Once there was a powerful genius who promised a lovely maiden a gift of rare value if she would go through a field of corn, and without pausing, going back, or wandering hither and thither, select the largest and ripest ear. The value of the gift was to be in proportion to the size and perfection of the ear of corn.


The maiden passed by many magnificent ones, but was so eager to get the largest and most perfect that she kept on without plucking any, until the ears she passes were successively smaller and more stunted. finally they became so small that she was ashamed to select any one: and not being allowed to go back, she came out at the other side without an ear of corn of her own.

Those who are constantly wavering and hesitating in their decision will likely make no decision at all, or else make the wrong decision. Those who resolve but suffer their resolution to be changed by the first counter suggestion of a friend - who shift from opinion to opinion, from plan to plan, and veer like a weathercock to every point of the compass, with every wind that blows - will never accomplish anything worth while.



Anonymous

Admitting mistakes is not a fault......failing to correct them is. Unknown

Impression

The fact is that the impression you make upon those with whom you come in contact is a tremendously important factor in your advancement and success. If you can find out what people honestly think of you, you may be able to make adjustments which will remove obstacles and clear the way to success and growth.......The ability to receive criticism graciously and to give it tactfully to others is the mark of a man of ability and balance.


- Ralph C. Smedley

Indian Removal--Annotated Bibliography for eng 102

Indian Removal

About 7 years ago, my parents took me to see the play “Unto these Hills”, about the Cherokee Indian Tribes removal from their homeland in the Smoky Mountains, to the Indian Reservation in Oklahoma. At the time, I thought it was a terrible, selfish thing of the white people to do to them, but I did not really think about how it affected the Indian people, and what their stand was and should have been at the time. We treated these people as they were less than we were. We took away their rights to their homes, their lands and their way of life. In Howard Zinn’s Voices of a people’s history of the United States, he also speaks of this injustice. He tells us that by “1844 fewer than 30,000 of the 120,000 Indians that lived east of the Mississippi at the time remained. They had been killed or pushed West by what the people of the time called “ethnic cleansing”.” These people had a right to be left to their homes. They were there before the white man came wanting the land and to be rid of the dirty, heathen Indians. They were dragged away forcibly from their homes, to stockades, sometimes separated from their families. They then had to travel, mostly on foot to their new Indian Territory home in Oklahoma. This new area was far away from the White Settlers who had selfishly wanted these lands for their own and the Indians out of mind. The Cherokee’s were not the only group of Indians to be removed from their homes, and none of the removals were justified or right in any way.

Annotated Bibliography

Brinkley, Alan, American History A Survey. (McGraw Hill Higher Education, Boston – New York – London, 2009): 458-464. Print

The material in the History book talks about White tribal policies and how the Whites tried to place a permanent area between the Indians and themselves. Then they were not satisfied with that barrier, and the whites wanted to cross the area and take over the new lands that they had forced the Indians to be moved to.

The information goes on to tell of the poorly run reservations. That these Indians were taken from their homes and culture, and placed on government run reservations, and yet they still went hungry and had no way to farm the land. The whites were killing the buffalo, and pushing farther west into their land.



The Gale Encyclopedia of Native Americans, Edited by Sharon Malinowski and Anna Sheets with Jeffrey Lehman and Melissa Doig. (Gale, Detroit – New York- London, Volume I 1998): 380-389. Print

This material explains the life of the Cherokee Indians. Non Indians continued their quest to acquire Indian land at whatever costs to the Indians. The battle heightened with the 1830 passage of the Federal Indian Removal Act, which required Indians to trade their homeland for property in Indian Territory. Most refused to leave voluntarily and were forcibly removed from their homes.

This information will be useful for me to show my audience what type of people the Cherokee were. That they had family lives, they worked, and they had hopes for their lands. It was theirs, and they had the right to stay on the land, and the whites and the government did not have the right to just come in and take the land away from them, just because they wanted the land for themselves, for selfish purposes. They felt they were better than the Indians, and so they could force them to do what they wanted.

Golden, Randy. Cherokee Removal Forts, exclusively for About North Georgia. NGeorgia.com, web, Accessed March 29, 2010.

This site tells about the forts that were built to house the Cherokee people, before their actual removal from their homeland to Indian Territory. This happened eight years before the Trail of Tears.

This is a story of the history before the real history. I have never heard this part of the story before and thought it was interesting to see what the Indians had to go through beforehand. It tells where the forts are, why and how they were built, and what the lives of the people on the forts were like.

Jahoda, Gloria, The Trail of Tears-The Story of the American Indian Removals 1813-1855. (Random House, New York – Toronto – London – Sydney – Auckland, 1975): 1-312. Print

In 1930 the U.S. Congress passed a bill allowing the removal of all Native Americans living east of the Mississippi. Chief John Ross argued successfully with the U. S. Supreme Court that this was unconstitutional, but President Andrew Jackson refused to accept the decision and proceeded to make them leave their homeland. 13,000 Cherokee were forced to leave and to walk to their new Indian Territory Homes in Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears. The travel was hard and long, and over One fourth of the people died along the way.

The material from this book will be used to show the hardships that the Indians under went on their journey. First was the forced removal from their homes. Some of them were separated from their families. The journey to Oklahoma itself was a struggle. They travel, the weather, the lack of food and clothing, to the strange new land out west. The struggles did not stop there either. Once they got settled, there were new problems to deal with. This all goes back to what Zinn said in his book.

Parker, Matthew D. Indian Removal, Thomas Legion: The 69th North Carolina Regiment, Matthew Parker, thomaslegion.net, posted 08-27-2005, web, accessed March 31, 2010.

This site has the dates of all tribe removals, the years it took them to travel to their destinations. It also tells the number of deaths of the tribes during the removal. It tells the role of the government in the removals.

How much the government had to do with the removals will be an interesting turn to the story. What Presidents at the time did for or against the Indians, and ultimately in the removal of them from their sacred homelands.

Philip, Neil, The Great Circle A History of the First Nations. (Clarion Books, New York, 2006): 1-147. Print.

The author tells us of the first meetings with the Indians and the Whites. In 1705 the Cherokee complained to the governor that the whites were conspiring to assault, kill, destroy and take captive as many Indians as possible. Since these men were given commission from the governor himself, and the Indians that were caught were sold into slavery for his and private profit, the complaints went unheard. The Indians were told they must become civilized, and war broke out. The Indians lost more and more of their lands, and began to accept this.

The Indians had troubles with the whites, and they had been taken away from their homes and their culture. They were strong, and knew they would have to survive. So they formed their own governments again, knew that they would need to have an education. The audience needs to see that these were people, with minds, imaginations and culture. Even though they had been dealt a strong blow they were going to survive, and move forward.

Rutledge, Michael J., Samuels Memory. Forgiveness in the Age of Forgetfulness 1995. Copyright 1997 Ken Martin, Cherokeehistory.com, web, accessed March 30, 2010.

This site has a lot of different types of information. This is a recounting of the history of an Indian boy who turned 9 years old, while travelling on the Trail of Tears, told by his great grandson.

I thought the information from someone who had to travel on this horrific journey would add some introspect into the paper. To have an actual memory from someone who had been through this and had the insight into actual feelings and attitudes would be neat.

Seidman, David, Individual Rights and Civic Responsibility Civil Rights. (The Rosen Publishing Group Inc., New York, 2001) : 40-59. Print

The author tells about the lack of and struggle for Native American Civil Rights. The problem started back at the time that Columbus discovered America in 1492, when he called the inhabitants Indians, and he enslaved them and killed them if they resisted. Then for a time the government seemed to respect the Indians. In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance stated that “The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians: their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent, they shall never be invaded or disturbed.” In contrast, as stated in the Trail of Tears, above we see that this did not hold true.

In Zinn’s writings he gives us insight through a soldier’s story about what a white man did feel about these injustices. This soldier gives us a glimpse into the Indian’s lives and feelings, and what a terrible thing was happening to them, totally out of their control. This book will help us show the struggle for some rights for the Indians. That even though at the time, the thought was that these people were savages, they had a culture and way of life, and they did deserve rights, and they were taken away from them.

The People Speak

In the Documentary film The People Speak many ideas and views were brought up. These views were not much talked about by the media, politicians or corporate giants in the same light as they were talked about by ordinary, everyday people. One of the things that immediately caught my attention was what happened to our soldiers after coming home from war. Many of them came home to find that the things which had been promised to them such as land or money, would turn out to never be theirs, or would be just another battle they would have to fight to obtain. Throughout history, this has been the case for generations of soldiers, who have been time and time again, promised things from their countries for their service, and been let down by their governments.

Deadliest Catch : Discovery Channel

News on Phil Harris
Deadliest Catch : Discovery Channel

Posted using ShareThis

Response to Jay Rosen’s article

           In his article “Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press” January 12, 2009 Jay Rosen states that in mass media, the press was able to push just their views on readers. He says they could do this because they were only clued into the media by the medium used, but they did not have a connection or way to discuss these matters with each other; and now they do because of the internet. I think he is correct in saying that, and that the internet has helped people to define not only the information they are given by one source, but many, and to then come to a conclusion about that information, not only depending on the view of the journalist they are reading. He relates a interesting view by a press scholar Daniel Hallin, who felt he needed something more than and decided to look at how journalists view their material. In his book The Uncensored War he came up with a diagram, showing the practice of hidden politics by journalist. 1- The sphere of legitimate debate 2- The sphere of Consensus and 3-The sphere of Deviance.


            In Legitimate Debate this is where the journalist works. This is where two party debates are carried out, where both parties discuss the “issues” or what they want us to believe the issues are. It is not always easy to know what the truth is, or which side is right or wrong, or if there is a right or wrong. The journalists are giving their side, weighing in on the information that they feel we need to know. In the sphere of consensus, this is where the information that is agreed upon is given. This is the common truth area and journalists don’t feel the need to present differing points of views. If you don’t agree with the points made and these given truths, then people will say the press is biased, and I believe they are. In the third sphere of deviance lives the information that is deemed unnecessary and the press does not share it with us. It is not fair that they don’t share all of the facts with the public.

            Journalist should not be allowed to keep important information from the public. I don’t feel like I want to know everything that is going with all topics, but information about political topics should all be shared. The press also is known for totally keeping some information out of the news or painting it in a light that makes it unacceptable. Hallin makes the point that if you find your views outside of mainstream journalism or politics, you will be hard pressed to find your views voiced in the press. The three spheres are not totally separate from each other; the lines forming the separate spheres do fade in and out of each other. Although, even in the grey areas of the circle, the press still has the power to explain or persuade to meet their needs and agendas for the story. In his story he quotes that (Atrios: “I’ve long noticed a tendency of the American press to take the side of official US policy when covering foreign affairs.”) He also says that public opinion and social behavior does change over time, and that is so true. Just watch the approval ratings of the president; they go up and down almost daily.

            In conclusion, journalists use their power of words and persuasion to change public opinion, even if it means only giving their side of the story .Journalists can incite fear, negativity, rage, excitement, joy and many other emotions both positive and negative with their stories. The First Amendment gives them Freedom of Speech to say whatever they want, whenever they want. They get to decide on what belongs in the media without asking our opinion or giving the whole story. I don’t agree with that. This article goes on to talk about how important social networking and sharing of information is, and I agree with that. It is nice to be able to go to several political websites and read many different views about the same topic. Then to be able to go online and state your own political view, share it with many like minded or not like minded individuals. Journalist do not like this, as it weakens their following and the need for only their opinions and idealism. Journalist downgrade blogging and social sharing as not being reliable: and like many other things that is their opinion. I for one enjoy feeling like I can get several different views of a situation, and I get my opinion and views heard too. They may not always be right, or politically correct, but it is shared information and ideas. I feel that this helps me to not only get information, but makes me think more about what is going on around me, and to come up with my own opinion.