Here are the readings:
- http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=637
- http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=638
- http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/indian_removal/indian_menu.cfm
- http://www.ushmm.org/genocide/take_action/genocide
- http://www.civilians.web.at.it/cache/c_23_files/a.htm#humanity
- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.J.RES.14:
I think that it was genocide and a crime against nature because it was meant to move Indians to places like Oklahoman and Arkansas destroying their homes and religions but on the move the Choctaw Indians lost 15,00 due to exposure and cold.
ReplyDeleteThis also very true. Because so many people died do you think that makes it more of a genocide? Genocide and a crime against humanity are very similar but do you think it is more of one than the other?
DeleteDo you think it would still be genocide if they were not setting out to kill them?
DeleteIn my opinion, I see that the Indian Removal Act to be considered genocide. Genocide is an act with the intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. In the Indian Removal Act, tribes were forced to move westward. The President and his supporters targeted this ethnical group, making them more westward. Members of the tribes were separated and forced to travel the Trail of Tears. They were chased and abused until every individual of the tribe left. People fell with illness and died, leaving behind family and friends. Some people stated that it went against all their rights and filled their people with sorrow. A crime against humanity is defined as widespread or systematic attacks against civilians. The Indian Removal Act could have been this too, since both genocide and a crime against humanity are very similar. I found the Indian Removal Act to be more of genocide because it targeted the tribes, rather than an attack against civilians.
ReplyDeleteI do agree to this being genocide. Though, as I understood it, wasn't the crime against humanity something that was not meant to do harm to the Native Americans, intentionally anyways?
DeleteI disagree America gave the Indians a chance to leave and they even provided them with lang out west. What natives did not move they were removed with force. Why do you believe that this is genocide and not crimes against humanity?
DeleteWhy do you think this is genocide vs. a crime against humanity?
DeleteI think it was genocide because they were destroying there culture, there people, and there hopes. Often the accounts(from digital History) are full of misery, even the soldiers "escorting" the natives report the miserable conditions of the march. "Many died along the way buried in unmarked graves". "Only the sick old and very young, were allowed to ride the wagons". The rest walked the couple hundred miles, from Georgia to Oklahoma and Arkansas 15,000 dieing in the Cherokee march alone.
ReplyDeleteI also think it was mostly genocide but don't you think it was a crime against humanity also, so many people died from the "Trail of Tears", but i suppose they were not meaning to kill 15,00 and more on the "Trail of Tears", or maybe they did.
DeleteNoah,
DeleteIt was about 4,000 that died, there were 15,000 people in the Cherokee tribe.
Check the second link for Mondays class work, 6th paragraph, last two lines
I agree completely! It sounds horrible, I don't believe it was right of the government to do that. I like that you included facts in your post/comment, I forgot the ratios and wow, it's just insane to think that that many people died.
DeleteThis is a very true answer, i feel very the same from the readings we did. From the readings i think that it was mostly genocide but also a crime against humanity.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Indian removal was genocide because the Indians were taken from there land and put in Oklahoma or Arkansas. the Indians suffered from bodily harm and starvation.
ReplyDeleteBut then we have to decide, did the early american want to wipe out all Indians and this was how they did it, or was this a case of bad planning. maybe "they" thought that the Indians would live, and the Indians failed by not living.
DeleteDo you think that just destroying a persons culture is enough to kill them? What I mean is that a genocide is killing off a group. They technically were not trying to kill the Indians but change their culture. Is a groups culture enough to basically get rid of that group?
DeleteI am kind of both ways because they sent them to a dessert but they were not trying to kill them. They did want to have more land but I believe they could have put a better plan in place. The Native Americans had no knowledge of the land they were moving to and what was around them. The U.S. gave them a choice and when the Natives said no the President sent a letter saying they WOULD move or they WOULD be destroyed.
ReplyDeleteIt was definitely a crime against Humanity. The reason was that under the Constitution we declared that every man is created equal under God. This meant that we were hypocrites who only listened to that “rule” when it suited us.
That I believe was what led the natives into wanting to fight back. We broke our bargain at the very beginning of our country as the U.S. We told them they would have land on the Mississippi River and then we began to push them around to different locations as the population increased. Now there are few lands that the natives can live on. They are specially set up reservations randomly placed.
Do you think because the president forced them so harshly to go that it would make it a genocide? Genocide is the intention to destroy and it sounds like he really wanted them gone. Do you think he was aware of what he was doing and how badly it was going to affect the natives or do you think he thought they would be okay?
DeleteI think Indian removal was an act of genocide because this was moving innocent Indians to Oklahoma and to Arkansas and killing many Indians just by one command.
ReplyDeleteWhat's anther reason why this might be an act against genocide? Why would this be happening?
DeleteThe Indian Removal Act was an example of crimes against Humanity. J.G. Burnett was a white man sent to translate for the Natives and whites. In Burnett’s account he wrote “the execution and the most brutal order in the history of American warfare. I saw helpless Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes, and driven at the bayonet point into the stockades. And in the chill of a drizzling rain on an October morning, I saw them loaded like cattle or sheep into six hundred and forty-five wagons and started toward the west”. The white people murdered, exterminated, enslaved, transferred populations forcefully, tortured, raped, persecuted natives because of their ethnic and cultural ways, and overall caused severe injuries, both mental and physical to the natives. In Elizabeth Watts account the Indians were chased down, hunted, rounded up, put on wagons and shipped to camps. Many died before they even got on the wagon.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Indian removal was because of genocide, taking away the land the Indian already lived on. Their home which is now Oklahoma and Arkansas. The Indians died of starvation and cold
ReplyDeleteWe did take away their homes but they could find new ones. Plus we we not the ones who forcsed them to stave or get cold they could have goten food and water as well as clothing.
DeleteYes genocide and crime against humanity are very similar but genocide is much harsher and I believe this was very harsh. Although no one knows exactly what the president was thinking when he did this, it seems that he didn't care and wanted to harm many people, which is the exact definition of genocide.
ReplyDeleteWhy does sending them to a desert mean that the american government had the "intent to destroy" the defines genocide? If it were actually genocide, "we" would have taken guns to them all instead.
ReplyDeleteTj does have a point. But, did they mean to cause harm to the Natives? Also, genocide does not always consist of killing with guns.. maybe they wanted to kill them, but slowly.
ReplyDeleteI agree I believe that this is just a crime against humanity even though it was bad and a lot of people died. America wasn't actually targeting the Indians they were after the land that the Indians so we offered to move them and they accepted in some cases and in others they didn't so they had to be removed.
ReplyDelete+
I think it was a crime against humanity. The goal was not to eliminate the Indians completely. We just wanted to relocate them. We were not anticipating that they would resist or how much death would be brought along the way. Because of this I think that makes it a crime against humanity.
ReplyDeleteCrimes Against Humanity
ReplyDeleteThe Indian Removal Act was an example of crimes against humanity. Lt. B. Webster was 80 miles and 8 days in making the journey. In his party, he has 3 regular ministers of the Gospel. While on the march, he had a prayer meeting every night. “Awe, lest their prayers which I felt… ascending to Heaven and calling for justice to Him who alone can and will grant it… [Might] fall upon my quality he was as one of the instruments of oppression.”
In Private John G. Burnett’s account, it said that he was a white man who was sent to translate for the Natives and the Whites in the “Smokey Mountain Country” in May of 1838. He saw the Cherokees being arranged from their homes, and in the rain loaded 600 of them onto 45 wagons and started west.” On the morning of November 17th, we encountered a terrific sleet and snow storm with freezing temperatures and from that day until we reached the end of the fateful journey on March 26th, 1839, the suffering of the Cherokees were awful. They were all freezing to death and dying of natural causes.
In Eliza Whitmire’s account, the Indians were chases down, hunter, rounded up, put on wagons and shipped to camps. Many died before they even got on the wagons. “The aged, sick, and young children rode in the wagons, which carried provisions and bedding, while the others went on foot. The trip was made in the dead of winter, and many died from exposure from sleet and snow and all who lived to make the trip, or had parents who made it, will long remember it, a bitter memory.”
Crimes Against Humanity
ReplyDeleteThe Indian Removal Act was an example of crimes against humanity. Lt. B. Webster was 80 miles and 8 days in making the journey. In his party, he has 3 regular ministers of the Gospel. While on the march, he had a prayer meeting every night. “Awe, lest their prayers which I felt… ascending to Heaven and calling for justice to Him who alone can and will grant it… [Might] fall upon my quality he was as one of the instruments of oppression.”
In Private John G. Burnett’s account, it said that he was a white man who was sent to translate for the Natives and the Whites in the “Smokey Mountain Country” in May of 1838. He saw the Cherokees being arranged from their homes, and in the rain loaded 600 of them onto 45 wagons and started west.” On the morning of November 17th, we encountered a terrific sleet and snow storm with freezing temperatures and from that day until we reached the end of the fateful journey on March 26th, 1839, the suffering of the Cherokees were awful. They were all freezing to death and dying of natural causes.
In Eliza Whitmire’s account, the Indians were chases down, hunter, rounded up, put on wagons and shipped to camps. Many died before they even got on the wagons. “The aged, sick, and young children rode in the wagons, which carried provisions and bedding, while the others went on foot. The trip was made in the dead of winter, and many died from exposure from sleet and snow and all who lived to make the trip, or had parents who made it, will long remember it, a bitter memory.”
I think that the Indian removal act was a crime against humanity. This act did not have this intent to destroy that is needed to call something an act of genocide.
ReplyDeleteCite examples, please!
DeleteWhy did you decide this to be a crime against Humanity?
DeleteI belive that he decide this to be a crime against Humanity because there was no derect intent to destroy them. They were just going to be moved
DeleteBecause that would be a terrible idea.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is an act of genocide. Why do you think that the government targeted this ethnic group in particular? Did they have anything against them, or anything to gain at their removal?
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure a genocide is setting out to actually kill off a certain group. So sense we were not trying to kill Indians I think it would be more a crime against humanity. Even though yes they were killed on the way but that was not a goal.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this different then a crime against humanity in your opinion?
ReplyDeleteI think that Indian removal act was a crime against humanity because there was no intent to destroy or wip them off the face of the earth. I think that it was wrong in the first place to move them from were they were liveing in the first place. Especially sents we moved them to place we did not even want to go.
ReplyDeleteAt that point in time it semed to be a good idea. But now look at it from the point of view of the native people it was wrong they were their first it was their land. it is like you were siting in your house playing vidoe games and some group of people come up and tell you that you have to leav now or elts.
ReplyDelete