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.