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:
 It was a triumphant battle that was a significant victory for white men. The Apache were deserving of the retaliatory action, because they had stolen cattle and killed some of the local settlers. The savages got what they deserved.



Who supported Version One?
People who participated in the attack, and many local press. This view was mainly among local settlers. 


Version Two of the Event:
This attack against the Apache was a brutal massacre, that was completely uncalled for. Innocent women and children were slaughtered or taken captive, and the men who participated in the attack were murderers. This action against the Apache violated the U.S. Government's Peace Policy with them, and the men did unspeakable acts.

Who supported Version Two?
Mainly the U.S. Government and reformers. Eventually, some other people from the press came to agree with this view as well. 



2. Why was the trial that took place after the attack significant? 
The trial that took place after the attack decided whether or not the people involved in the attack were guilty of murdering the Apache. Oddly enough, no Apache were actually present at the trial to present their side of what happened. After 5 days, the men were decided to be not-guilt of murdering the Apache. Which goes to show the effect of not having a very important perspective of the attack be heard. 


3. Whose views were absent in the accounts of this attack that were told in the United States? 
The Apache's, Mexican-American's, and O'odham's views were absent in the accounts of this attack that were told in the United States because they were looked at as lower classes and had a harder time finding ways to spread their stories.


4. Why have Native American views been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States?
Native American views have been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States because if they're views were included, the U.S. would have been portrayed negatively, which isn't what the United States wants, obviously. The Native American's stories would have brought truth to the history, and the truth isn't what some Americans would be fond of hearing when it comes to that period of time and treatment towards Indians.

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

a. Move all of the Native Americans onto reservations.

b. Rid them of their culture and assimilate them into U.S. culture.


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

a. They took children from their homes and put them in boarding schools-therefore separating them from their original culture and instituting American culture in their lives.

b. They banned Native Americans from their practices of religion and cultural ceremonies.

7. What effect did the railroad have on U.S. settlement of the West? 
The railroad allowed the transportation of goods, resources, and people to be significantly quicker, therefore boosting the amount of people settling in the west, and allowing cities and industries to rise in the west as well.


8. How did westward expansion fuel U.S. industrialization? 
Westward expansion fueled U.S. industrialization because once the economy in the west started to really get going due to the new railroad, the natural resources found there began to be shipped to the east and Europe, and this constant trade between opposite parts of the country and a foreign country really kick-started many industries in the U.S., both in the east and the west.

Experiencing U.S. Expansion: Southern Arizona - Part

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

a. The threat of the Apache, because the temporary period of peace between them and New Spain ended once New Spain's government became unstable.

b. The threat of the eager United States settlers, who were anxious for more land and southern Arizona's rich resources.

7. Why did the Gadsden Purchase have such a great impact on northern Mexicans?

The Gadsden Purchase had such a great impact on northern Mexicans because they did not consent to the purchase, and now their land and cities were in the territory of the United States. They viewed the event as a betrayal by their Mexican government. 

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

a. People from the U.S. couldn't distinguish between the Apache and other Indian tribes, let alone the sub-tribes of the Apache. So, they often attacked the wrong group of Indians, or couldn't tell which tribe they had made peace treaties with.

b. When peace treaties were made, the U.S. thought they applied to multiple groups of Indians, not just one small group, while the Apache knew it applied only to that smaller tribe. Therefore, the U.S. thought the Apache had betrayed them when groups of Apache went against there peace treaty, because they didn't know those groups weren't included in the agreement.

9. How did the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase spark a civil war in...
a. Mexico? Many Mexican people felt the huge loss of lands through both the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase was a big blow against Mexican economy, society, etc. Therefore reformers overthrew their government with Santa Ana, considering it incompetent, and installed a new one despite protests from people who were against change.

b. the United States? The gain of land through these treaties caused more dispute between the north and south over which states would be entered as free states and slave states. This ongoing argument was  sparked by the sudden amount of territories, and the Civil War in the United States began.


10. a. What did many U.S. settlers want U.S. policy towards the Apache to be?

Many U.S. settlers wanted the extermination of the Apache. It was a common belief that the only solution was a violent response. 

b. In what ways did this clash with the federal government’s Peace Policy?

Well the Peace Policy didn't have to do with violence at first, as long as the Apache and other Indian tribes cooperated. Considering many U.S. settlers wanted the Apache completely gone, just moving them into designated areas was not the most appealing answer to many. So as time progressed, and the Apache didn't immediately cooperate, violence became more prominent. 

11. Why were the Apache hesitant to move onto reservations?

The Apache were hesitant to move onto reservations for many reasons. The U.S. had used peace as a way to trick and slaughter Apache in the past, so that was one very obvious reason. The story of Navajo groups in a war involving reservations was also recalled. Lastly, some Apache migrated annually, and being moved permanently onto a reservation was conflicting to their traditions. 

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     Spanish Name(s): Pima; Papago

Broad Group 2   Name for self: Nnee              Spanish Name(s): Apache

2. How did the O’odham show their unwillingness to fully embrace the Spanish missions?
They would make up elaborate stories about people who were sick and needed to go to confession, or something of that sort, and tell them to the fathers (the missionaries). That way the fathers would leave the villages for a while and the O’odham would be able to do their dances and religious customs without the fathers inhibiting their rituals. 

3. Why did Apache groups raid Spanish settlements?
Apache groups were very small and diverse, therefore they hadn't had much contact with the Spanish, thus they didn't get any of their goods, livestock, etc. So, the Apache, who didn't view animals as property, began to raid Spanish settlements when they were in need of livestock, supplies, or food. The Apaches didn't originally look at it as stealing, until the Spanish had violent responses to the raids. 

4. What was the cycle of violence?
The cycle of violence began with the Apache raids. Although the Apache didn't intend for it to have violent results, it triggered a cycle. When the Apache raided the Spanish Settlements, the Spanish became angry and therefore called upon the O’odham to fight against the Apache. Warfare, according to the customs of both the O’odham and the Apache, is normally begun when an act is committed against them, like a murder in the group; when something like that occurs, the victimized group will retaliate by either capturing one captive or killing one from the opposing group, and then the dispute is over. But, when the O’odham attacked the Apache, the Apache of course would retaliate. Then the O’odham would retaliate, and so on. If captives were taken by the Apache or the O’odham, they would usually ended up being traded in to the Spanish for the group's (the one that is trading them in) members that were previously captives. So it was just an endless cycle of violence. 

5. How did Spanish and Apache views of the peace created by the establicimientos de paz differ? 
The Spanish viewed the peace created by the establicimientos de paz as a golden era; a time when Spanish settlement could expand because of the peace between them and Apaches, and their manpower was strong. The Apache viewed the peace created by the establicimientos de paz as an obligation between local bands and communities that resulted in the Apache gaining rations of supplies from the Spanish in exchange for giving the Spanish military support against hostile Apaches not in the establicimientos de paz. 

New Settlers in the West

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

a. It was a symbol of opportunity. People could completely restart their lives: new homes, new towns, new people.

b. The population in the United States at the time was rapidly increasing, and the West was a great place for all the new immigrant and families to move.

c. It was full of resources, had vast forests with timber, and had the rich soil that was lacking in the East.

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

     With each new state that was annexed into the United States, it was either a slave state or free state. If the number of slave states outweighed the number of free states, slave states had more power in Congress, and vice versa. Therefore, as the U.S. continued to expand, its politics became more and more separated between the slave states and free states. The United States split into two main sections of belief: the south, which was full of slave states, and the north, which was full of free states.

3. What was the Peace Policy?

      The Peace Policy was created by President Ulysses S. Grant. This policy was mean to create "peace" with the Native Americans by making them all go in reservations. In the reservations, Indians would be taught English, agricultural ways of the U.S., and Christianity. So basically, the Peace Policy was another way to try to assimilate Native Americans into U.S. society. While the policy wasn't meant to exterminate the Native Americans, if any of the Indians were not on the reservations, the U.S. military would take action. The policy itself is a great example of how the United States contradicted its beliefs, but it was looked at as a good negotiation between Native Americans and the U.S at the time. 

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?  
    If this question means fighting and negotiating with the Indians in order to move them into the Louisiana Territory, which is what the reading said, then:
     The United States was gradually expanding, and therefore when Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory, he did so knowing that it would be a convenient place to move the Indians in order to move them out of U.S. states like Georgia. Of course, many Native Americans refused to do so considering they had established sturdy homes and societies. Other tribes complied, such as the Choctaws. But when the Cherokees absolutely refused to negotiate or comply at all, the United States had to force them into the territory, which was an event known as the Trail of Tears. The U.S. was hungry for more land, and it's belief in manifest destiny was the reason for all the Indian Removal Acts.

2. In what ways did the Cherokees assimilate U.S. values and customs?
     The Cherokees established a republic based off of the United State's government, created a constitution, and declared themselves an independent nation. They also participated in the successful cotton economy; and some owned African American slaves as well. The Cherokee, while still upholding their original customs and traditions, managed to create a government for themselves and participate in lucrative economy.

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" shows how all the people that had settled in parts of the America's had different perspectives on what was going on in "westward expansion". The white settlers on the East Coast were the ones who coined the term "the west" because, obviously, it was west of their settlements. But this term didn't work for all groups of people, such as people in Mexico or Alaska, who were not east of the lands called "the west". The term especially didn't work for the abundant groups of Native Americans because they didn't label the directions as east, west, north, and south; they didn't grasp that concept. 


2. Read page 5. Summarize the three major areas of differences and misunderstandings between the Europeans and Native Americans.
Trade: Native Americans and Europeans originally had a different view on the principles of trade, but when Native Americans learned of the profits of trade, they hunted for more valuable trade items and became more dependent on European goods.
Land: Native Americans also didn't understand the concept of owning land, when it came to buying and selling it, like the Europeans did. Native Americans claimed territories for reasons such as religion and good hunting areas, but they didn't quite grasp the idea of literally owning a piece of land.
Treaties: When a treaty was signed, both Native Americans and Europeans had different thoughts as to who the treaty applied to; Europeans thought it meant entire Native American nations, while Native Americans thought it applied to only certain smaller Native American communities that they signed for. Also, Native Americans believed the final agreement of a treaty would be decided orally, while Europeans believed it was finalized when written down on paper. Thus, because of this misunderstanding, Europeans manipulated the Native Americans and tricked them into giving more land away than they intended.


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!)

•  Trade of goods, such as guns, and horses caused more power among different tribes and more efficient hunting techniques.
• Horrific diseases, such as smallpox, that were brought to the West by Europeans caused huge epidemics that depleted the populations of many Native American tribes.
• New Spain forced religion of some of the Native Americans, causing them to revolt and have conflict with the Europeans.
• Some Native Americans integrated with the European settlers, and some of the European settlers married Native Americans and integrated with the tribes.
• In some cases, Native American daily life was improved because of the use of European technology.

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."
     This statement is basically saying that the United States was being extremely hypocritical when they claimed that their ideals were liberty, freedom, and individual rights, considering the amount of Native Americans that had none of these things due to the U.S. expansion. Native Americans were forced through much violence to go into reservations instead of being able to access the vast land of America like they had done for many years. They had no freedom after the U.S. made manifest destiny their goal: they constantly were having their land taken away, as well as their liberty. Native Americans especially had no individual rights, their wants and needs were barely, if at all, taken into consideration by the U.S. Government. The United States should have specified who exactly was permitted to have the liberty, freedom, and individual rights, because the Native Americans certainly didn't.

Myths as Historical Sources

1. Summarize this legend in 2 - 3 sentences.
    Smallpox had terrorized white people for some time, and when he (Smallpox) encountered Saynday, part of the Kiowas, he told him of how he brought death to many. When Smallpox mentions doing so to the Kiowas people, Saynday tricks him into visiting the Pawnees instead, as well as finding out his weakness: fire. Thus, Saynday and his people the Kiowas were supposedly protected from Smallpox by fire from there on, while their rivals the Pawnees were weakened by the wrath of Smallpox.
2. What changes does Saynday notice when he looks at the landscape?
     When Saynday looks at the landscape he notices that the land around him was no longer plentiful; the buffalo had become sickly, the rivers didn't flow, the deer and antelope no longer roamed, and settlers' soddies could be seen along this hills.
3. What is the relationship between Smallpox and white men? 
     The relationship between Smallpox and white men consists of Smallpox coming up from behind,  getting ahead of the white men, and either way causing widespread death among the women, men, and children. Smallpox states that he is white man's companion because of this; meaning he was a burden that followed white men everywhere.
4. According to this legend, in what ways do the Kiowas see themselves as different from white people? 
     I think the Kiowas see themselves as more honorable than the white people, based off the phrase (talking about the Kiowas and how they don't count many things like the white people) "They never count living people-men are not cattle, any more than women and children are." The Kiowas seem to think themselves to be more in tune with nature than the white people are as well.     
5. What do you think was the relationship between the Kiowas and the Pawnees?

     The Pawnees and the Kiowas must have been enemies for awhile; considering the Pawnees, who lived nearby, were extremely wealthy, and the Kiowas were not. That's why Saynday sent Smallpox to the Pawnees: they were the rivals of the Kiowas.

Origins and Evolution of Terrorism

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

     The hostage crisis at the Munich Olympics was really the trigger of the advance of terrorism from 1972 and on. It showed how significant the use of a powerful image could be when it came to instilling fear in enemies, which the hostage crisis did very well. So much so actually, that after that event  Americans became more aware of the dangers of terrorism. It also showed the importance of making a terrorist attack widely viewed. The hostage crisis occurred at a very symbolic event too, which taught future terrorists the importance of targeting places with symbolic value.

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?

     Many governments, including the Iranian, learned that the state support of terrorist groups could prove very beneficial to weaker states who were targeting more powerful states. Terrorists would also benefit from state support because it gave them more lethal weapons, more money, more training, more recruitments, diplomatic immunity, ways of transportation, and false identification.

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

      Religiously motivated terrorists usually feel like their society's original traditions are vanishing, and that a foreign enemy's influence has caused this. Therefore, they feel as though the only way to preserve their original beliefs and values is by making a change, through violence. Since, especially in the past fifteen years, the world has been going through dramatic changes, the rise in religious terrorism makes sense. Many terrorists, such as Yigal Amir (who assassinated the Israeli Prime Minister Rabin), claim their actions were carried out on God's orders. Sometimes, it simplifies down to an interpretation of a battle between good and evil (God and the devil).

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

     Originally, experts on terrorism believed the terrorists just wanted a lot of people to be watching, not killed. But as religiously motivated terrorism increased, it seemed terrorists wanted a lot of people killed as well. Also, terrorists have been trying to plan attacks with the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, which are much, much larger threats and could mean potential destruction of the United States.