7-2 Anna-Nicole__Doucette_HIS_200__Applied_History
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
HIS200
Subject
History
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MajorSummer1358
Anna-Nicole Doucette
HIS 200: Applied History
Southern New Hampshire University
16 August 2020
7-2 Module Seven Short Responses
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 two to three sentences, using proper grammar.
Three historical lenses that I could apply to gain a fuller picture of the relationship between Natives and white settlers are social, religious, and political. For a social lens, I can examine how the United States pushing for the relocation of Native Americans further west influenced
their society. For a religious lens, I can analyze how Native Americans were impacted by the continued efforts of white settlers to "Christianize" and "civilize" Natives. For a political lens,
I can examine what motivations the white settlers had that gave way for them to try to relocate Native Americans and seize their tribal lands.
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 arose between Native Americans and white settlers in the 19th century due to differing views. Though the dispute over land was generally the most prevalent issue, Native Americans and white settlers were very often in disagreement. A variety of factors, including government policies shaped to displace Natives, the threat of military forces, attempts to religiously convert Natives, and the fight over fertile land led to the sharp decline in the
relationship between Native Americans and white settlers.
3.
Name three historical lenses that you could use to look at the events described in the video you just saw.
Three historical lenses that I could use to look at the events described in the video are economic, religious, and social. For economic, I could look at the impact of the Treaty and the success of the English settlers on the newly discovered land and its people. For religious, I could examine how the settlers' Puritan beliefs impacted the Native people. For social, I could examine how the new diseases brought to America impacted the Natives and how they felt about the settlers.
4.
Massasoit's decision to approach the Pilgrims about an alliance was contingent on what previous event or events? (Name one or two.)
Massasoit's decision to approach the Pilgrims about an alliance was contingent on the suffering of Native people from European diseases brought to America that they had no immunity to. This led to the weakening of the strength and population of the tribes which resulted in the treaty between Pilgrims and the Natives as a means of securing defense against
other enemies.
5.
Name one short-term consequence and one long-term consequence of the alliance between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims.
A short-term consequence of the alliance between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims was the mutual alliance against their common enemies, which only lasted until more Englishmen arrived in America, tipping more power toward the English settlers. A long-term consequence
of the alliance was the ongoing wars the occurred in the 1630s, leading to the massive
slaughter and enslavement of hundreds of Natives, forever impacting the strength and population of the Natives.
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.
After researching my topic, I have learned that the North was not as progressive in terms of desegregation as I previously believed. Though I understand that there are still prejudices embedded within our society, I had believed that the North was generally more progressive in
sprouting change. In reality, there was backlash from all over when it came to desegregation, even as recent at the 1980s. It was very eye-opening for me to realize how much progress has
occurred and continues to occur in terms of racial equality.
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 through which I can analyze the events of the Cherokee Removal are military, political, economic, and social. For a military lens, I can examine how the government used military force to remove Natives from their territories. For a political lens, I
can examine the impacts of the Treaty of New Echota on the Natives relationship with the federal government. For an economic lens, I can examine the motivations of crops and gold as the reason the government was so focused on removing the Natives from lands. Got a social lens, I can examine the clash between the Cherokee people due to federal government pressure.
Module 7 Short Responses – Question 8
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
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 do agree with that statement and feel that the National Party was right to oppose it due to its invalidity. The Cherokee Principal Chief was not a part of the signing, meaning he had no real say in the requirements, and, instead, was meant to pass on the message to the people in Georgia. Though some of the elders signed it, they do not hold a higher authority than the Chief who should have had the most say regarding the treaty. At the signing of the treaty, only a small number of a Cherokee people were there, meaning it was not representative of what the people really wanted.