Difference between revisions of "HIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873) |
|||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks | In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks | ||
| + | |||
| + | How unreasonable is it for Cherokees to ask to be protected by the laws they were forced to abide by in an effort to become citizens? Isn't this the same with illegal immigration form Mexico? - Landon James | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think it is interesting that the Cherokees agree to respect and adhere to any treaty they feel they are bound to adhere to, why would they ever feel like that? Also, the Cherokees say that their best weapon is that of argument, seems to me like they would make good lawyers, plus they would have a lot to argue and protest in court anyways. Were there any Native American lawyers or were they denied that privelege of profession just as the African Americans were? - Landon James | ||
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw | This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw | ||
