Discussion 7-1 historical complexity

Consider the following statement: “In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated solely by desire to seize the natives’ land.” In your post, consider the following:

• Does this statement present the full picture? Revise this statement to present a more complex explanation of the motivations that drove state and federal officials (and the white citizens of Georgia) during the years immediately preceding the Cherokee removal. Explain the choices you made in your revision.
• Next, consider how you can take a similar approach to your own topic in order to more fully understand the historical complexity. What other viewpoints would you want to further explore in order to more fully understand your topic?

In response to your peers, share any preconceived notions you may have about their topic. Lastly, consider how further exploration of the viewpoints around their topic would potentially change the lens through which they currently view the event.

peer 1: Heather Sanna

I feel that this statement only presents half of the picture because they forced the Native Americans to land that was west of the Mississippi River. I would present the above statement as the following: “In preparation of the forceful removal of the Cherokee, state and federal officials desired to sell their land and force them to live on reservations west of the Mississippi.” I changed the beginning of the statement because the Cherokee were forced out of their land and forced to move. Then once they were moved, they were restricted to land know as ‘reservations.’ This land was located west of the Mississippi River.

For my topic, I would want to research different view points and make sure that I fully understood the concept at hand and had the facts to back it up. I would want to know facts from both the Irish Immigrants side and also that of society at the time.

peer 2:

In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated solely by desire to seize the natives’ land.” This statement does not present a full picture of the historical event. I would revise the statement to say, “In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated to seize the natives land to expand slavery in the southwest cotton fields in Georgia and to move the Cherokee tribe into the Osage tribe territory, so that the tribes may destroy themselves.” If only the tribes would have been able to unify, their out come may have been different, even better would have be if the negro slaves and the Indian tribes would have been able to work together they would have had the number that could have given them more of a fighting chance, not only to have their lands, but in the end just to exist.

For my topic on the benefits of child labor laws for orphans in New York City. I am finding it hard to focus on just New York since a lot of the orphans were moved West to live and work in good Christian homes. So just because these laws are coming out, doesn’t mean that kids are not expected to work, they were just not suppose to be industry or mines. At the same time another reason the child labor laws were coming out was to stop children from working since they drove the wage down so adults couldn’t make a living. So on one hand you have these orphans who are expected to work to earn their keep, but on the other hand if they keep working they will continually drive down wages since they were paid far less then an adult. The population also had to be convinced that giving a child their rights to have a childhood and get an education would be more beneficial to the nation, then making them go to work in harsh conditions that didn’t pay much, and left them broken and illiterate. I am seeing the complexity in my topic I have chosen. No wonder it took so long for child labor laws to come about and be enforced.

Thanks for reading,

Steph