Name three historical lenses that you could apply to gain a fuller picture of the relationship between Natives and white settlers. Be sure to respond to this question in no more than one sentence, using proper grammar.
I would use social, economic, and political lenses to gain a fuller picture of the relationship between Natives and white settlers.
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 2 Revise the thesis statement at the top of this page to reflect a more complex view of the relationship between Natives and white settlers. Your revised thesis statement should be
longer than one sentence.
Conflicts between Natives and white settlers in the 19th century can be
blamed on many different things. White settlers wanted the land the Native
Americans were living on and they also did not agree with their religious
beliefs and cultural beliefs. Though greed was one issue that came between
them racial issues also weighed in on the conflicts.
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 3 Name three historical lenses that you could use to look at the events described in the video you just saw.
The social, cultural. and economic lenses.
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 4 Massasoit's decision to approach the Pilgrims about an alliance was contingent on what previous event or events? (Name one or two.)
The events that led up to Massasoit's decision to approach the Pilgrims about an alliance were
that his people had been devastated by disease and they were threatened by Narragansett.
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 5 Name one short-term consequence and one long-term consequence of the alliance
between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims.
One short-term consequence of the alliance between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims was due to the treaty the Wampanoag stayed neutral during the Pequot War of the late 1630s and resulted in hundreds of natives killed and many more taken and sold into slavery. One long-
term consequence of the alliance between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims was due to sitting
out during previous confrontations between the Pilgrims and other native tribes, the Natives numbers were decimated and with more incoming English reduced the Natives chance at victory against the white settlers.
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 6 How has your understanding of the historical event in your essay changed as a result of your research? Describe one instance of a misconception or a wrong idea you had about
your topic that has been corrected after researching and writing about it.
My understanding of Irish immigration in the 19th Century changed as a result of my research. One misconception that I had about Irish immigration during the 19th Century was the cause(s) behind it. Like many I thought it was mainly due to the potato blight that occurred and the starvation it led to. I was unaware of other factors involved..
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 7 Name four historical lenses through which you could analyze the events of the Cherokee
Removal. Specify one aspect of this event for each lens that you cite.
Four historical lenses that one could analyze the events of the Cherokee Removal are military, political, economic, and cultural. For the military lens, one could research inner-
tribe disputes affected the Cherokee Removal. For the political lens, one could research how local Georgia government played a part getting the Federal government to remove the Cherokee tribe. For the economic lens, one could research how the Cherokee economy was changed by trading with U.S. For the cultural lens, one could look further into the Cherokee that decided to stay in Georgia and how their culture changed to assimilate with the rest of the U.S., or if they were able to assimilate at all
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 8 Agree or disagree with the following thesis statement: "The Treaty of New Echota was invalid, and the National Party was correct to oppose it." Cite at least three historical facts that support your position.
I agree that the Treaty of New Echota was invalid, and the National Party was correct to oppose it. John Ross should have made it his call to approve or deny a treaty based on the hierarchy of the tribe. Also, the Treaty Party when signing the treaty claimed to have the approval of the entire Council of Chiefs to make the negotiations. When it was found out that this was not accurate, the Federal government should have pulled the contract. Also, John Ross is repeatedly mentioned in the treaty as a main figure agreeing to surrender control of the Cherokee tribal lands, but his signature was not on the document, another reason it should
be deemed invalid
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help