Discussion Question Response Week 7 History

Discussion Question Response

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.

 

Jennifer De Jesus – Hello everyone, so in the following statement that says, “In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated solely by desire to seize the natives’ land.” It is somewhat true, yet not there to the point of fully giving one the appropriate picture of the situation.

 

As the reason behind the white settlers’ desire for the land is more fixed in the economic, cultural (building a new one), and political lenses. As the white settlers wanted to independence themselves from the colonials’ cultural and social beliefs. Meaning that they would need resources which the Southeast had desirable fertile farming land, with conditions ideal for the production of cotton, and the discovery of gold in some areas made their aim for the land a necessity as shooting two birds with one stone.

 

Yet this, in turn, cause a negative conclusion with to the Cherokee Nation after giving their union response before having civil divisions within their Nation for the pressure of potential danger from all angles for staying in their land that holds much meaning to them in a religious, cultural, social, and economic (as in trading). But even after said divisions within the Cherokee one faction, that saw removal as inevitable, negotiated the Treaty of New Echota still meant difficultly as an estimated 4,000 Cherokee died on their way there.

 

So seeing the reason behind both parties on a neutral basis both hold importance to the land in order to maintain their own culture intact and another to start a new one. So, a better way to say this statement after seeing the issues and events around it from different lenses would be, “In preparing for the Cherokee removal, both the state and federal officials were motivated to their new resources that could bring a new way of life and social cultural for their people by seize the natives’ land while offering far away land similar to the natives that could kill any being for long travel for political negotiation.”

Well, this was my view and understanding hope everyone is doing well this week.

 

Response –

 

Pierre Taylor – The above statement does not present the full picture of this event; the following revised statement may help to paint a fuller picture. In preparing for the Cherokee removal, state and federal officials were motivated by seizing the natives land along with attempts to civilize the natives and pass the Indian Removal Act. I chose to look at this event through other historical lenses such as the religious and political lenses when considering my revision. Many factors were at play when this event unfolded. It is important to look deeper into the event through different historical lenses in order to have a better understanding.

I can take a similar approach with my research on the VRA. By looking deeper into my topic with different historical lenses I may find other causes for this event I overlooked. I would like to further explore the political lens. I want to know more about the southern politicians and their reasons to why they did not approve of the VRA.

Response –