Module 7 Short Response HIS 200 Applied History PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Module 7 Short Response HIS 200 Applied History PDF

Description

HIS 200: Applied History Southern New Hampshire University December 13, 2020

Module 7 Short Responses – Question 1 Name three historical lenses that you could apply to gain a fuller picture of the relationship between Natives and white settlers. Be sure to respond to this question in two to three sentences, using proper grammar. When discussing a topic multiple historical lenses can be applied to allow exploration of so said topic from different viewpoints. To gain a fuller picture of the relationship between Natives and white settlers, we can apply the social, economic, and cultural lenses. Module 7 Short Responses – Question 2 Revise the thesis statement at the top of this page to reflect a more complex view of the relationship between Natives and white settlers. Your revised thesis statement should be longer than one sentence. The land provided for economic opportunities, thus increasing tensions among Natives and white settlers. A disregard for established cultures, and a need to pursue monetary gain led to land disputes. Module 7 Short Responses – Question 3 Name three historical lenses that you could use to look at the events described in the video you just saw. The three historical lenses that could be used are: religious, military, and political. Module 7 Short Responses – Question 4 Massasoit's decision to approach the Pilgrims about an alliance was contingent on what previous event or events? (Name one or two.) Massasoit's decision was determined by the decline in strength and population of the Native people due to deadly diseases brought by Europeans. In coming together, it allowed both sides to form a defense against a common enemy. Module 7 Short Responses – Question 5 Name one short-term consequence and one long-term consequence of the alliance between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims.

Even though it was short lived, one short-term consequence was that the treaty committed the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims to a mutual alliance. One long-term consequence is that the ongoing war between Wampanoag and the Pilgrims in the 1630s decreased Native populations by half. Module 7 Short Responses – Question 6 How has your understanding of the historical event in your essay changed as a result of your research? Describe one instance of a misconception or a wrong idea you had about your topic that has been corrected after researching and writing about it. My research has allotted me the opportunity to understand different points of view with regards to the ERA. One misconception I had is that the ERA was the reason why there was a political shift among women. I now understand through research that women's rights have always divided women politically, but the ERA created an even further divide. Module 7 Short Responses – Question 7 Name four historical lenses through which you could analyze the events of the Cherokee Removal. Specify one aspect of this event for each lens that you cite. 1. The economic lens can be used because the Cherokee on land that would provide economic gain to non-Natives. 2. The political lens can be used because the government signed the Treaty of New Echota with a small group of Natives from the Cherokee tribe.? 3. The social lens can be used to analyze the interactions of the Cherokee with other Natives (including Cherokee), and white settlers. 4. The military lens can be used to analyze the forceful removal of the Cherokee by the United States military. Module 7 Short Responses – Question 8 Agree or disagree with the following thesis statement: "The Treaty of New Echota was invalid, and the National Party was correct to oppose it." Cite at least three historical facts that support your position. I agree with the following statement: "The Treaty of New Echota was invalid, and the National Party was correct to oppose it." 1. The treaty was signed with a small group of Natives of the Cherokee tribe that did not represent the tribe. 2. The treaty contained a clause that would have allowed the Cherokee (individuals) to remain east of the Mississippi and become citizens if they gave up claims to their land.

3. The treaty was denounced by John Ross, National Party leader, and the Cherokee National Council declaring the it as fraud. This did not prevent its ratification in 1836....