Telling New Stories

1. What were the two versions of the Camp Grant attack that existed among the U.S. public, and who supported each view? 

Version One of the Event: 
The Apache had taken the cattle of settlers and killed a few settlers.  They were simply fighting back and this was a great victory for man over savages.

Who supported Version One?
The local settlers supported this version.  The Mexican Americans and O'odhams who also fought most likely believed this version, if not something similar.

Version Two of the Event: 
Many Native Americans, who were supposed to have been protected by an American peace policy they agreed to, were killed.  Of those slaughtered, many were children and women.  The settlers had killed innocent people without any reason for attacking.

Who supported Version Two?
The U.S. government as well as one of the first men to bring up this version, Lieutenant Whitham.  This version was also supported by some reformers hoping to change society.

2. Why was the trial that took place after the attack significant? 
The trial that took place after the attack was brought on by pressure being placed on the leaders by those who considered the event to be a massacre.  Since this was a large part of the East, the government had to do something and arrested the leaders of the attackers in October of 1871.  The trial that took place against the leaders was the first trial in the Arizona Territory to be against people who were not Apache for killing Apache people.  That is what made the trial significant.


3. Whose views were absent in the accounts of this attack that were told in the United States? 
Many views of the attack were not heard or told in the United States.  Although there were more than enough white views, the O'odham people, Mexican Americans, and Apache did not have the opportunity to tel their story.

4. Why have Native American views been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States? 
The Native American views have been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States.  That is because these views would sully the image of U.S. expansion.  It is much more pleasant to believe that the U.S. blessed the continent by spreading a country full of opportunity and liberty.  The Native American view would speak about the racism faced, deaths due to being moved around or just killed by settlers, and the hostility.  This story would ruin the pleasant one, so it is not told in the United States.

5. What were the two parts of the U.S. government's assiimilation plan in the late nineteenth century? 

a. 
To move all of the Native Americans onto reservations was the first part.  The purpose of this part was to, hopefully, help with the  second part.

b. 
The second art of the plan for assimilation was to rid the Indians of Indian culture.  The reservations came into play here because they thought this would be easier if the Native Americans were in concentrated groups.  The goal was not only to erasing their culture, but to have them adopt an American way of life, such as independently farming small areas of land, speaking English, and being Christian.

6. Give two examples of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures? 


a. 
U.S. policy makers prohibited Indian religious and cultural ceremonies.

b. 
Many Indian children were taken from the reservations and placed in boarding schools.  The reformers that ran these believed that once the children learned English and American values they would want to enter society in the U.S..  Thus, in a generation all Indian culture would disappear due to the fact that the youngest group would be completely immersed in American society.

7. What effect did the railroad have on U.S. settlement of the West? 
The railroad affected U.S. settlement of the West.  Before the railroad, the West consisted of small farms and hunting and gathering.  With the railroad, moving out west took much less time.  This led to an increase in population.  That also meant that moving goods was faster.  So the economy boomed with the transportation of natural resources found in the area.  Soon the West was a place of substantial corporations, cities, and industries.

8. How did westward expansion fuel U.S. industrialization? 
Westward expansion fueled U.S. industrialization with the area's natural resources.  America became one of the most productive countries because of all of the raw materials collected in the area, such as lumbar and gold.  Also, the amount of immigrants that cam to America at the time helped to start industries as well as the railroad that transported the goods.  Yet the main way westward expansion fueled U.S. industrialization was through the many natural resources of the west.

Experiencing U.S. Expansion: Southern Arizona - Part II

6. What two threats did Mexico face in its northern frontier in the mid-nineteenth century?

a.  After the establicimientos de paz failed, some in Mexico wanted to abolish all Apaches and this was around 1832.  There was eventually a call for all men to serve in the military to fight the Apaches.  Peace agreements with a band may be made, but only for the Mexicans to kill them during what were supposed to be peaceful meetings.  This went on for at least ten years and many referred to the situation in the north as a "continual state of war".

b.  The United States of America was the other threat.  The United States thought they would be able to control the Indians more than the Mexicans and wanted the natural resources of the area.  That meant they were seeking ways to gain the land and would eventually march to Mexico City.  Before that action, Americans would trade with the Apaches and supply them with good such as guns, which they were using against the Mexicans, and help the Mexicans fight the Apache.

7. Why did the Gadsden Purchase have such a great impact on northern Mexicans?
The Gadsden Purchase had a great impact on northern Mexicans.  That is because the land sold to the U.S. in the Gadsden Purchase contained many Mexicans and Mexican cities.  These Mexicans felt that the government had betrayed them by selling their land to America, clearly impacting them.

8. List two ways that cultural misunderstanding contributed to a growing conflict between U.S. settlers
and Apache groups.

a. Some U.S. settlers thought that by making a peace agreement with one group of Native Americans, they were also making a pact with several.  However, the Native Americans believed that this agreement was only with their group.  This meant that other groups continued to raid the U.S. settlement.

b.  It was not rare that U.S. settlers would not be able to tell the different Native American groups apart.  This meant that they would think that the groups they had made peace agreements with, their allies, would be attacking them and breaking the treaties.  Also, when countering the damages done or hostages taken, the Americans might just attack the first Native American group they saw  This did not ease the tension within the groups.


9. How did the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase spark a civil war in...

a. Mexico?
The  Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase sparked a civil war in Mexico.  This is because many  citizens were upset with the large amount of land that was lost and thought this hurt the image of the nation.  It was believed by many that the economy, government, and society needed to be changed.  This led to Santa Ana's government being overthrown in 1854 and a new government being put into place in 1861. 

b. the United States?
  The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase sparked the civil war in the U.S.  There were many arguments over if the new land should contain slave or free states.  The debates spurred by the new land increased tensions that would lead to a civil war.

10. a. What did many U.S. settlers want U.S. policy towards the Apache to be?
Many U.S. settlers  wanted the U.S. policy towards the apache to be violence.  They believed that the violence by the Apaches must be met with violence because the Native americans only understood violence.  They also though the harsher response would bring a stop to the actions of the Apaches against the settlers more effectively, although some said that it would be better to get rid of the Apaches all together.

b. In what ways did this clash with the federal government’s Peace Policy?
The federal government's Peace Policy stated that Native Americans would move to reservations where the U.S. government would support them. It was also believed that, by making the reservations isolated, raiding would stop.  This was a very different plan from the settlers' call for violence.  Many settlers were upset that the Apaches were not being punished, leading some citizens to take matters into their own hands and raid the Apaches.

11. Why were the Apache hesitant to move onto reservations?
The Apache were hesitant to move onto reservations, such as Fort Apache, mainly because they did not trust the U.S. government.  There were stories of the U.S. waging war with the Navajo to force them onto a reservation and there were also rumors that the reservations were to make it easier for the U.S. to kill all of the Apaches.  The other reason they were hesitant to move is that the reservations would not allow the migrations that was tradition with the Apache.  Clearly, the Apache would be hesitant to move onto reservations.

Experiencing U.S. Expansion: Southern Arizona

1. What were the two broad groupings of Native Americans in southern Arizona when the Spanish arrived?
Broad Group 1   Name for Self:    O'odham, "the People"   Spanish Name(s):  Pima, Papago

Broad Group 2   Name for self:  Nnee, "the People"          Spanish Name(s): Apache

2. How did the O’odham show their unwillingness to fully embrace the Spanish missions?
The O'odhams showed their unwillingness to fully embrace Spanish missions.  Many did not want to work in the Spanish fields, so they invented excuses to move away.  These were excuses such as someone was sick.  A main reason many might have moved away from the missions and not embraced the Spanish missions is because the Spanish tried to reduce the O'odhams' religion.  So they moved away.

3. Why did Apache groups raid Spanish settlements?
The Apache groups raided the Spanish settlements in order to access suplies such as food, goods, and animals.  The Apaches lives in smalled dispersed groups.  This meant that they did not have as many interactions with the Spanish.  Fewer interactions meant fewer opportunities to obtain these items.  They decided that this should be resolved by raiding Spanish settlements in order to obtain the goods.

4. What was the cycle of violence?

The cycle of violence was mainly between the Apache and United States.  Originally, the Native Americans would kill one member of a tribe, so then that tribe would kill one member of their tribe.  That would be considered even and there would be no more killing until a similar situation took place, but this was not a constant occurrence. When the Spanish started to kill and capture many Apaches, that caused the Apaches to try to capture and kill many of the Spanish.  Then when the Spanish encouraged the O'odhams to join them in fighting the Apache, the O'odhams were also targeted by the Apache.  Seeing that the tradition was to make the score even, there could only be a constant cycle of violence.

5. How did Spanish and Apache views of the peace created by the establicimientos de paz differ? 


The Spanish and Apache groups viewed the peace created by the establicimientos de paz differently.  The Spanish saw it as a "golden age" that they had created by establishing peace.  They were pleased because, with the help of Apaches who had settled, they were able to drive out or kill other Apaches.  Also, the period of peace helped to revive the territory and new towns were created.  The Apaches had also wanted peace, but viewed the agreement of having to settle and provide military assistance as what needed to be done in order to obtain Spanish goods.  Although many agreed to the establicimientos de paz, they were not as pleased with the plan as the Spanish.

New Settlers in the West

1. Read pages 10 - 18  List three reasons why people in the United States moved west.

a.  opportunities for profit - fertile land means good agriculture and farms - farms mean communities - communities mean doctors, lawyers, and other professions 


b.  Immigrants thought the West was the symbol of American promise


c.  Social opportunity - Mormons had religious freedom - free African Americans often welcomed - women first obtained suffrage in West - others were able to put down other races

2. How did westward expansion contribute to sectional tensions in the United States?

Sectional tensions were increased due to westward expansion.  This is because of the differences between the North and South.  They had many economic differences, the main ones being that the South allowed slavery and depended on agriculture while the North relied on industry and trade and did not agree with slavery.  Both groups were looking to have legislation passed in Congress that with help their economy.  To do that, they had to have a majority of either slave states (the South) or free states (the North).  So westward expansion meant fighting over whether the new states would be slave or free.  This caused not only tension, but acts such as the Missouri Compromise, which balanced the number.  However, the Civil War would prove that the compromises were not long term solutions to soothe the tension.

3. What was the Peace Policy?


The Peace Policy was a plan set up by President Ulysses S. Grant.  This policy called for all Indians to be put on reservations and that any all Native Americans not on the land allotted by the government would be considered hostile.  Since they were "hostile", the army dealt with them.  Another part of the plan stated that religious groups would be on the reservation to teach the Indians about Christianity, English, and U.S. agriculture. Also, religious leaders would be in charge of the policy.  All of those components created the Peace Policy and its true goal was to have the Inidans stop their traditions and have American customs.

Indian Removal Act

1. Read pages 10 - 12 (Stop at "Settlers Move West"). Why did the United States fight or negotiate with dozens of Indian groups for the lands in the Louisiana Territory?
The United States fought and negotiated with many Indian groups because they wanted the Indian land in the Louisiana Territory.  They wanted to obtain this land to allow more people to settle there.  Then people could also make money off of the commerce and agriculture.  The government also stated that they wanted to assimilate the Native Americans into America and the fact that that is a slow process is part of why the United States fought and negotiated with Indians.

2. In what ways did the Cherokees assimilate U.S. values and customs?


 The Cherokees assimilated many U. S. customs and values.  They adopted a republic modeled after America, declared themselves an independent country, and had a written constitution, just like how America started.  The Cherokees also participated in the cotton industry and enslaved African Americans, like the Americans did.  Even though they did assimilate, the United States was still not happy because the Cherokees did not give America their land.

The Transformation of a Continent

1. Read pages 1 - 2. How does the term "the West" mask the different perspectives of people at the start of the nineteenth century? (Keep in mind the discussion at the beginning of class today - "Eastward Expansion")


The term "the West" is a mask of the different perspective because the land was only to the west of those on the East Coast of North America.  This land was to the north of the Spanish colonists and the east of the Russians.  Then there were the Native Americans, who's way of understanding the land had little to do with direction.  Clearly, calling the land "the west" was masking other perspectives by just ignoring them.

2. Read page 5. Summarize the three major areas of differences and misunderstadings between the Europeans and Native Americans.

Trade:  Europeans and Native Americans viewed trade differently.  The Native Americans' trading was mainly about the exchange of gifts for the purpose of strengthening alliances, while the Europeans thought of it as a way to make money.  Indians became dependent on Europeans after being advised to trade in order to obtain material items and when the Native Americans came to need the items.


Land:  Europeans believed that land was an item that could be bought and sold, while Indians thought that it could not be purchased and only had ties to the land, not ownership.  However, these economic, cultural, and spiritual reasons often caused them to defend their land.


Treaties:  Native Americans and Europeans faced both cultural and language barriers when creating treaties.  While  Europeans thought the treaty that was a document and signed was what really mattered, Native Americans thought that the words spoken at the meetings about the treaties were what mattered.  Also, Europeans thought that when a Native American group signed a treaties the treaty applied to the whole area, but Native Americans disagreed.

3. Read pages 3 - 7 (stop at U.S. Westward Expansion). How did the arrival of Europeans transform life in the West? (Feel free to bullet point your answer. But use lots of key details!)

• Brought European
• diseases
• religions
• goods
• livestock
• weapons
• Most important were guns, horses, and diseases
• horses were weapon, fast long distance transportation, hunting buffalo
• Cheyennes turned into buffalo hunters and nomads from horse (no longer un agriculture)
• Comanche, who had always hunted, were better hunters
• Guns combined with horses and growing tension between Native American groups trying to claimed land meant more fighting
• Diseases spread along with goods
• smallpox, chicken pox, cholera, measles
• killed 15-90%  of populations affected
• Small populations meant hard o defend themselves
• meant new groups were in power
• Native Americans were adapting to new way of life
• guns and horses meant power, so Indians traded with Europeans
• Europeans traded so that items could be sent home and more supplies for settlers could be bought
• also boosted morale of military
• After adapting some Indian tribes became part of European settlements
• Yet stayed strong to their way of life
• Religion
• Europeans still tried to convert them (mainly Catholicism)
• Peublos' religion banned by Spanish
• Spain almost lost region in dispute

4. Read pages 7 - 10. In a paragraph, explain this sentence from the reading (which is the first paragraph under the heading of "US Westward Expansion."): "The new country's treatment of native people would contrast sharply with the ideals it set for itself."
The sentence "The new country's treatment of native people would contrast sharply with the ideals it set for itself" is commenting on the fact that America's founding principles of liberty were not felt by the Native Americans they encountered.  After the American Revolution was over, America's wish was to be a symbol of liberty in the world and a country without tyranny and oppression.  However, America then gained the land of the native people by trickery, treaties, and force.  Often Native Americans were taken advantage of when treaties were made because Indians had different ides about treaties.  Then after the American Revolution, America claimed the land of any Native American tribe that fought with the British.  This takes away their rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that the founders of America had once stated that everyone waas born with.  Another reason they believed that taking away the land of the Native Americans was right was because it they believed that whites were a superior race, which goes against the founding principle that "all men are created equal".  Clearly "The new country's treatment of native people would contrast sharply with the ideals it set for itself".

Myths as Historical Sources

"'I Bring Death': The Kiowas Meet Smallpox"

Questions:

1. Summarize this legend in 2 - 3 sentences.
The legend is about a man, Saynday, who liked to challenge what was normal.  His tribe, the Kiowas, were in an area of land that had very little to offer, so he left and ran into a stranger on a horse, Smallpox.  He learned that Smallpox brought death and convinced him to visit the Pawnees, the enemy of the Kiowas, instead of the Kiowas.

2. What changes does Saynday notice when he looks at the landscape?
Saynday notices many changes in the landscape.  He sees that the Washita River is now murky and there are no more roses.  Also, there are no more deer or antelope .  He appears to be blaming white settlers, as seen where it states "settlers' soddies [houses made of sod] dented the hillsides and the creek banks".  Another reason he appears to be blaming the white settlers is that he mentions that buffalo are no longer in the area, but cattle, which he later refers to as "the white man's cattle", have taken over the area.  Those are the changes Saynday observes.

3. What is the relationship between Smallpox and white men? 
 Smallpox is a white man, but he also kills the white men.  He states that the white men count everything and so does Smallpox.  He counts how many people are alive or dead and their ages.  Yet, he also kills the white people.  He is often traveling and living with them, bringing death.  Yet he comes from the East, like the white man.  He is one who kills those whom he associates himself with and others.

4. According to this legend, in what ways do the Kiowas see themselves as different from white people? 
The Kiowas see themselves as different from the white people.  One way is that they do not have the same cattle that the white people do and they expect the white people to fence them off into a little area.  Another difference that the legend makes a point of bringing up is counting.  The Kiowas do not believe in counting living people, only enemies, because animals are not cattle and should not be counted like cattle, while "white men always count".  That is a large difference and shows how the Kiowas valued humans and did not think of them as numbers as whites did.

5. What do you think was the relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees? 
 The relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees was not a good one.  The Pawnees had almost killed all of the Kiowas and were now very wealthy while the Kiowas were poor.  The probably led to the Kiowas resenting the Pawnees.  This resentment is shown by Saynday leading Smallpox there.  It was a bad relationship.

Origins and Evolution of Terrorism

1. Why was the hostage crisis at the Munich Olympics a turning point in terrorism? 

2. The reading says that state-sponsored terrorism increased after the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran. What did many governments learn from that event?

3. The past fifteen years have seen a sharp rise in religious terrorism. What motivates these terrorists? 

4. How have these new terrorists changed the way terrorism is carried out? 

    1.The hostage crisis at the Munich Olympics was a turning point in terrorism.  This was because this was an act of terrorism that the public witnessed.  The television allowed many people to view the hostage incident take place.    The television also allowed for the terrorists to have a larger audience, making their acts affect more people.  Terrorists learned that if they targeted certain events and people, they could have a large audience, which was what they wanted.

     2.  Governments learned that sponsoring terrorists could be an effective way to fight against powerful countries.  They learned this by Iran sponsoring a terrorist group that captured Americans.  This attack was committed by terrorists, but the negotiations with the United States of America that came from the event benefited Iran, even though Iran would have been to weak to establish this type of deal on their own.  The weak countries were not fighting the powerful directly, they were just helping groups attack the powerful countries.  The terrorists were also able to then access the country's resources, so they benefited as well.

     3.  What often first motivates the terrorists is their belief that the world is becoming evil.  When there are changes they might believe that these changes are unwanted by their religion.  This leads them to fight for change.  Many may try to reverse what the world is doing wrong by being involved in politics, while others might use their religion.  Interpretations of religion can be created to justify the violence committed by terrorists and can be the motivation for terrorists.  They may even plan their attacks on days that are symbolic in their religion because it makes them feel like they know what they are fighting for.  Those are some of the motivations for religious terrorists.

    4.  New terrorist have changed when, how, where, and why terrorism is carried out.  Religious terrorists may attack on certain days that are symbolic in their religion. The way governments sponsor terrorists, like the group in Tehran, gives terrorists more resources so they are more deadly.  The Olympics in Munich showed terrorists that if they attack a certain event, like the Olympics, they can have a large audience. Also, the increase in religious terrorism in the past fifteen years has changed why terrorism takes place.