HIS_200__Applied_History (8)
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 ColonelSeal8044
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.
The historical lenses i could use, are the military, political, and cultural lenses.
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 early 19th century are the results of dispute of land. the white setters discovered how valuable the land is with the discovery of gold in Georgia and the fertileness of the land the natives inhabited. This causes the decline in relations between the natives and the white settlers, and the venally often times forced relocation by the government of native peoples from their land.
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 lens i would use, would be religious, political, and military lenses, to describe the video.
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 Wampanoag had been devastated by deaised and were being threatened by the people of Rohde island.
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.
A short term consequence was the mutual defense alliance against the common enemies. a long term consequence was the result of the bloodiest war between natives and the settels that
resided there. the native population was reduced by half, and Wampanoag and Narragansett practically no longer existed.
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.
When I fist started researching, I though that the women rights movement was successful, since women had gained suffrage. I had no idea that women's suffrage was just apart the bigger picture. That the women's right movement would lead to the ERA, and I had initially thought that the ERA was passed until further research told me about the complexity of giving women equal rights, and the issues that brought the downfall of the ERA.
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.
The four lenses I present are military, economic, social, and political.
The first historical lens is military. I choose this one because the Cherokee tribe was forcibly moved by the US army. The send lens was economical. This one was chose because the government wanted da way to move the Cherokee tribe off of their land , to make money from the fertile land ideal for growing cotton, an derig rivers gold. I code the political lens because of the Treaty of New Echota, and how this came about do to the result of the Cherokee people slipping into two parties. The treaty party would be the ones to make this Treaty behind majority of the Cherokee tribes back. This would led to the social lens. The Cherokee people were split and it would cause tensions to rise when the rest of the Cherokee tribe relocated. 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 with the following statement "The Treaty of New Echota was invalid, and the
National party was correct to oppose it." When the government was pressuring the Cherokee to sign the treaty, the tribe split into two parties. One that was for the treaty an the one who opposed it. The Treaty party and the National party would argue over the treaty signing so in 1832, Ross, the Cherokee leader at the time, cancer tribal elections and the Cherokee National Counce threated to impeach both Major and john ridge. But the treaty party would still meet with federal officers and agree to sign the treaty, without the chief or majority of the tribe being present to witness the treaty. The Cherokee National Council would consider the treaty as Froud, it would get ratified in the year 1836, by a single vote in the US sente.
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