Civilization is All Relative

field_image
Question

Why were Indians in South America able to create great civilization, and those in present USA and Canada weren't?

Answer

I’m not sure how this question defines “great civilization,” but it seems that, like most other people educated in the United States, the questioner is unaware of the highly stratified, centralized, and elaborate societies that did exist north of the Rio Grande prior to the arrival of Europeans. We are taught that Indian societies in North America had no governments, class structures, religions, intellectual traditions, or other elements of what Western European philosophy calls “civilization.” But to contrast that view, I'll offer a few examples. I think we can fairly say that all societies, regardless of how elaborate their social and political structures may be, are “civilized.” The largest city in North America prior to 1492 was called Cahokia, located on what is today the Missouri River across from St. Louis. As a city-state, the population of 15,000 people was comparable to London or Paris at that time. Cahokia was the center of an elaborate trade network that stretched across the entire continent from 950 to 1250 AD. City residents, along with laborers from far away, traveled to Cahokia over the course of several hundred years to build enormous earthen mounds. The largest one is 15 acres around and is the largest earthen structure in the Western Hemisphere. These mounds—not unlike European cathedrals in spiritual or architectural significance—served as symbols of power for elite religious and political leaders. These leaders often lived atop the mounds to be closer to the sun, their spiritual source of power. The influence these leaders possessed was enormous. Not only could they command the construction of mounds, but they held the reins of the city's economic and military fortunes as well. Because of the extent of Cahokia's trade networks, the consequences of their decisions were felt all over the continent.

The largest one is 15 acres around and the largest earthen structure in the Western Hemisphere.

Another immense center of trade and spiritual power was located in Chaco Canyon in what is now New Mexico. Inhabitants and visitors to the canyon built 12 structures between 900 and 1150 AD, which had 200 or more contiguous, multistoried rooms and numerous “kivas,” or round, windowless areas that today the Hopi and Pubelo Indians (descendants of the people who built Chaco) use for worship. Like Cahokia, the labor required to build such structures must have been enormous and well-coordinated, evincing a sophisticated political, economic, scientific, and social organization. Surrounding these 12 structures were between 200 and 350 villages in the canyon. An estimated 15,000 people inhabited the area. Among archaeologists, two theories are popular about why Chaco was built. The first centers on trade and exchange. Archaeologists have found items from Mexico and Central America in towns and villages up to 60 miles away from the central part of the canyon, along with a system of roads. This evidence leads them to speculate that the Chaco structures were the center of trade, where people bought and sold goods. The second theory involves the scientific and spiritual dimensions of the buildings. The structures are built in line with astronomical movements of the sun, moon, planets, and stars, leading some to believe that it was in fact a kind of three-dimensional calendar, a much more elaborate version of Stonehenge in England. Settlers in the canyon would have gone there to worship at certain times of the year to be reminded of the order of the universe and their place in it. Ultimately, both these scenarios could exist. Certainly by anyone’s standards, a society that so fully integrated spiritual, scientific, and material aspects of life would qualify as a “great civilization.” If, however, by comparing North and South America you mean to ask why did North America not develop the exact same kind of societies that Central and South America did, then one answer to that may be population density. Central Mexico alone had 25.2 million people in 1491, making it the most densely populated place on earth. The whole continent of North America, by contrast, had 12–20 million people. As we see throughout human history and all over the world, higher numbers of people tend to lead to more highly stratified societies.

For more information

Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. Last modified 2008. "Chaco Culture." National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities and the Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia. Chaco Research Archive. Last modified 2010. Seppa, Nathan. "Metropolitan Life on the Mississippi." Washington Post, 12 March 1997, Page H01. "Traditions of the Sun." NASA. Last modified 2008. "World Heritage Site." National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Last modified 8 December 2009.

Stop Action and Assess Alternatives

Image
Article Body
What Is It?

Stop Action and Assess Alternatives is a method for teaching students to think of historical events as contingent. They unfold from conscious decisions made by the involved parties who use the information available to them at the time of these events to make those decisions.

Rationale

History is often presented as if things happened as they were supposed to happen. Yet with most historical events, there might have been any number of possible outcomes. At critical junctures, the people involved in the events made choices and acted in particular ways based on their values, their roles in the event, and myriad other factors. Using the Stop Action and Assess Alternatives technique helps students to discover that there is always more than one option when deciding what to do and more than two sides to every issue. Through a historical event—such as the Cherokee Removal example discussed below—students see that the involved parties were agents in what happened rather than passive observers.

Description
The technique also can be used with such issues as the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, the Immigration Act of 1924, and the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After gaining background information about a particular historical event, which may come from the textbook or other sources, students analyze the historical event through primary source documents dating from the event’s critical junctures. The parties to the event are identified for students: in the example of the Cherokee Removal, these include Cherokee Indians, the State of Georgia, representatives of the U.S. government, and the media. The students are given documents one at a time that explain various incidents leading up to the event’s outcome. For example, students examine newspaper clippings, transcripts of parts of speeches, and an excerpt from the Supreme Court decision regarding the breach of a treaty between the Cherokee and the State of Georgia. After each document is read and discussed, students are asked to consider the options each constituent party had available to them at that moment. This Stop Action and Assess Alternatives pattern continues until all the documents have been read and discussed. The technique also can be used with such issues as the building of the Transcontinental Railroad, the Immigration Act of 1924, and the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As with the Cherokee Removal, multiple parties were involved in the decision making for these events and there were critical and distinct moments when decisions had to be made. These qualities lend themselves to the use of this technique. Stop Action and Assess Alternatives should not be used for events such as the outbreak of wars or economic transformations where timelines are too long and multivariate to be adequately addressed.

Teacher Preparation
  • Research the topic and get a sense of the different players in the event. For the example of Cherokee Removal, sources are listed below. 
  • Choose primary source documents, from the varying constituents’ perspectives, to mark critical junctures as the event unfolded. Primary sources, including images, can be found at the Library of Congress’s Primary Documents in American History and at its American Memory site.

Ideally, students would receive three or more parties’ perspectives for each juncture along the way to the event’s culmination. However, this is not always possible. For example, with the Cherokee Removal lesson described below, there are multiple documents for some dates but only one document from one constituency group for others. It is important that students receive only the primary resources from the date under discussion. Students should not receive all sources at once.

In the Classroom
  1. Review the historical context of the event. For the conditions prevalent at the time of the Cherokee Removal, these include prevailing attitudes about non-whites among the white population; population pressures in the East and farmers’ and ranchers’ desires to expand their holdings; pressures on Indians to assimilate into white culture by converting to Christianity, building and attending schools, etc.; the institutionalized “theft” of Indian lands; and treaties formed between the Indian Nations and Great Britain and, after independence, with the American and Georgia State governments. Background reading for students can come from their class textbook or from Bradley University’s Trail of Tears website.
  2. Explain to students that the Cherokee were forcibly removed from their land in 1838 and that how the situation got to that point is the day’s lesson.
  3. Group students by constituency groups:
    • Members of the US government on all sides of the issue,
    • Members of the Cherokee nation on all sides of the issue,
    • The State of Georgia, and
    • Members of the press.
    • Be sure that students understand the nuances of the Cherokee Indians’ positions. For example, while there seems to have been unanimous opposition to the removal in the early years, some of the tribe’s leaders later changed their positions to favor removal but only as a means of ensuring the tribe’s safety.
  4. Hand students the documents that pertain to the first critical juncture and have them read them aloud, group by group. Once these are read aloud, Stop Action and have students Assess the Alternatives open to the constituent parties. Keep the students historically honest; ensure that the alternatives they come up with for each party would fit with that party’s positions thus far and with what they know about each party’s values and desires.
Common Pitfalls
  • Students may come up with positions for the constituent party they are representing that would be historically inconsistent. However, it’s important to remember that, in the case of the Cherokee Removal, not all Cherokee agreed on what action to take at every juncture; minds changed as new information was acquired.
  • There is a tendency to view the press as unbiased when in fact it has always been biased. Moreover, the press frequently takes a position and attempts to convince readers of that position.
  • Stop Action and Assess Alternatives is not a debate; student discussions should be within, not between, the constituent parties. Once a group has reached agreement on a proposed course of action for a given date, the group reports its decision and the other groups may discuss their reactions to the decision but should not debate the decision between the groups.
Acknowledgments

To my first students, whose passionate desire to learn about Native Americans led me to learn more.

For more information

Ghere, David L. and Jan F. Spreeman. U.S. Indian Policy, 1815-1860: Removal to Reservations: A Unit of Study for Grades 8-12. Los Angeles: The Organization of American Historians and The Regents, University of California, 2000.

Perdue, Theda and Michael D. Green. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books, 1995.

Diversity in the 1920s

field_image
Question

How would John J. Pershing feel about the increased diversity of the 1920s era?

Answer

Pershing undoubtedly had complex views on race and American citizenship, probably not so different from his political ally and fellow Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. Given his command of African American “Buffalo Soldiers” in the 1898 Spanish-American War and his participation in the Wounded Knee Massacre of Lakota Indians just eight years earlier, it would seem that he held very contradictory views. To Pershing, blacks may have seemed like worthy soldiers, while Indians deserved genocide. On the other hand, as a military officer, Pershing was carrying out orders and we cannot assume these actions reflected his personal beliefs. Roosevelt, however, was in a different position. Unlike Pershing, who followed orders, Roosevelt gave orders and thus set the tone for race relations both in the military and in society at large. For example, Roosevelt was determined to see the cultural extinction of American Indians (while holding them up as “noble savages” nonetheless), but he also hosted black educator Booker T. Washington at the White House, a very controversial move, especially to white Southern Democratic politicians.

As a military officer, Pershing was carrying out orders and we cannot assume these actions reflected his personal beliefs

As the first two decades of the 20th century passed, the nation saw increased immigration from both Europe and Asia, as well as increased activism by African Americans, American Indians, and others who demanded equal opportunities and the end of discriminatory laws and customs. World War I was a watershed in these movements, as both African Americans and American Indians enlisted in the army. Blacks served in segregated units, but Indians did not. Indians had a highly ambivalent attitude about their senses of belonging to the American nation; after all, they belonged to tribal nations as well, nations which had long histories of government-to-government relations with the United States. Yet by 1918, the federal government had done a good deal to not only destroy Indian lives but to destroy that government-to-government relationship as well. Many Indians were resentful of these policies, but chose to join the military anyway. Why? Veterans have offered many reasons, one of which is that they believed that when America was threatened, their homelands were threatened. Many veterans saw themselves as warriors not only for their own tribal communities but for the U.S. as well. Despite their service alongside whites, there is no doubt that Indians experienced a high degree of discrimination in the military, as sensitively shown by Joseph Boyden in the novel Three Day Road. Both Indians and blacks sacrificed for the United States and felt that the country ought to treat them more fairly. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat who had to maintain political support from southern white supremacist Democrats, vacillated on this issue (especially in his refusal to support anti-lynching legislation in Congress) and questions of African American integration in the military were essentially abandoned until after World War II. Wilson, like so many other policy makers, seemed to effectively ignore Indian concerns. Indians’ service with whites in the military might be explained by the emerging notion of “whiteness.” Whiteness is an analytical category that historians have used to explain the shifts in race relations created by immigration and industrialization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We must remember that men like Roosevelt and Pershing talked about “race” in what today we would think of as ethnic or national terms—there was an English race, an Irish race, a German race, an Italian race, and so on. Today, we tend to think of these ethnicities as “white,” though that idea was hardly solidified in the early twentieth century. Instead, a long historical process created “whiteness” and a white population out of many different nationalities once perceived as incompatible and even threatening to Anglo-Saxon Americans.

Racial hierarchies we believe to have always been in place were in considerable flux

Famously, Roosevelt believed in the “melting pot,” a phrase that we have come to associate with his belief in equality and the worth of all men, but which in actuality referred to his wish to see Americans with ancestry in Western Europe mix and marry one another. It was only those Americans who could jump into the melting pot—Asians, African Americans, American Indians, and others were explicitly excluded from Roosevelt’s vision of a strong American people. Yet, Indians were not segregated in military service, despite the fact that every American president had endorsed a policy that would essentially exterminate them. These policies had not wholly succeeded, but at the turn of the 20th century the American Indian population was at its lowest in human history. In this light, we can imagine that Indians were not perceived as a threat to whiteness in the same way that Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Asians, and African Americans were. By the 1920s, immigrants from places seen as undesirable to Anglo-Saxon policy makers had increased so much that Congress passed the 1924 Immigration Act. This act installed quotas on immigrants from certain countries; in general, the number of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe and Asia could not exceed 2% of those populations currently living in the US, as of the 1890 census. In other words, if, say, 100,000 people from China lived in the United States in 1890, then the US would admit no more than 2,000 people in a given year. Pershing, who was close to President Calvin Coolidge and had even considered a run for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1920, was present for the signing of this bill, indicating his support for it and what it represented for policy-makers’ hopes about the future racial composition of the United States. Of course, we now know that this policy ultimately did not achieve its intended effect, however much “whiteness” is taken for granted today. Indeed, what this period shows is that the racial hierarchies we believe to have always been in place were in considerable flux even as recently as 100 years ago. Pershing, Roosevelt, Wilson, and Coolidge were at the forefront of maintaining white supremacy, but they could not ignore the consistent—and insistent—protest of non-white Americans, nor should we ignore the fact that within white and non-white communities, there are very distinct groups with different histories who possessed varied responses to their situations in the United States.

For more information

The Modern Civil Rights Movement: A Rise of Purposeful Anger
U.S. Department of the State: Office of the Historian. Milestones: 1921-1936. Accessed January 12, 2011.

Bibliography

Boyden, Joseph. Three Day Road New York: Penguin Group, Inc., 2005.

Smythe, Donald. Pershing: General of the Armies Bloomington, IA: Indiana University Press, 2007.

U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed January 12, 2011.

Lone Wolf v Hitchcock

field_image
Question

Where did the Lone Wolf v Hitchcock case originate, and what did it decide?

Answer

Lone Wolf v Hitchcock (187 U.S. 553, 1903) was part of a long string of treaties and legislative and judicial measures that displaced North America’s First Peoples from their ancestral lands, hemmed them into “reservations,” and eventually detribalized them. This Supreme Court decision originated on the Kiowa-Comanche reservation, which the Medicine Lodge Treaty (1867) had established in Indian Territory. The treaty guaranteed the Kiowa and Comanche “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation” of these reservation lands and stipulated that in order for any portion of the reservation lands to be ceded to the U.S., three-fourths of the adult males in the tribe had to give their approval. However, in 1900, without Native American consent, Congress passed an Allotment Act that divided the Kiowa-Comanche lands into 160-acre allotments to give to the Native American residents of the reservation. Those who accepted the allotments were also given American citizenship. The “surplus” lands left after the allotment were to be sold to whites, and the Kiowa and Comanche were to receive about one dollar per acre for these lands. In 1902, Kiowa headman Lone Wolf sued newly-appointed Secretary of the Interior Ethan Allen Hitchcock to stop the allotment of the Reservation. Lone Wolf argued that the allotment was a denial of due process and a violation of the consent requirement in the Medicine Lodge treaty. The federal government’s lawyers asserted that Congress had a right to alter the terms of the treaty through legislation, because it had paramount authority over Indian affairs. Justice A.C. Bradley of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia rejected the Kiowa claim that the 1900 Act deprived tribes of due process. He stated that lack of consent was not relevant because Native American matters were under the exclusive control of Congress. The Court of Appeals upheld Bradley’s decision, and the United States Supreme Court agreed.

From their very weakness and helplessness. . . there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power

Justice Edward Douglas White’s opinion stated that Congress had the right to alter the terms of treaties with Native American tribes, because “authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one.” The judiciary could not interfere in Congress’s “plenary power.” This decision was based on the idea that Indians held dependent status to the United States government. Calling Native Americans “the wards of the nation,” White stated that “from their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power.” This assertion of paternal dominion over Native Americans reversed the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of a certain measure of Indian autonomy in previous cases, such as Worcester v Georgia 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). Shortly after the decision, the U.S. opened Kiowa lands to white settlers, and over 50,000 settled on the “surplus” lands that Kiowa and Comanche had possessed under the Medicine Lodge Treaty. The “plenary power” doctrine first affirmed in Lone Wolf v Hitchcock is still valid Indian policy today.

For more information

Clark, Blue. Lone Wolf v Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999. Pommersheim, Frank. Broken Landscape: Indians, Indian Tribes, and the Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Bibliography

Lone Wolf v Hitchcock 187 U.S. 553 (1903). Treaty with the Kiowa and Comanche (Medicine Lodge Treaty) 1867. In Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904. Digital Library, Oklahoma State University.

TeacherServe

Image
Annotation

These three collections of essays, commissioned from distinguished scholars are designed to deepen content knowledge in American history and offer fresh ideas for teaching. Essays include many links to primary source texts in the National Humanities Center’s Toolbox Library. Divining America: Religion in American History features 36 essays, divided into three subcategories: "The 17th and 18th Centuries," "The 19th Century," and "The 20th Century." Topics range from "Native American Religion in Early America" to "The Christian Right," and include Puritanism, the First and Second Great Awakenings, abolitionism, Islam in the U.S., African American Christianity, American Jewish experience, U.S. Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism. Nature Transformed: The Environment in American History features 17 essays, divided into "Native Americans and the Land," "Wilderness and the American Identity," and "The Use of the Land." These focus on the changing ways in which North Americans have related to the natural world and its resources. Topics include, “The Columbian Exchange,” “The Effects of Removal on American Indian Tribes,” “Cities and Suburbs,” and “Environmental Justice for All.” Freedom's Story: Teaching African American Literature and History addresses topics ranging from the early 1600s through to contemporary times. These 20 essays include, “How to Read a Slave Narrative,” “Segregation,” “The Trickster in African American Literature,” “Jazz in African American Literature,” and “The Civil Rights Movement: 1968-2008.” Essays provide an overview of the topic. “Guiding Discussion” offers suggestions on introducing the subject to students, and “Historians Debate” notes secondary sources with varied views on the topic. Notes and additional resources complete each essay.