Response to Hannah's Blog

The Human Genome Project is an issue that I was even more confused with when I finished than when I started to read about it. Not because the presentation was bad or confusing, but because it was so thought provoking. There are many extreme positives and negatives to continuing research, which makes me unsure of which side I agree with. I usually am pretty quick to make up my mind on a topic, but this is a major gray area for me. On one hand if the research continues there will be many diseases that could be cured, which seems great. However, I am also a realist and realism that in a way disease is necessary for humans. While nobody wants to see their loved ones die from a disease, if there were no diseases humans would likely exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth and the human race might end completely. Also, if research continues on this idea there would be a more intelligent population, and who knows what is possible. I think this could be good, but also it seems like it would start to make people extremely similar and take away variety, which is the spice of life. Hannah brings up the idea that no one should try to stop this research, but when it is found they should use it in a responsible way. I agree with this ideal, but thinking practically I do not believe people would be able to resist using this power. Parents would want their children to be the best at sports, the smartest kids, and the best looking. But I think this would take away the uniqueness of people as well as take away the surprise in life. If we are to have designer babies then the world would be a much different place and a place that I don’t think I would like to see. However, is it right for there to be people suffering from diseases when it is possible that we could eradicate these issues? I am really still unsure of where I stand on this issue. Hannah believes that there should be some things that should be allowed to be altered, such as diseases, but not things like athletic ability and intelligence. I definitely agree with the second part that people should live their life with the athletic ability and intelligence that they are given, but the first part I am still unsure of. I know that when I see someone I am close to suffering from a disease there isn’t a thought in my mind that I want to do anything to have this disease cured. However, I learned from biology that there is a carrying capacity for every population and I just wonder how close we are to this carrying capacity. Generally if a population exceeds this carrying capacity by a lot there is a huge amount of deaths in the population, and a population can even be wiped out completely. It is impossible for us to know the carrying capacity of the Earth and if these diseases are necessary which is why I am so undecided on the issue. I think Hannah did a great job showing both sides of the issue because there really is no right answer in this debate. No side seems like the good guys or the bad guys, which is much different from many other issues. Hannah really left this topic up for interpretation, and I am still contemplating which side I agree with.

Response to "Colleen's Thoughts"

Colleen brought up many points about education that I was unaware of. Since we learned about the civil rights movement I knew about black and white schools becoming integrated, but I really just assumed that everything was better today. I have briefly heard about the “No Child left Behind Act” but I haven’t really seen the results of this because we go to such a great school. My view on education has been extremely biased because Deerfield is such a great school and has such high standards. Colleen’s video showed a library with very few books and tables pushed up against the bookshelves because of a lack of space. This is undoubtedly and unsuccessful way to approach education. President Obama talked about how educating students was an easy way to bring economic prosperity to a country, and yet there are many schools that Colleen focused on that were not great schools. There has not been enough change in reality in the schools. In theory there has been because of the legislation, but this has not been carried out. Colleen focused on a school’s bathrooms that were extremely bad, and it was for a school with %1 white students. This school is bad because it truly has not changed much since the Brown vs. Board of Education decision as this school is still made up of 99% minorities. In America it is typical that the minorities receive less funding, this is probably why they had such bad bathrooms. This to me seemed like an issue of the 1960s, but not an issue that America would still be facing today. In reality schools have not been completely integrated and the wealthier communities have better school districts. If America wants a true bailout plan I believe that we need to bailout the schools. There needs to be a great deal of money spent on improving schools like the one shown in Colleen’s video. This will not only pay off in the future, but also give all children an equal opportunity. When it comes down to it, students in worse schools have a much more limited opportunity to succeed in life; this should not be the case. Colleen brings up an interesting idea that the true Americans are the ones who have “a lack of education. They realize that some are denied opportunity, but many people who have a higher education fail to notice how privileged they are.” This made me realize that I am one of the people who fails to realize how privileged I am to come to a school like Deerfield. There are kids who do not have the chance to learn and succeed, which must be changed. For this change to come about those who have opportunity must help those without it. They must also appeal to the government for education programs to be improved. One of the most frustrating parts about this issue is that it is so easy to diagnose. Colleen wrote about standardized testing and how it can illustrate issues in the school systems. If the government would take time to see which schools had lower scores and then send more funding to them this situation could be improved. While this would cost a great deal of money it would pay off in the future when America has educated workers bringing in money to the American economy.

Response to Aliza's Blog

I had known a little bit about the idea of women’s suffrage and how long the battle for it was, but I did not know of many of the other rights women were fighting for. Mainly they were fighting for equality in the workplace. It is interesting to me that women experienced these issues because usually it is a minority that either gets paid less or is less likely to be hired, but obviously women represent about 50% of the population. One of the main reason women received more jobs was because the men went off to fight in World War II, so the women were forced to work. They were not given work because people realized it was right, they were given work out of necessity. The women did not gain rights because of all the fighting they did not get these rights, but rather because American businesses had no other option. I’m not sure if this is even a victory that would have been celebrated by women because they were still not viewed as equal as they lost their jobs when the men returned. It wasn’t until legislation that was later passed that forced equality of the sexes in the workplace and in paychecks, but even then men found loopholes to pay women less. Aliza’s blog says that women are paid 23 cents less than men to the dollar even for equal jobs. To me this idea sounds ridiculous in today’s world as women are becoming CEO’s of companies and have equal roles as men in the workplace. I am not surprised that this would have happened years ago, but in today’s modern world I find it crazy that there still needs to be new legislation from Obama to ensure equal pay. One of the most interesting points Aliza made was that there won’t be true equality until “the father is staying home, and the woman is going off to work.” I have heard cases of this occurring but my own prejudices make it seem weird to me that this would happen, but Aliza’s point is extremely valid. Until people see Women and Men working in the same fields and there are as many stay at home dads as there are stay at home moms then there won’t be true equality in the workplace. The media is also at fault for some of this as TV shows, movies, and magazines portray women as objects of men and never the other way around. I think for Women to be totally equal they also have to give up some of the things they are accustomed to. Why is it that a man is expected to pay on a date? I think ideas like this will take a very long time to change, so total equality is far away.

Works Cited

Works Cited

Alexie, Sherman. The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven. New York : HarperPerennial, 1994. Print.

"American Indians and Buffalo Soldiers, 1850-1900 (Overview)." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.

Antelope, Walking. "Gaming Provides Many Benefits to Native American Communities." At Issue: Indian Gaming. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 8 Feb. 2010 .

Coin, Jacob. "Most Native Americans Have Not Profited from Gaming." At Issue: Indian Gaming. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010 .

"Cultural Depictions of Native Americans" American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Sun. 31 Jan. 2010 .

"Iroquois Confederacy." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. .

Katel, P. (2006, April 28). American Indians. CQ Researcher, 16, 361-384. Retrieved February 10, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2006042800.

Lindquist-Mala, Cynthia. "Youth Suicide Among Native Americans Can Be Reduced with More Federal Help." Current Controversies: Suicide. Ed. Paul Connors. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010.

Putnam, Rufus " On a Treaty with Indians," Annals of American History. [Accessed February 5, 2010].

Stockdale, Nancy L. "Native Americans in the American Revolution." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010.

Photos and youtube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VqoxOcEqpk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq0Joi1ELps

http://virtualsnyder.com/pages/native-americans.jpg

http://www.regent.edu/general/library/about_the_library/news_publications/images/ConstitutionDayPic.PNG

http://webpages.shepherd.edu/IBEICH01/TAU5921.jpg

http://howtoteachenglishonline.com/images/new_images/flags/British%20flag.png

http://www.mohicanpress.com/images/painting_griffing_bushy_run.jpg

http://www.nativevillage.org/Archives/2009%20Archives/APRIL%20News/April%202009%20News%20V4/Cherokee.jpg

http://pendulumopinions.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/trail-of-tears.jpg

https://sharepoint.whitfield.k12.ga.us/sites/nhm/blogs/ridley/8th%20Grade%20Math/trail_of_tears_map.jpg

http://www.cometoevergreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/buffalobillwildwest-lrg.jpg

http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/Thomas_Rice_as_Jim_Crow.jpg

http://www.nndb.com/people/520/000113181/sherman-alexie.jpg

http://justareadingfool.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/0802141676.jpg

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/a53d649a-81b4-402d-80ba-cbfda8ef2280.jpg

http://mylifeasanalien.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/native-cartoon.jpg

http://thememphisliberal.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/american-flag.jpg

Current Event Analytical Piece

The land that was taken away from the Native American tribes years ago is now influencing Native Americans in a great way today. When they lost all of their land they also lost much of their power and money as they were forced onto small reservations that were built on the worst land possible, giving them very few economic opportunities. The United States Government allows them some benefits in order to try and repay the damage that they did to the Native Americans by taking away their land , but they cannot easily fix many of the problems they have caused.

The government allows casinos on Native American reservations, which has been greatly debated recently. These casinos have been a blessing for some tribes and a curse for others. Certain tribes have had huge amounts of success with the gaming industry as "Indian gaming in America has become a multi-billion dollar industry, which many Tribes have embraced as a tool to pull their people out of poverty and unemployment" (Antelope). These tribes have had great success with casinos as they have provided jobs to many people living on the reservation and they have brought in great amounts of money and outside visitors. This has influenced the Native American culture as they are integrating more with people outside the reservation. For many Native Americans there were no jobs available and they could not live off the land because most reservations are built on land unsuitable for growing crops and have no natural resources; so, for certain tribes the Casinos have provided an economic lift that has allowed them to live comfortably. However, the casinos have had the reverse effect on some tribes. If a tribe is unable to make great profit off of the casinos, as many smaller tribes have had trouble with, they are negatively impacted by succeeding tribes. This is because Americans see successful Indian Tribes and assume that all tribes are rich because they generalize the Native Americans. Americans want the government to raise taxes and cut spendings on Native American programs. Those who are not flourishing really have nothing to do with the prospering tribes, but they still are having their benefits cut. For example, in California the "state and local funding for substance abuse and alcohol prevention at Indian health clinics has been slashed from $2.8 million to $100,000, virtually wiping out the program” (Coin). Tribes who are not flourishing from the casinos still are having their programs cut and are being negatively impacted by the stereotype of rich Indians. The Native American tribes need these programs to prevent suicide and substance abuse because these issues have become extremely prevalent on reservations as “"Indian youths commit suicide at nearly triple the rate of young people in general" (Katel). This problem needs to be confronted with the programs that are being cut by the U.S. government. The U.S. government is partially at fault for the suicides that are occurring according to Lindquist-Mala as she says that the “suicide epidemic happening in Indian country is just a manifestation of all its history and reflects our community’s historical oppression”. By taking away the Native Americans power, freedom to roam the land, and by changing their culture they have oppressed the Native Americans which has led to a great amount of depression in their community. In order to solve these problems the U.S. government was spending money on programs to curb the upward trend in suicide attempts, but this spending has been cut. Even when there were programs coming from the U.S. government they were not extremely successful, so many Native American reservations chose to self-govern and decide where they would spend money and how to run specific programs. The poorer reservations are unable to afford this system of self-government and must continue to receive single grants from the government for specific programs. This plan has not been shown to successfully curb the suicide rates, but there is nothing Native American tribes can do because they are in a state of poverty.

The United States government took away much land and pride from the Native Americans; this caused many problems that now need to be solved. There has been a great deal of poverty on reservations so the government allowed them to open casinos which has helped some tribes, but hurt others. Some reservations are negatively impacted as casinos do not help them and the stereotype of rich-Indians now has allowed the government to cut spending on Native American programs. These programs are related to suicide prevention and alcoholism. The rates of these issues have increased drastically in Native American reservations because of their difficult history. The Native Americans were once a proud people who had control of millions of acres of land but after much oppression they have been left a people who can barely afford to confront their own problems.

Analytical Piece on Short Story

Sherman Alexie’s short story “This is what it means to Say Phoenix, Arizona” points out a lot of changes in the Native American culture. As the main character, Victor and his companion Thomas Builds-the-Fire travel to Phoenix to retrieve the remains of Victor’s father and reminisce about the past Alexie points out the massive changes in the Native American culture. A lot of the culture changes came as a result of the white American culture infiltrating the culture of the Native American culture. Alexie also points out how hard it has been for Native Americans to assimilate to the ways of American society. Alexie uses Thomas as a representation of the present and Victor as a link to the past in order to illustrate the changes that Native American culture has experienced.

Thomas is shown as somewhat of a loner in this short story as he is much different than today’s Native American. Since he was younger he questioned the culture change of Native Americans. When he and Victor were children, on the Fourth of July Thomas questioned why Native Americans celebrate this day because “it ain’t like it was our independence everybody was fighting for” (63). Thomas refers “our independence” as the independence of the Native Americans, as really it is other Americans who were fighting for independence and many Native Americans were on the other side of the battle. It would have been ridiculous for the Native Americans of the past to celebrate on this day, but Victor as well as the other children on the reservation did not question this tradition, they just followed it. They celebrated a part of the new American culture because this aspect, along with other traditions of the new American culture crept into the culture of the Native Americans and changed their culture. They did not consciously take in these aspects of the culture, they were forced upon them and these concepts eventually mixed into the Native American culture. The culture of a tribe being family was also shown to have changed. When Victor realizes he will not be friends with Thomas even after Thomas helped him on his journey to Phoenix he asks himself “whatever happened to the tribal ties, the sense of community?” (74). He is disappointed in himself for caring what others would think about him if he were to be friends with Thomas. In the past this would not have happened as all members of a tribe were extremely close and treated each other like family, but since the culture changed Victor values what others think more than his relationship with Thomas. Thomas still embodies the traditions of the past as he felt a strong bond to Victor, someone he had not talked to in years, because they were members of the same tribe so he treated him like family. He also was especially helpful to Victor because he promised Victor’s father that he would look out for Victor. Thomas still exemplifies the culture of treating tribal members like family as he spent a lot of time and money in order to help Victor, another member of the tribe. Most present day Native Americans would not have done this because they embody many cultural facets of the new Americans. While they have done this, they have still not been able to successfully integrate into the American society. Victor’s father moved off of the reservation and lived in Phoenix, Arizona. Victor’s father died and “the only reason anyone found him was because of the smell” (68). He was not found by family or friends, probably because he did not have many. While he moved off of the reservation he did not integrate into the American culture as he was unable to make friends and fit in. The Native Americans replicated many traditions of the United States but they were not able to integrate into society.

Sherman Alexie’s short story exemplifies how Native American culture has changed over the years and has been impacted heavily by the American culture. He uses the experiences and feelings of Thomas and Victor to contrast the old Native American culture and the new Native American culture. The Native Americans have changed a lot, but their comfort level still remains within their own tribes. The new Native American culture is much more similar to that of the culture in the United States, but even with these similar cultures, Native Americans have not been able to successfully integrate into American society.

Analytical Piece on Background Information

The Native Americans were viewed with great respect before the American Revolution, but afterwards everything began to change. When American leaders looked at the Native Americans before the revolution they saw them as a model for how to form a government. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin looked at "the Iroquois' lack of class stratification and their representational form of government" as "an inspiration" ("Iroquois Confederacy"). Jefferson looked at the Iroquois, the dominant Native American military power of the 18th century, with high regard and appreciated their structure. Other American leaders of the time also had great respect for the Iroquois and many “democratic principles of the constitution would be drawn from the Iroquois model” (“Iroquois Confederacy”). The founding fathers of America looked so highly upon the Iroquois that they took their policies of representative government and a lack of class segregation into account when creating the infrastructure for the future of America. There was a certain time when the Native Americans were highly respected but there was a huge contrast to this after the American Revolutionary War. The Iroquois had to choose if they wanted to support the Americans, the British, or remain neutral. They chose to support Britain because "it appeared the British would win the war," "British trade routes and practices were more lucrative and widespread than those of the rebellious colonists," and "for the British, violent retaliation was a dangerous trend that they hoped to curb" ("Native Americans in the American Revolution"). While not all Native Americans supported the British, by the end of the war most of them did side with the British because of the potential benefits. However, when America won the war the Native Americans had to pay huge consequences. While not all Native Americans supported Britain this is the way that most white Americans looked at it, as they generalized the Native Americans then. This relates to present day because Americans generalize Native Americans as a wealthy people, which in turn lowers the benefits they receive, thus harming the poor Native Americans.
As a result of the war, the Americans still respected the Native American way of life as they used their ideas in the constitution, but disliked them as a people because “All Native Americans were considered traitors" and they were targeted "as enemies of the nascent republic" ("Native Americans in the Revolution"). They went as far as raiding the Native American communities which made "Indian groups perpetual enemies of the new nation" (Iroquois Confederacy"). The white Americans pillaged the Native American villages and overpowered them off of desirable land. This time period completely deteriorated the relationship between the Native Americans and the white Americans. The relationship between the white Americans and Native Americans shifted from one of respect to one of hate. The white Americans saw anything that belonged to Native Americans and took it as their own, partially because they viewed them as traitors, but also because there were growing stereotypes about Native Americans as a bad people. There were cultural representations, such as “Buffalo Bill’s Wild West” show which showed Native Americans as “savage Indians attacking civilized white Americans” (“Cultural Depictions of Native Americans”). The white Americans saw shows like this and assumed that these representations of Native Americans as savages were true. The white people then felt superior and they knew they were powerful enough to take what they wanted, so they did. The white Americans succeeded in their efforts "to confine the Native Americans to reservations in areas deemed unsuitable for white settlement" ("American Indians and Buffalo Soldiers"). The white Americans took away millions of acres of land from the Native Americans and forced them to live on the worst possible land. There was some Native American resistance, but after they failed in a large attempt to revolt they gave up fighting. The Native Americans were at one point highly respected by the white Americans, but after there was widespread fighting for the British in the American Revolution, this view was drastically changed. The Native Americans were forced off of the land they had inhabited for years because they were seen as traitors. The land they had once lived on for years now belonged to the white Americans which shows the shift in power. White Americans did not feel guilty about what they were doing to the Native Americans because of the widespread view that they were evil savages. Today, many Native Americans still live on reservations and face many challenges such as alcoholism and suicide. They do not have enough money to confront the issue in large part due to the fact that they were forced to live on undesirable land. The government has been trying to give benefits to Native Americans in order to repay them for the atrocities that occurred; however, the Native Americans will never again enjoy the vast land and power that they had before America was “discovered”.

Current Event News item #2 Self-Government

While gambling is one of the major debates going on right now involving Native Americans, there are some other issues that are also central to Native Americans right now. All of the issues in some way are related to having self-government or not. This is because when deciding whether or not to have self-government tribes have to choose if they are economically able to. This ties into the income they get from casinos. Also, "death rates from alcoholism and tuberculosis among Native Americans are at least 650 percent higher than overall U.S. rates" and "Indian youths commit suicide at nearly triple the rate of young people in general" (Katel). Confronting these issues as at the forefront of many tribes agendas and in order to do this they need to have the proper assets, including money to confront these issues. So, some tribes simply are unable to have self-governmnet. According to Michael LaPointe, chief of staff to President Rodney Bordeaux of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe “when you have a lot of poverty and not a lot of economic activity to generate tribal resources to supplement the unfunded mandates, it becomes impossible" (Katel). He believes that tribes struggling with poverty cannot afford to choose self-government. This forces them to rely on the American government to delegate money and organize programs to these tribes, which sometimes is not very effective. It becomes somewhat of catch-22 in my mind as tribes who are struggling with issues such as suicide and alcoholism clearly need to change the form of their programs. However, to do this they need to be able to have self-government which allows them to "receive a single grant for a variety of services" from the U.S. Government (Katel). The issue is that tribes who are struggling with suicide and alcoholism may not be able to afford to self-govern themselves, so they are forced to continue receiving grants on a program by program basis from the U.S. Government which has not seemed to curb the problem. I think that overall self-government is a more succesful approach as tribal leaders can clearly see which programs work and which ones don't. So if the government could give struggling tribes larger single grants and then allow them to self-govern with this money it could be a succesful process. It would also allow tribes to feel more independent rather than having to rely on the U.S. government and have to continue asking for grants. This idea may be more expensive at the beginning for the U.S. government as they would have to give out a lot of money to a lot of tribes, but it would be a more succesful way of solving problems and then in the future the government would not have to give as much money to the Native American tribes. This may be impossible in the current economic climate, and people would be upset that we are giving all this money to the Native Americans, but in reality we have clearly taken more money from them than we have given back. For example, "the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which granted a total of $962 million to Alaska natives born on or before Dec. 18, 1971, in exchange for giving up their claims to millions of acres of land" (Katel). While $962 million seems like a huge amount of money, millions of acres of land filled with oil would be worth multiple billions of dollars, so America still profited from this act. We also stole huge amounts of land from the Native Americans during American expansion and we put them onto the worst and most unusable land that nobody wanted. After all the American Government has stolen from the Native Americans it seems only fair that they repay the Native American tribes in any way that they can.

Katel, P. (2006, April 28). American Indians. CQ Researcher, 16, 361-384. Retrieved February 10, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2006042800.

Gambling is the modern Buffalo

With many problems created by gambling of Native Americans, in the right setting there may be just as many problems solved. It is without question that gambling has been beneficial to some Native Americans. The keyword here is some, as many Native American tribes do not experience any benefits from gambling, and some that do experience benefits have many more hardships due to gambling. Walking Antelope, the writer of the article "Gaming Provides Many Benefits to Native American Communities" argues that gambling is today's equivalent of the buffalo for the Native Americans. He argues that the buffalo "gave the plains Indians everything they needed to survive and prosper, so now in the 21st century Native Americans turn to the gaming industry as their means of survival, their way to prosperity (Antelope). The buffalo gave Indians food and a means for survival and today he argues that the gambling industry is the main way that Indians make money, which in turn feeds them and gives them survival. It is an interesting comparison to make, one that I agree with, but in turn disagree with. By that I mean I agree that the gambling industry has helped many Native Americans by giving them economic autonomy, but it has also caused many problems. It is linked to gambling addictions that has caused suicide on reservations and it has caused many Native Americans to be stereotyped as wealthy. I don't believe that the buffalo ever caused Native Americans to be suicidal. The analogy makes sense but to me it is a bit of a stretch to argue that gambling and the buffalo have had equal benefits to the Native Americans. The article points out that "Indian gaming in America has become a multi-billion dollar industry, which many Tribes have embraced as a tool to pull their people out of poverty and unemployment" (Antelope). The gaming industry is a very powerful industry that has brought much profit to the Native Americans. The question isn't if gaming has helped some tribes economy, because it clearly has, the question is does it help overall? I believe the gaming industry has been an overall help, but it still requires many tweaks. I think for people to lump all Native Americans together as rich because some have prospered from gaming is ridiculous, and is one of the problems associated with the gaming industry. Some tribes do not benefit as much from the gaming industry, and others question the moral implications. These tribes should then be given more funding for programs and welfare because they need the money. Yes some tribes are getting rich from the gambling industry, but for all their positive impact they have had, there have been negatives that need to be addressed. Suicide and gambling addiction is one of the main problems, and the casinos seem to be trying to help. Not only do Indian casinos require strict background checks on employees, but they also "scored higher than Las Vegas or Atlantic City when it came to recognizing and treating compulsive gamblers" (Antelope). The tribal casinos seem to be trying to make a difference and help solve the problems they have caused. This is a step in the right direction as they are taking their problems into their own hands. However, some tribes are not able to take their problems into their own hands and they should not be punished for this. The struggling tribes still need much economic help. Is it their fault that when the reservation locations were chosen they were chosen on the worst land which makes it very difficult for them to succeed? No, it is the fault of the American government. So I believe the American government should be responsible for helping these tribes. While gambling has had negative impacts it has become a huge part of the Native American economy and cannot be halted now, it is simply an industry that must be tweaked. Is it the same to Native Americans as the buffalo once was? Not in my opinion, but the similarities are striking.


Antelope, Walking. "Gaming Provides Many Benefits to Native American Communities." At Issue: Indian Gaming. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 8 Feb. 2010 .

The Negative Side of Gaming for Native Americans

While some Native Americans benefit greatly from gaming casinos that they are allowed to have on their reservation this group of Native Americans represents the minority, not the majority. Most Native Americans "live below the federal poverty level" (Coin). While the recent boom of gaming has boosted the income of some, this is not the case with most Native Americans. In fact, for those Native Americans living below the poverty line, gambling has had a negative impact on them. The success of recent gambling has led to the creation of the term "rich Indian" (Coin) and has created a stereotype that like most stereotypes, it is simply not true. One may ask, why would it be bad if people thought you were rich? Isn't being rich a good thing? In terms of government aid, it is a very bad thing. The government of many states, including California, sees that gambling has benefited some tribes, and based on that they cut spending that went to helping Native Americans. Just one example of these spending cuts is that the "state and local funding for substance abuse and alcohol prevention at Indian health clinics has been slashed from $2.8 million to $100,000, virtually wiping out the program" (Coin). Those helping the Native Americans believe they no longer need to be helped, so they are limiting their help. In terms of this cut, Native Americans need these prevention clinics and they need funding for them because suicide rates in Native Americans have spiked drastically. I wrote about this in an earlier blog post entitled "current event" and I learned that Native Americans need programs like the ones that are being cut in order to talk about problems and help find solutions to them. Many tribes simply cannot afford to fund these programs, like the Yurok tribe as "much of the Yurok reservation is without essential services such as water and electricity" (Coin). They lack basic life necessities in terms of water, so they clearly cannot afford to pay for programs to help cut substance abuse and suicide rates. The Yurok tribe is really being harmed by the success of other tribes as they are lumped in with all Native Americans, and overall there has been success of bigger tribes related to gambling. Due to the success of some tribes, the government of California wants to re-write the agreements to the"tribal-state gaming compacts agreed to in 1999" (Coin) in order to have the casinos benefit the state. To me this seems like deja vu for the Native Americans as any time in American history that they have had a chance for success the American government always wants to re-write treaties to help themselves. I simply don't see why the Native Americans should or would want to re-write this treaty when in reality many tribes still need more state funding, the last thing they need is to have their taxes raised. Coin has argued that the gambling policy has hurt many Native Americans, but I do not think this means he wants it to go away. He simply believes it has created a false stereotype of a rich Indian which in turn has harmed Native Americans who are living below the poverty line. I agree that this stereotype has been harmful, but overall the gaming business brings in a lot of money for many Native Americans, so it is helpful overall. This does not mean I believe that taxes on it should be raised or that state funding for Native Americans should be cut. I believe quite the opposite of that. They need to keep taxes low and allow the business to flourish so that the profit can trickle down to those who are experience hard times. I have seen the connection to many poor Native Americans in some of the articles I have read so far. In my short story, the main character was unable to muster enough money to travel to Phoenix Arizona to get the ashes of his father; he asked the tribe for money and all they could give him was $100. The stereotype of the rich-Indian surely did not apply here as the main character hardly had any money and the tribe was also very poor. While this was a fictional story it still represents the tough economic journey that Native Americans are experiencing. Even worse, they are thought to be rich so the government wants to limit the help they are giving to the Native Americans.


Coin, Jacob. "Most Native Americans Have Not Profited from Gaming." At Issue: Indian Gaming. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010 .

Suicide Rates extremely high among Native Americans

Suicide rates amongst Native Americans are abnormally high, so the North Dakota government has tried to curb this pattern. The senator of North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, is trying to take the lead to help lower suicide rates. In order to help try and do this, Senator Dorgan, as well as the rest of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs listened to Cynthia Lindquist-Mala give a speech on how to help reduce Native American suicide. One of the most important parts of reducing the suicide rates is understanding the cause of the large depression in the Indian Reservations. It is rooted deep in the history of the Native Americans and the actions of Americans hundreds of years ago is still impacting the youth of the Native Americans today. The policies that ended up with putting Indians on reservations ended up with “the dismantling of our families and the breakup of the structure of how our families lived and the way we lived” (Lindquist-Mala”). Lindquist-Mala further goes on to say that the “suicide epidemic happening in Indian country is just a manifestation of all its history and reflects our community’s historical oppression… our people are wounded” (Lindquist-Mala). The policies of yesterday are causing the Native Americans of today to commit suicide because they have had all of their culture stripped from them and are unhappy with the way the policies left them to live. What Americans did to the Native Americans, oppressing them, stealing their land, and ruining their cultural traditions is still causing Native Americans today to be depressed. They must hear tales of the glory time for Native Americans and of their once proud culture which is salt in the wounds for them because they live on small reservations and they have not assimilated well to the American society, nor have they been able to keep up with the traditions of the Native American culture. I am now realizing that the whites took away more than just land from the Native Americans. When they physically took away the land, they were metaphorically taking away the connection that Native Americans had with Mother Nature. They took away the culture and traditions of Native Americans. They stripped the Native Americans of everything they wanted in life and caged them in. This has had a deep impact on the individuals of the Native American society and has had a drastic impact on their increasing suicide rates. While this problem has been discovered, it now must be addressed. The speaker requests "that the Federal Government, that Congress appropriate adequate resources for our health, our education of our people" (Lindquist-Mala). The American government is the same government that kicked these people off of the reservations causing all of their problems, so it should be their responsibility to try and fix the issue. While they cannot give back the land, they can try to fix the problem that they created by giving more educational heath programs as well as offer health care to try and lower the suicide rates. Suicide is an issue that must be talked about, but people need to be educated to know how to talk about it. Community support programs would be one way to help people talk about suicide in a productive manner. There are currently models for programs like this, but according to Lindquist-Mala "there needs to be a sustained infusion of resources". Models are nice, but there needs to be action taken. The American government owes at least these efforts to the Native Americans for what they did wrong, and immediate action needs to take place.

Lindquist-Mala, Cynthia. "Youth Suicide Among Native Americans Can Be Reduced with More Federal Help." Current Controversies: Suicide. Ed. Paul Connors. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Deerfield High School. 7 Feb. 2010 .

Short Story Response

The short story “This is what it Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona” by Sherman Alexie often made various points about more modern Native Americans without explicitly saying anything. It overviewed the idea of the changes that Native Americans felt after being put in reservations as well as the traditional family feeling of a tribe or the lack of such feeling in modern day Native American reservations. When the main character Victor, need money to get to Phoenix in order to retrieve his father’s ashes he went to the Tribal Council in order to get the money that was necessary to travel to Phoenix. The council did not have a lot of money but they were able to give him one hundred dollars, which was not a lot but they said it was “the best we can do” (60). The Tribal Council was willing to help in any way possible in order to help out a member of the community. This shows the sense of family that Native Americans have within a community as they can rely on each other for help. I feel that in Deerfield we have this as well, which one thing I really respect about our town is. While it is not as much of a family feeling, it still seems that people are willing to step up when someone is hurt and needs help, such as with past School Chests that have helped Deerfield citizens and their charities.
One member of Victor’s community who really stepped up to help him was Thomas Builds-the-Fire. He did not have a lot of friends in the community and he was known as the storyteller of the community. He offered to lend Victor the money he needs to go to Phoenix as long as Victor agreed to bring him with. Victor was astounded by the offer and initially rejected saying “I haven’t hardly talked to you in years. We’re not really friends anymore” (62). Thomas countered saying that he wanted to be taken with so it wasn’t really an act of charity, but he was still doing a very nice deed for a seemingly random member of the community. Thomas represents that in the Native American community there are still some people that feel a bond to members of their community, one that is strong enough to make him help another member of the community in a time of need. It portrays the Native American reservation again as a family setting. I think that this is a crucial part of the Native American lifestyle and beliefs as they believe in having a strong community and they are very helpful to one another. This idea of family is shown in their everyday lifestyle as when Victor was a child he referred to Thomas as “cousin” (63). Something as simple as this really illustrates the sense of family within the community. Outside of this community the Native Americans do not get the same treatment and they are really outsiders in a land that they once roamed. When a lady on the airplane that Thomas and Victor were riding was nice Thomas commented on this fact. Victor responded by saying “everybody talks to everybody on airplanes”, “it’s too bad we can’t always be that way” (67). The Native Americans are not included outside of the reservation in the whites lifestyle as they are truly segregated in America today. Even inside of the reservation they still don’t talk to everyone as Thomas is rarely talked to. This could be a comment on the idea that the American culture has seeped into the Native American reservations. I believe this has occurred as the Native Americans in this short story do not seem to act anywhere near the same way as they did before the whites came onto their land. They did not fully integrate with the whites, but the whites still rubbed off on them. The lack of integration into society by the Native Americans is shown by Victor’s father as he left the reservation and lived in Phoenix. When he died “the only reason anyone found him was because of the smell” (68). Victor’s father was not found by friends who were looking for him when he died, but rather by other people who smelled his rotting body. His father had no friends and no sense of community when he left the reservation as he did not properly integrate with the people outside of the reservation. I believe most Native Americans probably had this issue as they had been used to having a strong sense of family their entire life and outside of the Native American reservations there is not as strong a sense of family in each community. The Native Americans were strangers outside of their reservation; they had been crushed into these small areas and did not know many people outside of the walls of the reservation. However the ideas of the outside world had become all too prevalent for Victor. When he and Thomas returned Thomas commented that he knew they would not be friends because of this experience. Due to this “Victor was ashamed of himself” and questioned “Whatever happened to the tribal ties, the sense of community?” (74). Victor was upset that there was not still such a strong family feeling in the community and that everyone was a family member and no one was to be excluded. This occurred because the ways of the Americans had probably soaked into the heart of the reservation. The Native Americans did not maintain their identity of a community feeling as much as they would have liked to. Community was still strong in the reservation, but not as much as Victor would have liked. The American way had obviously impacted the Native Americans as they celebrated the 4th of July. When this occurred, Thomas said it was strange that Indians celebrate Independence Day as “it ain’t like it was our independence everybody was fighting for” (63). In reality, Independence Day represented the exact opposite to the Native Americans as what it did for the Americans. It was the beginning of them losing their Independence and land, so they should not have celebrated it, but they did because white culture became a part of their culture. This is sad to me as whites not only took away their land but also their identity.

Alexie, Sherman. The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven. New York : HarperPerennial, 1994. Print.

How far am I?

So far I feel that I have been getting a good amount of background knowledge on my topic. I understand most of the basic issues of the Native Americans and I have looked into a few specific ideas. One thing that I have found interesting is the Native Americans role in the American Revolution as well as how this impacted the relationship between Native Americans and the whites. I saw one article about it and wrote a response, and I felt that this was a very interesting topic. It is one that is not often discussed, at least not in the classes I have taken, and yet it seems to have played a significant role in the deterioration of the relationship between the Native Americans and the whites. So far I have not found this project to be too difficult as there is an abundance of information on the topic, but I am not sure if the idea of Native Americans in the Revolutionary War is too specific of a topic. In the next few days I hope to look into the topic and see if I could focus on this idea.

"Treaty" with the Indians

When many Americans were moving West there were many areas in which they ran into Native Americans. One such instance occurred when Rufus Putnam was in the Ohio Valley and wrote a letter to Congress stressing the need for a treaty with the Indians in order to purchase this land from them. Congress had already "purchased" the land from the Indians with a treaty, however this treaty was not completely fair and the Indians did not agree to it, so they wanted a better treaty. Putnam assured Congress that "unless these wrongs are redressed and the lands fairly purchased, the Indians will certainly go to war" ("On a Treaty with Indians"). The wrongs was the wrongs of the land being basically stolen from them and being taken from them by force rather than a fair treaty and if this was not changed by means of giving the Indians a new treaty then they were ready for war. There was much tension in the relationship as it seems that the Indians were tired of having their land taken from them so unless they got a fair trade they were surely going to fight back to keep their land. The government was trying to give the Indians much less than fair market value for the land and basically they were just taking over the land by power and intimidation. However, Putnam stressed that their needed to be a treaty in order to avoid war. It also seemed like Putnam respected the Indians as he described many of them to be friendly, and claimed that those who acted as bandits were only a few and were a part of the minority. This goes against common racist ideas of the time in which people assumed that the majority of Indians were lawless bandits and that the nice Native Americans were a part of the minority. Putnam had either sympathy or respect for the Native Americans as he wanted them to be given a fair treaty and stressed the importance of avoiding a war with the Indians. Whether this was because he wanted to avoid a war because America was a new country or because he respects the Indians is unknown, but it is clear he did not want to simply overpower the Native Americans. While Putnam was much more fair to the Indians than most he still recognized the power that America possessed over them. In the rest of his letter he addresses the new land that America is about to purchase and what can be done with it. By doing this he assumes that America has enough money and/or force to take away this land from the Indians. It is sad that the Native Americans were so helpless that it was simply assumed that if America wanted some of their land they could just take it. I find it a little confusing and hypocritical that the Native Americans would agree to sell their land by way of a treaty because they felt that land was one of the most sacred things in the world and that it could not be owned. If something cannot be owned, how can it be sold? Perhaps the Native Americans realized that they were going to lose their land one way or another. They chose to sell it and make money rather than fight for it and in all likelihood lose it. These were basically their two options, and it would be truly silly to have men die in order to lose land when you could make money by losing the land. What confuses me is if they fought for their land would that be considered trying to own the land or simply standing their own ground? I believe that this would be standing their own ground and not be considered owning the land as they respected the land and did not try to make a profit from it in this scenario.

Putnam, Rufus " On a Treaty with Indians," Annals of American History. <http://america.eb.com/america/article?articleId=385355&query=On+a+Treaty+with+Indians>[Accessed February 5, 2010].

The Respect and Hate for the Iroquois

The Iroquois were the main military power of the Native Americans in North America during the 1700s. It was a loosely based confederacy that was formed from the combination of five separate nations. The Iroquois were greatly impacted by the settlement and expansion of the colonists in the 1700s, and were deeply impacted by the American Revolution. Before the Revolution the Iroquois were flourishing from trade with the English and the French. They seemed to be primed for expansion, which they did in 1713 when a sixth nation joined the Iroquois which allowed them to control a pivotal plot of land that separated the British from the French. This made the Iroquois an important ally for the settlers to win. It seemed as though everything was going perfectly for the Iroquois, but eventually the tides turned. They had everything going for them, power, land, and the desire of settlers to be their ally, which would generally mean they would be treated very well. This did occur as the Iroquois leaders and colonial leaders worked together in the middle of the 18th century. Leaders such s Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson saw "the Iroquois' lack of class stratification and their representational form of government" as "an inspiration" ("Iroquois Confederacy"). American leaders looked up to the Native American style of life at this point, but then it was strongly looked down upon. This shows that there was a time that the Native Americans were looked up to, but then they were looked down upon as inferior and as savages that the whites did not wish to mix with. So, there was hope that the two groups could live happily together and the segregation and oppression that occurred was not inevitable. There was peace at one time, which is widely highlighted in American elementary schools. I believe this is so in order to make it seem as though the Americans were not cruel to the Indians, but this is far from the truth. The American Revolution completely flipped the way that Americans looked at and treated the Native Americans. It also separated the Iroquois Confederacy as nations were split on who to support. Since there was widespread support of the British by the Iroquois, Americans had a lot of angst towards these people. It makes sense to me that Americans would not think highly of a people that widely fought against them in a war for Independence, but it does not seem like a proper excuse to treat them with hatred. However, it does make sense that it would be hard to bring the nations together after they fought a war and they lived so close, so conflict is something to be expected in this situation. However it amazed me how complete and swift the shift from respect to hate of the Iroquois was. Attacks were authorized on the Iroquois tribes as well as raids of their homes. The raids destroyed villages and made "Indian groups perpetual enemies of the new nation" (Iroquois Confederacy"). The leaders of America previously had the utmost respect for Native Americans, even using their way of living as a model for the Constitution, and yet by the end of the American Revolution a relationship of hate had a strong foundation.

"Iroquois Confederacy." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. .

Native Americans in the American Revolution: Side with Britain or the Colonies?

One of the events that set up the American view of the Native Americans was their role in the American Revolution. The Native Americans had to make a huge decision as to whether they would support the colonists or the British. They had already experienced some oppression, mainly on the East Coast, so they were aware that they there was a chance that they would be further oppressed if they supported the wrong side. While not all Native Americans sided with the British, many of them did. They chose to do this because "it appeared the British would win the war," "British trade routes and practices were more lucrative and widespread than those of the rebellious colonists," and "for the British, violent retaliation was a dangerous trend that they hoped to curb" ("Native Americans in the American Revolution"). The Native Americans wanted to side with who they felt would win the war, which was the British, many saw that trade with Britain was more beneficial to the Native Americans and they felt that the British would be less violent and oppressive to them. Due to these factors they chose to side with the British, which I do not blame them for at all. It simply made more sense as they would be safer, richer, and have more land if the British won, so they helped to try and make the British win. Despite the attraction of fighting with the British many Native Americans stayed neutral as long as possible, the Iroquois Confederacy was officially neutral as smaller tribes supported specific sides, and some tribes still joined the American side as soldiers.

When America won the war, the widespread support of Britain by Native Americans greatly backfired and set up years of racism and aggression towards Native Americans by the whites. While not all Native Americans supported the British, and some even supported America, "All Native Americans were considered traitors" and they were targeted "as enemies of the nascent republic" ("Native Americans in the Revolution"). The Americans grouped together all Native Americans as one and saw them as a threat, not caring about whether or not specific tribes or groups fought against them. This is a very typical act of racism, assuming that all people of one group acted the same way and have the same beliefs. We saw this a lot with African-Americans in history as the whites often just assumed that every black was dangerous, stupid, and mean. The white Americans assumed all Native Americans fought against them simply because the majority of Native Americans fought against them. American wanted to weaken the Native Americans because they felt that they were a threat to the new nation, and leaders such as Thomas Jefferson "called for Native American extermination" ("Native Americans in the Revolution"). This amazes me, as Thomas Jefferson is thought to be one of the greatest leaders of all time and yet he wanted to get rid of an entire group of people who frankly had been on the land before the whites took it from them. When I think of Thomas Jefferson I imagine a great man and a great leader and yet he was extremely racist towards the Native Americans. This shows another connection between Native Americans and blacks as many great leaders of America also owned slaves, which I also see as an awful attribute of some seemingly great men. The encouragement of leaders such as Jefferson to get rid of the Native Americans must have had a great impact on the nation's views of these people as the average white American looked up to Thomas Jefferson as a leader and they valued his opinion. So, from the start the Native Americans had the cards stacked against them because they supported the losers in the American Revolution causing them to have diminished trade and they had to live in a country in which the powerful looked at them as traitors.

Stockdale, Nancy L. "Native Americans in the American Revolution." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. .

How Whites Viewed Native Americans

The way whites viewed Native Americans is very similar to the way they viewed blacks, and it makes me understand the whites actions better. The whites viewed Native Americans as lower class people and as much less sophisticated than themselves. This is a common theme in American history as the whites pretty much felt that they were the best of any race and because of this they felt a sense of entitlement. With the blacks they felt a sense of entitlement to physically own the blacks and take them in as slaves. With the Native Americans they felt a sense of entitlement to take whatever they wanted from the Native Americans including their land. There were many cultural representations showing "Native Americans to be evil, redeemable only through the grace of whites and conversion to Christianity" ("Cultural Depictions of Native Americans"). This made the whites feel superior to the evil Native Americans and because they viewed them as evil, they felt it was okay to take away their land. The second part of the quote is extremely significant to the culture of the Native Americans as the Native Americans had "their political and social systems decimated by encroaching white settlers" ("Cultural Depictions of Native Americans"). The white settlers felt they should try and convert the Native Americans to christianity to save them and also tried to change their culture because they felt it was wrong. The whites felt superior to the Native Americans so they did not care if the Native Americans were happy or not, they just did whatever they thought was right without truly considering what was best for the Native Americans.

A large part of the Native Americans being viewed as lower class was the way the media depicted them. Some writers did show the Native Americans to be a kind and gentle race, but the majority of the media portrayed them as savages. One such example was the show "Buffalo Bill's Wild West" which "most often depicted "savage" Indians attacking "civilized" white Americans" ("Cultural Depictions of Native Americans"). This contributed to the average American looking at Native Americans as savages who were dangerous to whites who did not do anything, thus encouraging racism. This reminds me a lot of the Jim Crow shows in which blacks were shown to be stupid and inferior to whites, which contributed to this idea in white society. Most of the media made the Native Americans out to be savages, so that is the way they were seen by the whites.

"Cultural Depictions of Native Americans" American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Sun. 31 Jan. 2010 .

Opressed into a Corner

The Native Americans were forced by the whites to the West, until the whites realized that they wanted this land and they then forced the Native Americans into even smaller areas. The whites were continutously greedy as they wanted land as land represented power. This idea was completely foreign to the Native Americans as they believed that no one could own land. This could be a reason that they were initially forced so far West with little struggle, as the idea of losing land did not make sense to them. They never had to fight over land previously so this foreign concept of owning land could have been a great weakness for the Native Americans. However, Native Americans did begin to fight back because they had inhabited that land for hundreds of years and they did not want to move. The U.S. government's idea was "to confine the Native Americans to reservations in areas deemed unsuitable for white settlement" ("American Indians and Buffalo Soldiers"). It was not enough for the new Americans to force them all the way to the west and off of their homes, they had to further confine the Native Americans to reservations that had bad land. The Native Americans had enough and I believe that they should have began organized efforts to fight back sooner. They had shown some resistance, but they needed to come together to fight because the new Americans had experience with organized wars. When they did fight back, soldiers were put on the frontier of the Native Americans' land in order to keep them in place. They were treating these people like animals putting them in a cage. Granted the cage was a large area it was still nothing compared to the thousands of miles they had previously roamed over. They had roamed over great and fertile land, but they were then forced off of this land to small reservations of bad land. As soon as the whites found positive aspects in the land that the Native Americans occupied they used force to take away this land. The Native Americans had no rights and their only option was to fight back. Some organizations preached peace, but others realized that they were going to lose everything if they did not fight back. I believe in peace in most situations, but when someone is clearly dehumanizing you and taking everything that you own, you have to fight fire with fire. This idea was embraced by the Sioux leaders, and they chose to fight back but they failed as over 150 Sioux people were killed in the Wounded Knee Massacre. This brought about an unhappy ending for the Native Americans as this event "marked the end of Indian resistance to the white culture that had arrived in the New World hundreds of years before" ("American Indians and Buffalo Soldiers"). This is a truly sad result as the Native Americans basically had to accept that they had lost and there was nothing they could do in order to return to the style of life that they loved for so many years. I understand that this is a brief overview of what happened and there are many more specific details that I have yet to find out about, but it confirmed some of my conclusions that the whites used force against the Native Americans in order to get what they wanted. It seemed to me as thought they were gating off the Native Americans from all that was good in the world and all that they loved, which in a sense must have been torture to them. When you never have something in life you are not as upset about not having it because you do not know what you are missing; the Native Americans knew exactly what they were missing out on because they had previously roamed North America as free as could be. They probably would have been willing to share this land, but the whites didn't want to compromise and rather took anything that they wanted. Until next time, enjoy the gadgets.

Sincerely,

Matt Magill

"American Indians and Buffalo Soldiers, 1850-1900 (Overview)." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. .

Native Americans Initial Response

Dear Journal,

I know a little bit about the Native Americans and the mistreatment that they have received. This seems like a topic that has been glossed over a lot in the American school system because Americans don't like to face the realities of their dark past and instead prefer to focus on the lighter points. I have been taught since preschool that the pilgrims and the Native Americans had a wonderful Thanksgiving meal and all was happy between the two. However, as I got older I learned more and more that the new Americans forced the Native Americans off of their own land and quite frankly they used power and were not peaceful in stealing the land from the Native Americans. I would like to learn more about this part of the history of Native Americans because as I understand it they were a very peaceful people who meant no harm. They were the exact opposite of many of the new Americans as the Native Americans respected all facets of life and life forms while the new Americans only wanted power for themselves. I have heard that the new Americans took advantage of the Native Americans kindness and I want to learn more about this aspect. We have read some articles by Zinn talking about the other side of the stories that we as American students here their entire lives and this is why I am interested in the topic of Native Americans. I have briefly heard the story of the news Americans purposely giving Native Americans smallpox by giving them blankets infested with it. This is a truly terrible act if it occured and I would like to know the extent of the truth of this story and other stories about the Native Americans. Basically, I want to research Native Americans because I want to uncover the truth about Native Americans rather than the stories I have heard since I was a child. Until next time, enjoy the gadgets.

Sincerely,
Matt Magill

The State of the Union Address

The State of the Union Address became more of a statement of the hopeful future of America rather than explaining the actual current state of America. This was done by President Obama and his administration because quite frankly the current state of America is not what they would hope it is. So they rather focused on what they hoped the future would hold. What topic that President Obama talked about extensively was his approach to the job crisis in America. He admitted that currently there were millions more unemployed Americans than there have been in previous years as job growth has been down. He then stated, to a raucous ovation, that there needs to be change in the job market. When President Obama was broad in describing change during his speech he generally received applause from both Democrats and Republicans, but when he went into the specifics the applause from the Republicans often became quite faint and even nonexistent at times. His plan included expanding the small businesses of America, which is a plan that I believe holds huge merit. Smaller businesses employ about half of all Americans and larger companies have the ability to outsource work, so expanding and allowing for new small businesses to form would be hugely beneficial to Americans seeking employment. President Obama's plan involved giving more money to community banks and forcing larger banks to pay greater taxes to allow this to occur. Once the community banks had more money they would be able to give small businesses loans as they need to establish credit in order to be successful, expand, and give job opportunities to a great deal of people. President Obama referred to this as part of his Job Bill, which he challenged the Senate, more specifically the Republican Senators, to pass as quickly as possible so that it could be put into action. By putting these people on the spot in front of the entire nation President Obama was able to put pressure on them to pass the bill. He wants this to be passed as soon as possible, and I believe that it can be successful, so putting pressure on the Senate to pass it was a great strategy. It was also a risky one because perhaps the Republicans will feel a greater need to stand their ground on this issue. I do not see this being an issue as for the most part they seemed to have a fairly positive reaction to this plan to expand small businesses. They did not have a positive reaction to all of President Obama's proposed plans as the more specific he got it seemed the more disapproving the Republicans became. They would often applaud his broad views on change and the topics that needed to change but when he became more specific the Republicans held their applause and their silence was not golden for the Obama administration. To me it spelled out trouble because the more disapproving they are of his plans the harder it will be for them to pass in the House and Senate. It seemed as though there is going to have to be a great deal of sacrifice and compromises from both parties if they wish to get anything accomplished, and it seems as though they are both set on seeing change. For change to happen they must agree on certain issues and agree to disagree on others. Until next time, enjoy the gadgets.

Sincerely,

Matt Magill

Welcome to the blog

So this is going to be legit the best blog ever. Enjoy your time on this blog because it is precious.
http://carlvstheworld.blogspot.com/ this is my best friends blog, its pretty chill, he's the best poet since Edgar Alan Poe. I know that the last 5 years (since he met me) are the best years of his life.