Removing Cultural Identity

Although racism and discrimination had become less prominent in the late 19th century, events involving Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans had shown that acceptance and discrimination remained a major issue. As the government became more involved with the Native Americans of the Great Plains and Buffalo soldiers, their intentions became controversial. This week, as we learned about the Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans of the Great Plains, we were able to develop our own individual opinions as to whether the government’s actions were well-intended or discriminatory. To further develop our opinions, we examined several primary sources about the matter and took notes on various videos from historians. After note-taking and opinion forming, I was able to conclude that the government had both well-intended and discriminatory intentions towards the Native Americans and Buffalo soldiers, easily manipulating, but also somewhat aiding the natives and soldiers.

The majority of Federal policies proved to be discriminatory towards the natives and Buffalo Soldiers. After the Civil War, Americans flooded into the Great Plains removing the cultural identity of the Native Americans, using total war to destroy anything life sustaining. This marked the beginning of the Indian Removal Act, forcing Indians to move west of the Mississippi River to smaller living conditions. American government refused negotiation with the natives, believing that they were superior to them. During the Indian Removal, Americans ignored that Native Americans were protected by the law, having the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. During the majority of the Indian Removal, federal policies manipulated natives, forcing them to leave their homes and destroying native civilization.

However, some federal policies during the Indian Removal were arguably well-intended. The federal government established the Dawes Act in 1887, granting the right to Indians to have land and citizenship if they are willing to become farmers and change to American culture. Stated in the Dawes Act, “To each head of a family, one-quarter of a section; To each single person over eighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section…”. These allotments of land may have been intended to benefit the natives, however, about 90% of the designated land ended up going to the American general public. The Carlisle Schools were established in 1879 by American Government, providing  native children with an education. Although these schools may have been well-intended, they Americanized natives and caused family units to fall apart. The Carlisle Schools may have arguably been an example of a well-intended act on behalf of the American government. However, the majority of federal policies gave unjust treatment to the Indians.

After learning about the federal policies during this time, I have developed the opinion that the American government had mostly discriminatory intentions, despite having few possible well-intended acts. Small acts such as the establishment of the Carlisle schools can not compensate for the unjust treatment given to the natives and soldiers during the Indian Removal. The American government had a sense of superiority towards the natives, believing that they could manipulate the natives, without any consideration for how their federal policies affected the culture and community of the natives.

Max D. Standley. The Trail of Tears. 2007. https://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/test-2/deck/6098052

"Dawes Act (1887)." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2015. Web. 5 June 2015.

Crushing the Competition

During the 19th century, two of America’s greatest businessmen affected the country’s economy, impacting the common worker. These two businessmen, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, gained financial control of industries through the use of monopolies. A monopoly can be defined as a single corporation's actions to control all of a certain product or industry. In order to gain an understanding of how Rockefeller and Carnegie affected the common worker, the class spent this week’s classes analyzing biographies and separating ourselves into small groups to take notes on certain aspects of the two business men.

Image of Rockefeller as an Octopus Crushing Other Industries

Monopolistic leaders such as Rockefeller and Carnegie both negatively and positively impacted the common worker. As great businessmen, Carnegie and Rockefeller took over major industries such as oil and transportation. Due to their impressive abilities to compete with other corporations and thrive in the business world, many employees and corporations went out of business. In this way, Carnegie and Rockefeller negatively impacted the common worker, leaving many workers unemployed. Due to their huge amount of financial success, both Carnegie and Rockefeller were perceived as “robber-barons”. Robber-barons were corrupt or cruel leaders of the industrial growth that were infamous for bribery, hiring personal armies, and buying out rivals. People had controversial emotions towards robber-barons because they helped better the country’s economy, but unfairly eliminated competition.

Despite their reputations and financial success, both businessmen helped to advance the economy, promoting growth and contributing to society. Raised in poverty, Carnegie demonstrated how to gain success and rise from “rags to riches”. From his own experience, Carnegie had an understanding of life in poverty and treated workers with respect. Carnegie was a philanthropist and donated millions of dollars to advance education, establish public libraries, and promote world peace. Within the steel industry, Carnegie created a stronger steel for lower price than other steel companies in America, promoting the nation’s economy. Rockefeller, also a philanthropist, donated much of his money to charities and educational systems, assisting in the cure to yellow fever. As part of his philanthropic beliefs, he believed that his life should be composed of two stages: the accumulation of wealth and then the distribution of that wealth back to the community. In an interview with William Hoster, Rockefeller stated, “I believe the power to make money is a gift of God … to be developed and used to the best of our ability for the good of mankind. Having been endowed with the gift I possess, I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow man according to the dictates of my conscience”. Rockefeller also helped the advancement of the economy, but was despised in society for his greedy attitude.Both Carnegie and Rockefeller, though envied for their wealth, significantly benefited the country’s economy through their business talents. Both with competitive attitudes, Carnegie and Rockefeller strongly believed in Social Darwinism, the idea that people needed to compete as much as possible in order to improve themselves. Though negatively perceived in society, both Carnegie and Rockefeller made drastic improvements that the 19th century may not have otherwise been able to achieve.

Although Carnegie and Rockefeller positively and negatively impacted the common worker, I believe that the majority of their actions benefitted the community. Most negative perceptions of the two businessmen were derived from envy rather than disdain. Instead of looking down upon these two men, we should consider the important choices and selfless acts that the men have made in order to benefit our country. Without these two businessmen, America’s economy may not be nearly as advanced or competitive as it is today.

Interview quote- John T. Flynn. God’s Gold, 1932, http://www.edline.net/files/_EfHIe_/5b6412732dc698573745a49013852ec4/Doug_Ernst-Inquiry_Lesson-Robber_or_Captain.pdf

Rockefeller Octopus- Udo J. Keppler, Puck, 1904, http://www.edline.net/files/_EfHIe_/5b6412732dc698573745a49013852ec4/Doug_Ernst-Inquiry_Lesson-Robber_or_Captain.pdf