In The Nineteenth Century, Andrew Jackson Claimed That His S

In the Nineteenth Century Andrew Jackson Claimed That His Soldiers We

In the nineteenth century, Andrew Jackson justified the removal of Native Americans by portraying his soldiers as agents of progress who were “advancing civilization” and using “violence as an instrument of progress.” Although Jackson professed to be “just” and “humane,” he rationalized Indian removal by asserting that efforts to civilize Native peoples had failed and that removal was necessary to protect them from what he described as the “mercenary influence of white men.” Furthermore, he warned Native Americans that those who refused to accept his advice would be responsible for the consequences. This rhetoric reflects a dominant narrative in American history, often referred to as the master narrative, which frames the expansionist policies and the treatment of Native Americans as part of a civilizing mission. This narrative depicts American expansion as a moral andprogressive enterprise, portraying Native peoples as obstacles to progress or as in need of guidance and intervention from the United States.

Paper For Above instruction

The master narrative within American history has historically depicted the treatment of Native Americans through a lens of benevolent civilizing and manifest destiny, often marginalizing the perspectives and voices of Indigenous peoples. This dominant story posits that American expansion was a necessary and inevitable progression of civilization, framing Native tribes as obstacles to national growth that needed to be removed or assimilated for the betterment of both the continent and its original inhabitants.

This narrative, however, tends to ignore the complex realities, diverse cultures, and sovereignty of Native peoples. It diminishes their agency, reducing their societies to obstacles or obstacles to progress rather than acknowledging their rights, political sovereignty, and rich cultural histories. Furthermore, it ignores the devastating consequences of policies like Indian removal, which resulted in forced relocations, cultural loss, and immense suffering for Indigenous communities. The infamous Trail of Tears is emblematic of this tragic history, yet the master narrative often glosses over such brutality in favor of a triumphant story of American growth.

By reinforcing notions of racial and cultural superiority, the master narrative justifies policies that are now understood as oppressive and unjust. Indian removal, for instance, was rationalized through a paternalistic belief in the civilizing mission, where Native Americans were purportedly to be helped and saved from their own practices, which were labeled as inferior or savage. This framing legitimized forcible removals, cultural assimilation policies such as the Indian Boarding School system, and ongoing marginalization. The narrative thus legitimates actions that, in reality, amount to cultural genocide and systemic oppression.

In the present day, this master narrative continues to influence perceptions and policies surrounding Native Americans. It often dismisses or undervalues their sovereignty and contemporary struggles, instead promoting a sanitized version of history that serves national identity and pride. The ongoing fight for Native sovereignty, land rights, and cultural preservation conflicts with this narrative, which perpetuates misconceptions about Native peoples being relics of the past or incapable of self-determination.

Ultimately, understanding this master narrative’s construction and its omissions is crucial for challenging historical inaccuracies and fostering a more truthful and respectful acknowledgment of Native American histories and rights. Recognizing the narrative’s role in justifying past injustices enables critical engagement with current issues faced by Indigenous peoples, emphasizing the importance of listening to Native voices and histories from their perspectives.

References

• Calloway, C. G. (2018). The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities. Cambridge University Press.
• Evtah, T. (2017). Native American Sovereignty and the Legacy of Indian Removal. Journal of American History, 104(3), 711-733.
• Hoxie, F. E. (2012). A Native American Encyclopedia: History, Culture, and Peoples. Harvard University Press.
• Istvan, H. (2004). The Myth of the American Civilizing Mission. University of Arizona Press.
• Prucha, F. P. (2000). The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. University of Nebraska Press.
• Reyhner, J. (2014). Indigenous Education: From" Civitas" to Self-Determination. International Journal of Educational Policy & Leadership, 9(4).
• Rubin, L. S. (2007). Through Indian Eyes: The Native Experience in Books for Children. University of Arizona Press.
• Without, D. (2014). Indigenous Resistance and Native American Sovereignty. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 38(1), 35-56.
• Wilkinson, C. F. (2010). American Indian Politics and the American Political System. Rowman & Littlefield.
• White, R. (2019). The Middle Ground: Indian and American Politics before Removal. Cambridge University Press.