I believe that the Indian Act should be abolished. I believe this because no one should be discriminated because of their colour, race, or beliefs. It is unfair to put the First Nations people on a reserve, just so that you can own the remaining land. It is also unfair to change peoples’ beliefs just because they are not like everyone else. Everyone should be treated as equals but that’s not the case with Indians, , because no one person is better than another.
America’s History is Wrong The author of the book introduction titled Indian/White Relations: A View from the Other Side of the “Frontier,” Alfonso Ortiz, makes the reader scrutinize and think about how historians have recorded and retold America’s early history. The history familiar to most Americans is biased because it is in accordance with white settlers’ viewpoint only. The Native Americans viewed the white settlement differently than we recorded. The Americas were no “frontier” for exploration. The land was the home of the natives; it was explored and well known.
The Europeans may have thoDidught of the Indians as savages and seen as them very different than themselves because of some fundamental differences in their attitudes, as well as some societal advances and practices that were completely foreign to the Indians. Upon arriving in the new world the Europeans were almost guaranteed to encounter some new things that they would not have the education, open-mindedness, or ability to understand and empathize with. Many of the first encounters natives had with the English were peaceful and mutually beneficial. The Indians had never seen the type of equipment, animals, or mindset the Europeans had. Imagine living your
Men in the colonies also were in charge of cultivation and labor work. The women in Native American tribes did the outside work. Europeans disapproved of this gender role difference greatly. Indian men did not even wish to interact with the Europeans who they saw as feminine because of the gender role differences. Religion was another difference between the Europeans and Indians.
Unlike Europeans' belief, the Indians had a complex and dynamic history in America long before 1492. Since there are no accurate facts about their way of living and new discoveries are made daily, we can not make any exact assumptions and everything has to be treated provisional. Plus, many native people reject the scholars' explanation of native origins. Some people see the native's way of living as living in perfect harmony with each other and with nature, until the first Europeans set their foot on the American land. Europeans considered them as being “uncivilized”, but I believe they were always civilized.
Not all settlers considered themselves enemies of the natives but sought to better the lives of the natives and so had a second unintentional effect of introducing disease for which the natives had no immunity (Department of Aboriginal Affairs, 2011). The Spanish saw the Islands now known as the Philippine Islands as a prime location for military post and trade center. They conquered the islands with their superior military destroyed their culture as they saw it as Satanic but did not occupy the Islands as a colony and ruled through native chiefs. Much of the culture of the Filipino people before Spanish rule has been lost but the people themselves have remained (Library of congress, 2014). The indigenous people of the continent now known as Australia were a simple people very minimalist in their approach to life and nurturing of the members of their group.
Social problems like these are treated in such a way that they leave viewers with the impression that they are caused by something innate within Aboriginal people, rather than by colonial impositions. These ideas are always presented as "common sense", and fail to address social or historical contexts, encouraging the wider community to adopt a shallow and bigoted view of Indigenous issues. This ideology of Indigenous Australians being a savage, much like a wild animal, leads some white settlers into the belief that they could be treated as such. In a letter to the editor in The Australian, Wednesday 20 June 1827, the author notes "It is said that the natives have become so very troublesome, that many persons have resolved to poison them", the comment’s tone suggests the white settlers likened them to pests. Furthermore, the linking of Aboriginals to animals is evident as the writer warns against the government “humanising and conciliating the savage tribes” as it would have dire consequences for the white
Columbus did not understand the lack of clothing, and the involvement of women within the community. Both customs were never accepted in Europe, and were even found preposterous. Also, gold was not as valuable to the natives. However, the natives were already passive, and cooperative by giving the explorers whatever resources they needed out of kindness. Because of this, Columbus found them naïve, and took and took advantage of the
After the massacre the Commissioner of Indian affairs tried to prove they were not put in situations that forced them to rebel/ run away (refused food; starved, not provided with warm proper clothing they were promised in the treaty, driven off their lands and forced to stay confined on a reservation that wasn’t theirs). 5. Why did A Century of Dishonor strike so positive a chord among readers, including U.S
The differences between the Native American tribes and the Europeans created huge views of one another. Each group thought of themselves as the superior group. The Jesuits were very convinced their beliefs were the correct beliefs and since the Natives didn’t have the same beliefs they were considered dirty