Examples of "A" think pieces for a 100 level course
The Assignment:
Explain Thomas Paine’s role in the success of the American Revolution. In your essay, explain what you think are the most important arguments in Common Sense and The American Crisis, Number 1 that influenced the revolution. In your paper, do not rely on the introduction. I will be grading you on your ability to analyze Paine’s writing (document section).
Common Sense
During the revolutionary period of the 1770's, starting a new life in the thirteen colonies was difficult and uncertain. Throughout the American Revolution, warfare and economical and political disputes took a great toll on all the habitants of the New World. Gaining independence from Britain was a major concern for the majority of the colonists, and the goal for freedom would not come without a fight. When the writings of former Englishman Thomas Paine were shared with the American colonists, it was a significant turning point in the morale of the British colonies. Paine had a style all his own that was greatly influential among the patriots. Thanks to the circulation of Common Sense and The American Crisis, Number 1, Thomas Paine gave Washington’s Continental Army the determination to prove America victorious in the Revolutionary War, attacked the British constitution, putting into perspective why separation from British rule was necessary, and excited the colonists about the chance and the advantages to start a new.
In the battles of the American Revolution, American troops had very often faced many instances of defeat and hardship. For instance, General George Washington’s Continental Army had been constantly moved from location to location when being pursued by the British troops under General William Howe. The continental army that consisted of about twenty-seven thousand men was minimized to about six thousand by the winter of 1776. There came a low point in the war when there was even contemplation from Thomas Jefferson to surrender (Common Sense, Slaughter, 125-126). To counteract the current state of the American forces, Thomas Paine intervened with his pamphlet “American Crisis, Number 1" to boost the esteem of the troops and to motivate them to finish what they set out to do with fortitude and pride. The war was not over yet, and they still have not been defeated. Although discouraged, it was time to bounce back (126-127).
Honesty and directness were characteristic of the manner in which Thomas Paine presented his ideas. When addressing the American troops, Paine strayed from sugar coating the reason for which the troops are fighting and put in to perspective that , yes, fighting for freedom was in fact difficult and trying. Paine stated that indeed the cost of the war should be great because the need for independence was significant, and “the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph” (126). Paine had also brought to reality the fact that the war is defensive– “we did not bring it upon ourselves” (131). And in this state of defensiveness, Paine urged for people all over to ban together to ensure enough force to support such a significant cause (130). Thomas Paine shed a new light on the reality of the war in the eyes of the American troops who have long been discouraged. By instilling hope and perseverance in the men of the American forces, the state of the troops underwent a positive change. Determined, the troops established an essential turning point in the war with “their first major victory at Trenton, followed by another at Princeton” (47). Consequently, Washington’s troops proved victorious in the end.
Aside from dealing with the struggles of the troops in the Continental Army, Thomas Paine authored Common Sense to focus on the English constitution and why America would benefit from breaking free from dependence. Paine was bold in directly attacking the British constitution, declaring that “English politics was morally dead” (9). Because Thomas Paine grew up enduring injustice, he readily used his own experiences as a boy to attack the unreliable system (9). With his pamphlets, Paine put into perspective why America’s dependence from the British constitution was necessary.
Government is essential in every community. However, Paine was opposed to the constitution of England in that it was too complex, that it praised a kingship based on an unkind tradition, and that a hereditary monarchy ruled over all. Paine’s support of republican material condemns monarchial and aristocratical tyranny because they are “independent of the people” and constitutionally “contribute nothing toward the freedom of the state” (77). For starters, Paine suggested a simpler government which would be less easily ruined and, if it were ruined, would be easier to be repaired. If a problem came along in a simple government, it would be easier to know where the problem came from, and therefore, know precisely how to fix it (76, 77). In English rule, the king is set apart from everything else, and basically lacks involvement and knowledge of society. However, the king is supposed to hold all power and thoroughly know all (77). The only reason that the Englishmen favored the English government, Paine argued, was because of national pride instead of reason. Paine exclaimed that the constitution of America should not be the “will of the king” (78). Instead, in America, it is law that shall be king (98).
Besides attacking the fact that the British constitution was too complex, Paine ripped apart a constitution based on tradition. Knowing that the biblical scriptures were well known by most colonists and he himself knew the bible extremely well (34), Paine frequently broke down and analyzed stories from the bible and used them as history lessons that had great impact and response. For example, Paine used scriptures to illustrate to the people that before there were kings and wars, there was happiness in the world. Paine then argued that when the children of Israel copied the custom of kingship from the Heathens, it was with great prosperity an invention at the hands of the Devil. The tradition of the Heathens greatly honoring their deceased kings quickly resulted in the Christians mimicking the plan, but worshiping the living ones (79). Because the will of the Almighty disapproves, scripture cannot defend kingship (80).
In Paine’s opinion, the English constitution is also at fault by following a hereditary monarchy. How dare someone be ruled by a power who has not been chosen by the means of the people? Simply because a king came to rule does not mean that people should be ruled by his children’s children (83). Also, involvement with a hereditary monarchy would enable a possibility of being under rule of a minor. And worse, a minor that grew insolent expecting others’ obedience and living in a world so different and separate than everyone else (84). Paine used nature to explain many things, and in the case of noble birth right, nature disproves of it. Why else would there be so much ridicule and warfare ( 83)?
Logically dissecting the English constitution gave a new understanding to the colonists that separation was essential. Paine used the analogy of an island ruling a continent. It is plain common sense that a small piece of land thousands of miles away should not have power over a continent (93), and a king shouldn’t get a veto over our own laws (94). Paine even concluded that Britain was merely interested in America, not attached to it and that Britain would be protected from their enemies on their account, not ours. Besides, if Britain went to war, America would be ruined too, and would then be wishing for neutrality (90). Paine asked how people could still honor and endure the power that brought so much cruelty to their land (91).
The colonists were brought to believe that becoming an independent nation would be in their best interest and that “reconciliation and ruin are nearly related” (95). Paine told the people that the power was in the hands of the people “to begin the world over again” and that they would be creating something extremely special and new by doing so (113). And because Americans would have the power in their very own hands, they could start from scratch a new “government at the right end” (105). No time was to be wasted, for independence would be harder to accomplish the longer it was delayed (110). It was true that a national debt would accompany the revolution, but Paine informed the people that national debt would actually be a good thing to have because the money would be put to good use. Moreover, a national debt would bind the people together in a common cause. The outcome of the spending would be an advantage to all. For example, a navy force would come in great use for the protection of the people and the land. National debt would be an advantage not only economically, but it would produce a national bond of the people (100).
When Thomas Paine boldly announced that “Independence is the only bond that can tie us together” (114), he truly meant it whole heartedly. In Paine’s Common Sense and The American Crisis, Number 1, Paine did teach of common sense. Thomas Paine presented himself to the people in a way that others have not done before. With personal experience, knowledge, and unique tactics, Paine broke prejudices of the American people and encouraged a battle worth fighting for that proved great and successful. America was practically in the worst shape it could be and was in a position in which it could have easily been defeated. It was Paine who encouraged the army back on its feet and on top of their game and created support the war effort. And it was Pain’s effort to pick apart America’s enemy and inform the people of the importance of the fight. Because of the writings of Thomas Paine, America turned a new leaf and came out on top in the American Revolution.
********************************************************************************************
The Assignment:
Explain the successes and failures of the Lewis and Clark expedition by using the primary documents as your source material. Be sure to comment on outfitting and maintaining the Corps of Discovery, negotiating the terrain and seasonal conditions, relations with Native Americans, and on the scientific/geographic knowledge that they gathered.
The expedition of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark was one of the most successful ever recorded in American history; however, it was marked with two failures: making their scientific discoveries known and charting a Northwest Passage to Asia. The key to the success of the Corp of Discovery was the unwavering leadership of Captains Lewis and Clark. These two men diplomatically led their team through the heart of the unknown to the Pacific Ocean. The team was well outfitted and maintained, keeping morale high. Because of this, the Corp was able to navigate and chart the terrain, befriending the groups of Indians along the way. Despite these “victories,” the men were unable to make any success out of their scientific discoveries or uncover an all-water route to the Pacific.
Like any truly great expedition, Lewis and Clark’s was well equipped. With the assistance of President Jefferson, the Corp of Discovery had all the supplies it needed; including a large keelboat to transport their larger items (The Lewis and Clark Expedition, Barth, 18). They also had a supply of medicines to treat illness and injury that might occur along the way. Other various items included weapons, trading goods for the Indians the Corp would encounter, whiskey (which held several purposes), survival gear to endure the elements, and other personal effects (Hall, lecture, 10/11/04). However, all of these would only be of use under superior leadership.
Captains Lewis and Clark were the true definition of a “dynamic duo.” Their ability to work together as diplomatic leaders helped bond the group together. With the use of court-martials and threats of what could happen in the unknown if a man stepped out of line, they created a formidable task-force (Hall, lecture, 10/11/04). Whiskey was also a useful tool, used to reward the men after a challenging day or in celebration (Barth, 75). Lewis and Clark’s successful use of diplomacy with the Indians instilled reassurance and trust in the men. The two captains made sure the men were taken care of, keeping their spirits high.
The Corp navigated its way across the newly expanded United States and beyond with little difficulty. They encountered new conditions and terrain never seen by any of them before. The expedition stopped to hunt when it needed, going after whatever game was bountiful; be it buffalo, bear, or whatever game was located in the area. During inclement weather, their progress was halted and appropriate shelter was taken (Corp of Discovery video). All forward progress was stopped in winter when the Corp would find a secure site and build a fort to live out the elements. Lewis and Clark also depended on the knowledge of trails gained from the Indians or traders in the area. The Corp of Discovery did not venture out unprepared and used what help they received along the way (Hall, lecture, 10/11/04).
To aid in traversing the continent, the captains kept superb, detailed geographic data. In Clark’s journals, he made notes on the environment around him. He made lengthy descriptions of the scenery; including the grasses, plants, rivers, and Indian villages (Barth, 41). Before the start of the expedition, Lewis took time to develop useful skills that would aid in noting location and navigating the land (Barth, 26). Clark, using his past experiences of being in the wilderness, constructed accurate, precise geographic maps. Both men kept accurate readings of latitude, longitude and temperature along the way (98-99). Their maps and other information collected were used by the expedition on the voyage home and in the future by other travelers. The Corp was also able to obtain geographic knowledge from their encounters with Native Americans (Hall, lecture, 10/11/04).
Perhaps the most successful aspect of the Lewis and Clark expedition were their encounters with Native Americans. One main goal of the entire voyage was to increase interaction with the Indians of the area. The explorers and Indians shared the same curiosities of each other (Hall, lecture, 10/11/04). The expedition spread their peaceful aims through speeches and “peace medals.” With these speeches, Lewis and Clark introduced the Indians to the United States and the “Great Father” in Washington (Barth, 127-130). The Indians accepted them as peaceful, since war parties never traveled with women and children, and traded openly with them. Sacagawea was also able to assist in helping the expedition relate to the Indians (Hall, lecture, 10/11/04).
Lewis and Clark were also able to bring new medical treatments to the Indians. They were able to treat and cure various ailments that the Indian medicine men could not. Although they had some man-made treatments, the captains used mainly natural remedies. The power of the “white man” as a healer surprised the Indians. The more popular, or common, treatments were for fever, aches and pains, rheumatism, frostbite, broken bones, and Clark’s “eye water.” An Indian patient was never lost, which helped keep the explorers in good standing among the tribe (Barth, 158-159).
Trade was a vital, important form of contact between the Corp and the Indians. By trading, the explorers kept up the goodwill between the two groups. Trade was also a means to gather new provisions and horses for travel across land. The Indians were able to obtain European and American man-made goods, mainly guns and metal. Through trade, the expedition was able to show off and demonstrate aspects of “civilized” life by showing the Indians the keelboat and its cannon (Hall, lecture, 10/11/04).
All of the interactions between the Corp of Discovery and the Indians led to new cultural exchanges. This was especially true during winter, when the Corp would halt its progress and setup a fort near an Indian village. The two groups interacted with each other during ceremonies, hunting, and other social gatherings. The Indians, having never seen a black man, were especially astonished with Clark’s servant, York. Cultural exchanges of all types were made, which helped tighten the friendship between the Corp and Indians (Corp of Discovery video).
Despite all of the success the Corp of Discovery had with other aspects of its voyage, it failed in increasing the scientific knowledge of the time. Lewis and Clark had a definite passion for science and making new discoveries. Along their journey, they kept detailed descriptions of the different specimens they encountered. As indicated in their inventory of the expedition, they even brought back skeletons and a few live specimens (Barth, 206-207). However, despite their best efforts, this work was done in vain. Lewis and Clark never received the credit they were due. Those sections of their journals were not published initially with the other entries, coming out almost one hundred years later in 1904. By this time, other explorers had made the same discoveries and taken the credit themselves. Even though the captains put forth all efforts in recording scientific findings, that overall aspect of the expedition was a failure (Barth, 186-189).
The last failure of the Lewis and Clark expedition was that the Corp was unable to locate a Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage was America’s answer to creating a possible trade connection with Asia, which they saw as an enticing new market. A goal of the expedition was to locate an all-water route across the continent. The explorers had hoped that the Missouri River would somehow provide the solution to that and connect with the Columbia River, taking them to the Pacific Ocean. Although Lewis and Clark did reach the Pacific, they reached it by an overland route after leaving the Missouri. When the Corp failed to chart an all-water coarse, it put an end to the daydreams of water trade with Asia (Hall, lecture, 10/11/04).
Lewis and Clark and their Corp of Discovery carried out a highly successful expedition. It was a major breakthrough for the United States at the time. President Jefferson saw his vision of western exploration carried out. The United States also had exercised an extent of its power and ownership of the newly-acquired territory. Along their journey, the Corp was able to increase interaction with Native Americans and spread the goodwill of the United States. The men also charted new territory, opening it up further to future exploration. All of this would not have been possible without the keen leadership of Lewis and Clark and their ability to outfit and maintain the Corp. The expedition encountered only two flaws; spreading scientific knowledge and discovering a Northwest Passage. However, despite those two flaws, the ventures of Lewis and Clark will always be remembered for the great success that it was and the doors it opened for the growing United States of America.
*********************************************************************************************
The Think Piece Assignment:
In your essay, compare and contrast the views of James Merrell and Neal Salisbury in Major Problems, chapter one. Be sure to explain which author makes the better argument and why.
The New World as a Harsh, Foreign Reality for Native Americans
In their respective essays, the American historians James Merrell and Neal Salisbury both offer valid points concerning the nature of Native American history. Merrell argues that the contact period was perhaps the most significant event in Indian history, forcing all involved, but especially Native Americans, to adjust to their radically different and changing surroundings, putting particular emphasis on the Piedmont Indians (especially the Catawbas). In contrast, Salisbury takes a broader look at all Indian cultures in what is now the United States and maintains that contact was yet another major historical occurrence in a string of political, economic, and social changes dating back to the 12th century. However, although the events of ages past had profoundly affected Native Americans and their tribal organization, none of these had nearly the impact as the profound cataclysm and destruction of their way of life that followed contact with Europeans. Most European colonists, failing to realize that Native Americans had already developed highly advanced societies and civilizations, viewed all Indians as “savages,” “simple creatures,” and obstacles in the way of progress and expansion of Western civilization (Major Problems, 4). As a result of contact and this universal misjudgment on the part of European Americans, many Indians were stripped of their lands, religions, and (in many cases) cultures, devastated by new diseases and subsequent starvation, and subjugated to the whims of white politicians (Richter, 81). And unlike previous occurrences in Native American history, contact initiated destructive events that affected all Native Americans in North and South America, regardless of tribal affiliation. Therefore, contrary to Salisbury’s historical analysis of contact as just another major historical event from which Indians continued to evolve as they had previously, contact and its consequences challenged virtually all Indians’ worldviews and ways of life so profoundly that it cannot be included simply as a continuation of the previous succession of Native American historical events. Indians became reviled outsiders in their own native lands, and unlike the fall of Cahokian and Anasazi civilizations, the decline induced by contact was permanent and encompassed all Native American groups. The result was what many historians refer to as the “American Genocide,” in which almost all of the total Native American population died out in the centuries following Columbus’s discovery of the New World (Stannard, 12).
Merrell illustrates many of these dramatic changes in his essay “The Indians’ New World,” taking a look at the full extent of post-contact disruption in his analysis of the Catawba Nation. One of the most significant of these consequences was the release of European pathogens among the Native Americans; diseases unintentionally introduced by Europeans took the greatest tolls on Indian tribes and cultures, spreading quickly and affecting many before they had even seen Europeans (Hall lecture, 16 Jan 2004). Plagues took huge tolls on Native Americans in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, killing off entire tribes (Stannard, 13). Indians did not have immunity to ordinary European and Old World diseases, and such common illnesses as measles, smallpox, chickenpox, and mumps were some of the most destructive pathogens for Native Americans. (Richter, 60). Healthy adults and the elderly, whose immune systems were fully developed (but resistant only to indigenous American pathogens), were hit worst by the various plagues (61). And, as Merrell notes, when tribal elders were wiped out Indian nations sometimes lost generations of collected wisdom and ritual, and in turn lost important cultural characteristics. Although Salisbury points out that the Native Americans were already changing before contact, the release of foreign diseases into the native population at contact greatly altered the Native American demographic and was the first in a series of pan-Indian experiences, further signifying the historical importance and distinctiveness of contact.
In addition to diseases, coercion and force used by Europeans to suppress and conquer Indians and their lands characterized Native American history from contact right up to the 20th century. Although previous Indian civilizations rose and fell, and some Indian cultures were defeated and succeeded by others (as Salisbury describes in his essay), contact initiated the final decline of all Native American cultures, from which they would never rise to prominence again. In some cases Native Americans were simply shoved aside by whites, such as along the Atlantic coast, where diseases had weakened Indian tribes to the point where British colonists could relatively easily settle along coastal areas without much resistance (especially by the 18th century) from fragmented Indian nations (Hall lecture, 6 Feb. 2004). In other locations, such as in Spanish-held territories in Central and South America, Native Americans were physically slaughtered by conquistadors. Fray Bernardino de Sahugun chronicled the attack on the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán, in which a warrior describes such gruesome scenes as “they [conquistadors] charged the crowd with iron lances and hacked at us with their iron swords” and “[the Spanish were] dragging out and killing anyone they could find” (Major Problems, 5). In the United States, Native Americans were forced westward by expansionist pressures from frontiersmen, and a 1838 campaign now popularly known as the “Trail of Tears” sought to remove most surviving Eastern Woodland Indians to relatively unfertile territory east of the Mississippi River (Social Fabric, 165).
In all these cases, Native Americans suffered when whites used force to assert their will against Indian interests. And as the expansion of these “invaders” across the continent greatly changed and disrupted all Native American cultures, some resorted to military rebellion in an attempt to resist these pressures that had been building up since contact (Hall lecture, 9 Feb, 2004). In his essay Merrell describes the Yamassee War as a rebellion in reaction to the disrespectful and uncouth behavior of colonials. And, as in all the other major Native American rebellions in the 18th and 19th century, the Yamassee War failed and brought additional suffering to the Indians. This brings out another important distinction between pre-contact and post-contact eras: contrary to previous conflicts in Native American history described by Salisbury, in which some Indian nations won wars and others lost, post-contact Indians lost every war fought against the new white “tribes.”
Merrell also emphasizes that, in addition to losing land and population, Indians were also forced to adapt to strange new people (both black and white), new goods/materials, alcohol, and familiar landscapes being drastically altered, as well as accept new Western concepts, such as property and money, after contact. European culture began to pervade all aspects of Indian life, and in the ensuing incorporation of some Western ideas in Indian culture, Native Americans adopted a more protective, territorial outlook toward their land (also partly as the result of the constant threat to their land posed by white expansionists) and withdrew into protective enclaves or remained hidden to avoid oppression (Kupperman, 186). Additionally, with strange, new, exciting materials and ideas infiltrating their country in the wake of contact, Native Americans drastically altered their own lifestyles. For example, in order to obtain European goods many northern tribes traded in their subsistence agriculture lifestyle to become commercial hunters, and they, therefore, became wrapped up in the global marketplace (Walker, 77). Merrell stresses Native Americans’ dependence on these goods, especially alcohol, whereas Salisbury argues that Native Americans initially used European materials for cultural purposes and that “European trade did not suddenly trigger a massive craving for the objects themselves” (Merrell, 21-22; Salisbury, 31).
The Iroquois became especially dependent on the fur trade, and when beavers decreased rapidly in New York due to excessive hunting, Iroquois tribes invaded Algonquin territories in a military move known as the “Iroquois Thrust” (Walker, 77). Salisbury maintains that the Iroquois invasion of tribes to their west was not a new phenomenon, and that they had been attacking tribes that had blocked trade routes for two centuries before contact (Salisbury, 31). However, in this case a lack of resources and rich incentives provided by Europeans motivated the Iroquois to attack interior Indians, clearly a consequence of different desires, social structures, and motivations among Indians in post-contact America.
Both Merrell and Salisbury emphasize the dramatic flux Indians experienced during the post-contact era, but each has a different interpretation of this instability. Merrell stresses the fact that disease introduced by Europeans, as well as colonists’ demand for land, forced fragmented tribes to come together and move further west. Salisbury, however, states that Native Americans had been in a constant state of “economic and political flux” since the fall of Mississippian and Anasazi civilizations and that the instability and movement introduced by diseases and colonial demands continued this trend. Salisbury even goes so far as to say that their cultures were of “recent origin,” whereas Merrell discusses the Indian tribes’ “ancient roots.” However, the Cahokian and Chaco Canyon civilizations both declined around the year 1300, giving tribes dependent on or influenced by these two vast civilizations about 200 years to recover (Mesa Verde film).
In addition, contrary to Salisbury’s assumptions, not all Native Americans were greatly affected by the rise and fall of Mississippian and Anasazi cultures. The Menomini, for example, lived in the Green Bay area of Wisconsin for hundreds (possibly even thousands) of years relatively unchanged before Europeans arrived, and, in fact, they still live in the same region (Keesing, 2). Although nearby tribes, such as the Iroquois, Ottawa, Huron, Fox, Miami, Kickapoo, and Illinois nations, were in flux, the Menomini stayed in the same region and remained relatively homogenous, culturally autonomous, and stationary (12). However, since contact their lifestyle has changed drastically, so much so that it is impossible for anthropologists to determine what cultural patterns, if any, have remained untouched by Western culture (52).
When they first made contact with Europeans (the French in the 1600s), the Menomini were compelled to convert to Christianity—a pressure which some Native Americans felt strongly and others avoided altogether. This form of coercion (as a result of contact) reached many Indians living under Spanish control, some Indians in New France, and most Indians in New England (where Puritans believed it their duty to spread Christianity to the unknowing natives). No pre-contact mass conversion could have been conducted to such an extent, as in North America a rough tribal balance of power prevented the military/religious superiority of one Indian nation over others on a continental scale. However, this balance was easily overcome by the militarily and technologically superior Europeans after contact, and thus they were able to assert their will and forcibly convert many Indian nations across vast areas. The Menomini were visited by Jesuit missionaries, who, having had problems conquering the language barrier, managed to convert several Indians before being disbanding in New France in the late 17th century (64). Although little is known about the Menomini’s previous interaction with nearby tribes, there is no evidence in native folklore or history to suggest that they felt a similar pressure to convert to another religion before contact. Clearly contact had a much more profound impact on the Menomini than any recorded pre-contact flux in the Native American world and thus represented a disruption in the historical continuity of the Menomini tribe.
In general, the period of instability following contact was marked by many changes and adjustments within many Native American tribes’ social structure. Decimated by disease or forced from their homelands, many refugee tribes merged with other Indian nations in polyglot communities, which, as Merrell points out, caused major linguistic difficulties (compounded by the need to communicate with Europeans, who spoke languages completely foreign and unrelated to Indian ones) (Richter 65). Although Salisbury argues that Indians were used to absorbing new peoples with different languages, the incorporation of Indian tribes to which other tribes felt ethnically separate clearly put strain on the identities of everyone involved, such as in the case of the Madan and Hidatsa tribes, which fused together to deal with harsh post-contact times but lost tribal distinction in the process (Walker 67). In order to cope with this dramatic change, Native Americans living in multiethnic communities formed fictive kinship-like relationships with other residents (Richter 63). However, societal strains induced by cultural flux may have resulted in many Indians’ support for strong leaders with pan-Indian views, which in turn led to the rise of such prominent figures as Pontiac, Neolin, and Tecumseh (69).
Contact also catalyzed the development of a single Native American identity, one that enveloped all American tribes. Such a development, a merging together in common cause, never occurred in the Americas before contact (except possibly during the Clovis Age) (Hall Lecture, 14 Jan. 2004). Even the strongest and largest Indian empires, such as the Mayan, Aztec, Incan, Cahokian, and Anasazi, did not foster a common identity/worldview among all Native American groups across the two continents. However, Europeans already possessed a shared heritage and common Western identity, and European-Americans generally treated each other with mutual respect and viewed Indians as the “other.” Native Americans, however, were slow to develop a sense of common identity, believing themselves to be different, unrelated nations with different dealings with the European nations. Even by Tecumseh’s time in the early 19th century, Indians were still divided, and some refused to support and even fought against Tecumseh’s pan-Indian military movement (Major Problems, 218). However, most Americans of European descent viewed all Indians in the same race-centered way, with little variation in policy when dealing with individual tribes, especially by the 1800s (Kupperman 4). To many White Americans the Native Americans were a land-hogging obstacle that needed to be removed, and most Indians had been shifted to the west of the Mississippi River by the mid 1800s (Social Fabric, 155). Although, as Salisbury suggests, many Native Americans did initially believe that European colonists were new additions to the existing networks of conflicting tribes and interacted with them as if they were, just as the Catawbas in Merrell’s example believed that they could play the Carolinians against the Virginians during their Yamassee War, clearly this was not the case. Again, this was partially because the Europeans possessed a common worldview (based on Western culture) very different from that of the Indians, and, therefore, presented a united front against the disjoined Indian tribes, especially in the case of Indian rebellion. Some Indians were slow to develop a Native American consciousness or an “us” versus “them” mentality. Several Native American groups early during the post-contact period, such as the Eastern Woodlands Indians in the 16th century and the Navajo and Utes in the 17th century, adopted the Western concept of slavery (which was unknown to them before contact) and captured and sold Native Americans from other tribes to white slave owners (Walker 429). However, as oppression increased and they were forced away from their homelands at a rapid pace, most Native Americans recognized their common suppression and realized the need to embrace pan-Indianism for their collective defense. Therefore, contact interrupted Native Americans’ historical progression in this sense, as Indians in pre-contact times remained factious and divided into rivaling nations, whereas under Euro-American rule, all Indians tribes shared many of the same problems and interests and eventually fostered a pan-Indian identity.
Both Merrell and Salisbury agree that contact and post-contact times represented a “critical era” in which most Indians’ deep held traditions were uprooted, and that native peoples’ religions, culture, and overall usefulness in the society of their homelands was threatened by the invasive New World society. And although colonists may have depended on Indian help in their early years of settlement, by the 18th century much of America’s white population was self-sustaining, and the American colonists’ independence and ability to thrive and expand in the New World without Native American’s help eventually led to Indians being literally shoved to the edges of society. This, as both Merrell and Salisbury would agree, led to a new world “in which Native Americans had no certain place.”
In closing, the European “tribes” did more than just replace Native Americans along the trade routes and continue the process of Native American flux by expanding: they intentionally (through war and forced migrations) and unintentionally (through disease) destroyed much of Native American population, stripped away their land, and established a society based on Western values, which were and still are foreign to many Native Americans (Luther, 274). On contact, the Europeans represented a different form of society (at first a post-feudal agricultural society, then an industrial society, whereas the Indians were primarily pastoral or hunter-gathering societies) with different worldviews (most Native Americans did not understand the concept of individual ownership of land, or Europeans’ drive conquer nature). (275). Although Indians may have initially viewed European colonists as a new tribe and treated them as such, they eventually realized that White Americans’ attitudes and goals were not their own and banded together in rebellion or pan-Indian movements. Many whites already viewed Native Americans, regardless of tribe, in the same way, and the Indians eventually recognized their distinctiveness as a whole race much as most whites had done before. Unlike previous events in Native American history (those stressed by Salisbury), the decline of Native American culture after contact was not a natural disaster but a manmade one. Many surviving Indians are still reeling from the effects of contact, although few probably lament the fall of Anasazi and Mississippians or the cultural changes that occurred prior to contact. In addition, contact, unlike previous events in Native American history, was the first of a series of pan-Indian experiences and oppressions. Therefore, contact cannot be viewed simply in terms as just another event in the progression of Native American history, requiring adaptations made before by Indians; at contact Native Americans became wrapped up in a completely new and unfamiliar world that undervalued their culture.
Works Cited (outside sources)
Keesing, Felix M. The Menomini Indians of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, 1987.
Kupperman, Karen Ordahl. Indians and English: Facing Off in Early America. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, 2000.
Luther, Dakota Chief Standing Bear. Land of the Spotted Eagle: Indian Wisdom. University of Nebraska: Lincoln, 1978.
Richter, Daniel K. Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2001.
Stannard, David E. "Native American History: Persecution of Native Americans by Government and Christians," <http://www.cia-g.com/~runners/research/americanholocaust.htm> (March 16, 2004)
Walker, Deward E. The Emergent Native American: A Reader in Culture Contact. Little, Brown, and Company: Boston, 1992.