Sign In Sign Up Ask an AI advisor
denaw5779
denaw5779
25.10.2020 • 
History

"About the Indian wars that plagued the American West. ... it is commonly
believed that they might have been avoided but for the avarice (greed) and
aggression of the white man The root of the trouble lay in the Plains Indian's
rootlessness. It was freedom of movement, the privilege of ranging far and
wide seasonally that gave his life meaning and dignity... [T]hat given time
and patience the Plains tribes could be persuaded to abandon their nomadic
... was wishful thinking Civilization may have had a clear duty to save these
people from themselves."
- S.L. A. Marshall, historian, Crimsoned Prairie, 1972

"The grand irony of the Great Plains is that none of the tribes with which the
army would clash were native to the lands they claimed. All had been caught
up in a vast migration, precipitated by the white settlements in the East... As
the dislocated Indians spilled onto the Plains, they jockeyed with native tribes
for the choicest hunting grounds. In a real sense, then--and this cannot be over
emphasized the wars that were to come between the Indians and the govern-
ment for the Great Plains ... would represent a clash of emigrant peoples.
Peter Cozzens, historian, The Earth Is Weeping. 2016

1. Using the excerpts above, answer (A), (B), and (C).
(A) Briefly describe ONE major difference between Marshall's and
Cozzens's interpretation of the Indians Wars from 1865 to 1898.
(B) Briefly explain how ONE specific historical event or development
that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to
support Marshall's interpretation.
(C) Briefly explain how ONE specific historical event or development
that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to
support Cozzens's interpretation.

Solved
Show answers

Ask an AI advisor a question

I want advice