| | The reference to the Dawes Act is is good, but the section overall seems contradictory. It starts off by discussing how some considered the treatment of the Native Americans by the U.S. to be unjust, and that the Dawes Act was a flawed way to address it. However, the intent of the Dawes Act was to replace communal living with individual property ownership - a conservative value. In admitting that the Dawes Act failed, there's an implicit statement that the culture and lifestyle of the Native Americans was incompatible with the European culture that was trying to replace it. There's also no mention of anything that was done after the Dawes Act to improve the conditions for the Native Americans, so the conclusion is that the treatment of Native Americans by the European settlers, and ultimately by the Americans descended from them, was not just unjust, but also never properly rectified. Can this section be expanded to clarify the insights you want the students to gain regarding the Native Americans? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:41, 21 October 2008 (EDT) | | The reference to the Dawes Act is is good, but the section overall seems contradictory. It starts off by discussing how some considered the treatment of the Native Americans by the U.S. to be unjust, and that the Dawes Act was a flawed way to address it. However, the intent of the Dawes Act was to replace communal living with individual property ownership - a conservative value. In admitting that the Dawes Act failed, there's an implicit statement that the culture and lifestyle of the Native Americans was incompatible with the European culture that was trying to replace it. There's also no mention of anything that was done after the Dawes Act to improve the conditions for the Native Americans, so the conclusion is that the treatment of Native Americans by the European settlers, and ultimately by the Americans descended from them, was not just unjust, but also never properly rectified. Can this section be expanded to clarify the insights you want the students to gain regarding the Native Americans? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:41, 21 October 2008 (EDT) |
| | Given that Hawaii was a sovereign nation in the late 1800's, the current state of this lecture implies that it was proper for the U.S. to overthrow its government and rightful leader in order to annex it. I'm also not sure what the issue was with the leader of a sovereign nation who "recognized only natives on the islands" - those were the native citizens of her nation, after all. If you're stating that the sovereignity of Hawaii or the legitimacy of its ruler were not, in fact, legitimate then that should be clarified. Frankly, the treatment of the Hawaiians by the U.S. was appalling, and we learn little from history if we don't acknowledge wrongdoings when they occur. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:50, 21 October 2008 (EDT) | | Given that Hawaii was a sovereign nation in the late 1800's, the current state of this lecture implies that it was proper for the U.S. to overthrow its government and rightful leader in order to annex it. I'm also not sure what the issue was with the leader of a sovereign nation who "recognized only natives on the islands" - those were the native citizens of her nation, after all. If you're stating that the sovereignity of Hawaii or the legitimacy of its ruler were not, in fact, legitimate then that should be clarified. Frankly, the treatment of the Hawaiians by the U.S. was appalling, and we learn little from history if we don't acknowledge wrongdoings when they occur. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:50, 21 October 2008 (EDT) |