Who Was John Collier - Research Paper Example

? HIST223 Final Exam HIST223 Final Exam Who was John Collier, and what role did he play in creating a “New Deal” for Native People? John Collier was a cultural anthropologist and social reformer in the United States who was an advocate of freedom and justice for the Native Americans during the 1930’s when there were some problems when it came to federal policy towards American Indians. Collier authored the India Reorganization Act of 1934, which greatly helped all Native Americans in the United States. In addition, Collier also did many other things that were in favor of this particular group of people. John Collier created a “New Deal” for Native people by initiating several acts that directly or indirectly led to the betterment of this group of people that he is defending. John Collier became commissioner of Indian affairs in 1933 as appointed by President Roosevelt. Under Collier’s governance, federal policies had sweeping and permanent changes in favor of the Indians. One of these federal policies was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which was also known as the “Indian New Deal” or the “Wheeler-Howard Act”1. The Indian Reorganization Act under Collier made lasting changes in the federal policy concerning Native Americans. One of these changes is ending the allotment of the tribal land to non-Native Americans. Two other changes include the act encouraging tribes to establish their own self-government and building a loan in order to finance tribe members who are putting up a business2. Prior to and aside from becoming a commissioner of Indian affairs, John Collier was also the executive secretary for the American Indian Defense Association, or AIDA, an organization which he himself founded in 1923, in order to fight for the protection of tribal property and religious freedom of Native Americans. Through the institution of AIDA, Collier was able to recommend doing away with the teaching to Indians of only the cultural values of whites. At the same time, it recommended that that Indian Service must provide the youth and their parents the necessary tools that will help them adapt not only to whites but also to Indians3. John Collier also asked Congress for the repeal of the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887. This particular law pressured American Indian tribes to abolish their own community lands and to have individually owned lands instead. The purpose of this was to promote Indian assimilation into the society of American whites. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, which Collier headed in 1933 provided for the successful passing of the Indian Reorganization Act in Congress4. John Collier’s idea of a “New Deal” for American Indians during his time definitely was all about the betterment of this particular group of people. He became commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1933 and so helped reform law in favor of the Indians through the Indian Reorganization Act. He was also the founder and executive secretary of the American Indian Defense Association, which issued recommendations on how Indians should be treated and educated. Lastly, he asked Congress to repeal the Dawes Act of 1887 in order to protect the tribal lands of the Indians. Explain French patterns of contact with Native Americans: How did their goals and type of colonization affect the success or failure of relations with Native groups? The French colonizers’ diplomacy and immersion into Native American culture guaranteed the success of their colonization. The French arrived in North America in the 1600s5, and established their colony there. However, unlike the British, who did not respect the natives, the French afforded them with the best treatment as possible. The success of the colonial techniques of the French that helped them establish New France in Canada was mainly due to their immersion in American Indian culture. The French were very interested in the culture and customs of Native Americans. The French took the time to learn the languages, habits and the ways of the Native American people. There were also cases where Frenchmen got married with American Indian women and were therefore integrated into the particular Indian tribe where the woman that one married belonged. Most of these events were chronicled by the Jesuit priests in The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents6. The French also developed trading posts on American Indian land instead of directly claiming the lands of the Native peoples. Their fishing and fur trading posts were the reason for them to increase their numbers up to 2500 in Montreal, Quebec and Trois-Rivieres in Canada. Their idea of settling in cities along the St. Lawrence River highly depended on fishing trading posts7. In fact, the fur trade established by the French encouraged the Native Americans of Canada to engage in trade with the French and eventually improved the lives of the former. Through the fur trade, the Native Americans were allowed access to metal tools like pots, kettles and knives, which helped them much in food preparation. They were also provided with nets, hatchets and firearms in order to facilitate hunting for animals. Eventually also, the Native people began to avail of and rely on European goods, which helped to improve their lives8. The French were diplomatic, and so this is the reason why they became successful with their efforts at colonizing and settling down in Canada, where they established New France. The French immersed themselves in the culture of the Native Americans and even intermarried with their women, and so this created a strong bond between them and the Native peoples. Moreover, the fact that the French established trading posts on Indian lands instead of claiming these lands for selfish motives must have made the Native Americans realize that the French were not there to take something away from them. Lastly, the idea of letting the Indians engage in trade directly as well as making their lives easier through the introduction of European goods helped to regain their trust. What historical events and issues impact contemporary political developments among Native Americans communities in North and South America? As history shapes the present, the American Indians are not exempted from this rule. The atrocities brought about by the white Americans against the Native Indians have somehow caused the friction in their relations between the federal government even up to the contemporary times. Nevertheless, as the modern American government has become more democratic through the years, it has also given these American Indians just compensation for former wrongdoings. The historical events and issues that had an impact on the political development of Native Americas actually brought about both positive and negative effects to their societies. One historical event that had an impact on contemporary political development of the Native American communities in the United States was the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which was signed and approved by then President Andrew Jackson. The Indian Removal Act had an impact on the native populations of Indians in the United States, especially the Seminole, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Cherokee. Eventually the reduced populations of Indians moved to the west but somehow failed to reorganize themselves just like before the removal. The reason for this is that the extent of the loss of life impaired the ability of these communities to organize themselves into the same clan and kin relationships as they had before, thus original community spirit and political organization changed permanently 9. Another historical event that somehow had an impact on the political development of the Indians in the United States was the attempt of U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall to define the status of the American Indian and to recommend assimilation as a rule. According to Marshall, the Native American tribes were “domestic dependent nations whose relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian”10. This is then the basis of Marshall’s idea to assimilate American Indian Natives into the mainstream culture of white Americans. The result of this in contemporary times was the succession of treaties by the Indians that failed because they were not honored by the authorities, who were mostly whites. This also helps to explain the troubled relations between the Native Americans and the federal government for so many years until John Collier came into the scene11. Also in the past, there have been several government violations of Native American Indian rights and so these have become the basis of just compensation of the Indians during the contemporary times. One of these past events is the illegal seizure of the Black Hills from the Sioux Indians by the government in the 1880s. The Sioux Indians were compensated $100 million in the 1980s for such violations. Moreover, the Blackfeet tribe was also awarded $29 million in 1982 for faulty federal accounting practices in the past. Alaska Natives also received $962 million as compensation for the past wrongdoings done by the government to their Indians. The Mohegans of Connecticut and the others were given the rights to govern their lands as well as federal recognition as compensation for past wrongdoings of the government during historical times12. The effects of historical events on the political scenario and development of the American Indian tribes during the contemporary times were both positive and negative. Two negative effects include the reduction of the population of the Indians due to the Indian Removal Act with their consequent inability to reform their original communities and culture, and the several troubled relations between the federal government and the American Indians. However, one positive effect of this is the compensation granted by the government in the late 70s and 80s for the purpose of correcting the past wrongdoings of the government against specific groups of people. Compare and contrast Hopewell and Mayan culture. The Hopewell and Mayan Indians were among the most advanced of all the North American Indians because they have fully developed many aspects of their society. These aspects include their agriculture, art and architecture, as well as the extent of their political territories. The Hopewell Indians and the Mayans both differed in terms of location and identity and in terms of methods of obtaining food, and they were similar in terms of the intricacy of their art. One difference between the Hopewell and Mayan cultures is that while the latter was a definite group of people with a known and established identity, the Hopewell people somehow comprised the different cultures of the Eastern Woodlands of North America. In America, the area that the Hopewell occupies includes Nebraska, Mississippi, Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio, which is the epicenter of the Hopewell13. On the other hand, the Mayan civilization occupied around one-third of the eastern part of Mesoamerica, and had its primary location on the Yucatan Peninsula in southeastern Mexico. The rest of the Maya are in Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize and Honduras14. Another difference between the Hopewell and the Mayan Civilization is that while the Early Maya were hunter-gatherers, or ones who used the slash and burn method to cut down trees, they also eventually developed their agricultural practices15. On the other hand, the Hopewell focused on agriculture and trade. On the other hand, the Hopewell society cultivated squash, sunflower, little barley, marsh elder, chenopodium, knotweed and maygrass, which are all seed-bearing annuals. Most of them were replaced with maize later16. A similarity between Hopewell and Mayan civilization is their art, which were both fine and intricate. Hopewell art depicted animals in their natural state such as birds, bear and deer, and that these were thought of as totems or guardian spirits. Moreover, bowls and jars with imprints are being sold17. On the other hand, Mayan art mainly used cotton textiles, metals and jewelry, although most was architectural and used mortar, cedar beams, limestone, bones and shell18. The Hopewell and Mayan cultures and civilizations both have differences and a similarity. They are different in two aspects. First, while the Mayans were an established people in Mesoamerica, extending from Mexico to South America and possessed an exact territory with a definite identity, the Hopewell Indians were not and were rather limited to the United States. Second, while the Mayans were hunter-gatherers and only resorted to agricultural practices later on, the Hopewell Indians were mainly focused on agriculture and trade. However, both Indian groups were similar in their forms of art. While the Mayans dealt with metals and often expressed their art through their architecture of limestone and mortar, the Hopewell Indians focused mainly on bowls, jars and tools. Endnotes 1. “Indian Reorganization Act,” (2013), University of Alaska Fairbanks, accessed Aug. 21, 2013, http://tm112.community.uaf.edu/unit-2/indian-reorganization-act-1934/. 2. Ibid. 3. “The 1920s: John Collier leads reform,” (2013), National Relief Charities, accessed Aug. 22, 2013, http://www.nrcprograms.org/site/PageServer?pagename=aief_hist_1920. 4. “Indian Reorganization Act,” (2013), Salem Press, accessed Aug. 22, 2013, http://salempress.com/store/samples/thirties_in_america/thirties_in_america_indian.htm. 5. “Native Americans in New France (Canada),” (2005), Teaching American History, accessed Aug. 22, 2013, http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000132/html/t132.html. 6. Ibid. 7. “Comparing Settlement Patterns: New Spain, New France, New England,” (2013), University of Massachusetts, accessed Aug. 23, 2013, http://people.umass.edu/hist383/class%20notes/Comparing%20Settlement%20Patterns.htm. 8. “New France and the Native Americans,” (2013), Boundless, accessed Aug. 23, 2013, https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/the-expansion-and-crises-of-the-colonies-1650-1750/empires-in-conflict/new-france-and-the-native-americans/. 9. Clara Sue Kidwell, “The Effects of Removal on American Indian Tribes,” (2010), National Humanities Center, accessed Aug. 22, 2013, http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/indianremovalf.htm. 10. Andrew Boxer, “Native Americans and the Federal Government,” (2009), History Today, accessed Aug. 22, 2013, http://www.historytoday.com/andrew-boxer/native-americans-and-federal-government. 11. Ibid. 12. Peter N. Herndon, “Native Americans and the Clash of Cultures: Then and Now,” (2013), Yale University, accessed Aug. 23, 2013, http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/3/99.03.03.x.html. 13. “Hopewell Culture,” (2013), Ohio History Central, accessed Aug. 23, 2013, http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Hopewell_Culture?rec=1283. 14. “Maya Civilization,” (2013), Indians.org, accessed Aug. 23, 2013, http://www.indians.org/welker/maya.htm. 15. Benjamin R. Kracht, “The Mayan Civilization,” (1990), Northeastern State University, accessed Aug. 22, 2013, http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~kracht/mayancourse/home.html. 16. “Hopewell Culture,” (2013). 17. Ibid. 18. “Welcome to the Mayan Civilization,” 2013, Georgia Perimeter College, accessed Aug. 24, 2013, http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/literature/world_literature/classprojects/mexico/maya.html. Bibliography Boxer, Andrew. “Native Americans and the Federal Government.” (2009). History Today. Accessed Aug. 22, 2013. http://www.historytoday.com/andrew-boxer/native-americans-and-federal-government. “Comparing Settlement Patterns: New Spain, New France, New England.” (2013). University of Massachusetts. Accessed Aug. 23, 2013. http://people.umass.edu/hist383/class%20notes/Comparing%20Settlement%20Patterns.htm. Herndon, Peter N. “Native Americans and the Clash of Cultures: Then and Now.” (2013). Yale University. Accessed Aug. 23, 2013. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/3/99.03.03.x.html. “Hopewell Culture.” (2013). Ohio History Central. Accessed Aug. 23, 2013. http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Hopewell_Culture?rec=1283. “Indian Reorganization Act.” (2013). Salem Press. Accessed Aug. 22, 2013. http://salempress.com/store/samples/thirties_in_america/thirties_in_america_indian.htm. “Indian Reorganization Act.” (2013). University of Alaska Fairbanks. Accessed Aug. 21, 2013. http://tm112.community.uaf.edu/unit-2/indian-reorganization-act-1934/. Kidwell, Clara Sue.“The Effects of Removal on American Indian Tribes.” (2010). National Humanities Center. Accessed Aug. 22, 2013. http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/indianremovalf.htm. Kracht, Benjamin R. “The Mayan Civilization.” (1990). Northeastern State University. Accessed Aug. 22, 2013. http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~kracht/mayancourse/home.html. “Maya Civilization.” (2013). Indians.org. Accessed Aug. 23, 2013. http://www.indians.org/welker/maya.htm. “Native Americans in New France (Canada).” (2005). Teaching American History. Accessed Aug. 22, 2013. http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000132/html/t132.html. “New France and the Native Americans.” (2013). Boundless. Accessed Aug. 23, 2013. https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/the-expansion-and-crises-of-the-colonies-1650-1750/empires-in-conflict/new-france-and-the-native-americans/. “The 1920s: John Collier leads reform.” (2013). National Relief Charities. Accessed Aug. 22, 2013. http://www.nrcprograms.org/site/PageServer?pagename=aief_hist_1920. “Welcome to the Mayan Civilization.” 2013. Georgia Perimeter College. Accessed Aug. 24, 2013. http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/literature/world_literature/classprojects/mexico/maya.html. Read More