The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a “mandatory relocation of eastern tribes to territories west of the Mississippi” (Roark). The removal act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson under the belief and goal that it would be beneficial to the Indians and save them. Being such a controversial issue during the time, the act affected both Native and White Americans in ways that to a certain degree are still being dealt with today. Between money, land grants and Tribal Recognition, the United States government is still trying to give reparations to Native Americans for wrong doings imposed on their ancestors. Prior to and well after 1830, efforts were already under way to push Native Americans off their lands and into the western territories.
…show more content…
Even still, Jackson tried to claim that he saw these people as subjects of the United States and claimed that his proposal for the Indian Removal Act was strictly to ensure the safety and survival of those subjects. What Jackson failed to mention in his proposal, that no matter what his claims about Indian protection and survival, it is undeniable that his drive for this increased after his 1814 defeat over the Creek Nation. Even after this so called ‘win’ of 22 million or so Creek lives lost, Jackson led yet another bloody march to remove the Seminoles …show more content…
I personally feel that if the Native Americans themselves are happy with whatever reparations they are receiving then there is no need to revisit and renegotiate any further. I’ve seen many comparisons between the reparations of Native Americans and African Americans, and although I feel that both have suffered, I find it hard to justify ‘paying off’ (for lack of better terms) someone who was not involved in the initial events that occurred almost 200 years ago. There is no justification for the actions that took place and there is never going to be an all in one fix for anyone, but handing over money, lands and rights to self-govern within our own lands just seems like a pass off to appease the voices, for now. My personal stance is that the more you give the more they ask. To be point blank, I think the government today is doing far more than enough as far as reparations go, for American
Even still, Jackson tried to claim that he saw these people as subjects of the United States and claimed that his proposal for the Indian Removal Act was strictly to ensure the safety and survival of those subjects. What Jackson failed to mention in his proposal, that no matter what his claims about Indian protection and survival, it is undeniable that his drive for this increased after his 1814 defeat over the Creek Nation. Even after this so called ‘win’ of 22 million or so Creek lives lost, Jackson led yet another bloody march to remove the Seminoles …show more content…
I personally feel that if the Native Americans themselves are happy with whatever reparations they are receiving then there is no need to revisit and renegotiate any further. I’ve seen many comparisons between the reparations of Native Americans and African Americans, and although I feel that both have suffered, I find it hard to justify ‘paying off’ (for lack of better terms) someone who was not involved in the initial events that occurred almost 200 years ago. There is no justification for the actions that took place and there is never going to be an all in one fix for anyone, but handing over money, lands and rights to self-govern within our own lands just seems like a pass off to appease the voices, for now. My personal stance is that the more you give the more they ask. To be point blank, I think the government today is doing far more than enough as far as reparations go, for American