To Help or To Hurt?

For our second to last unit of the year we learned about Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans in the late 19th century, and how their lives were impacted by the government at this time. Our set up was the same for the last unit; we all read the same documents and watched the same videos but took down notes according our assigned topic. My group’s topic was ‘Key Terms’. We put all of our topics onto a collaborative google doc and together used what we learned to come up with an essential question that could be debated regarding the topic of Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans. After a lot of thinking, my class came up with the question; “Were federal policies towards Native Americans and buffalo soldiers intentionally discriminatory or well intentioned?” To answer this particular question we had to look beyond our facts and terms that we discovered, and think about the meaning behind it all.

Buffalo Soldiers were African Americans Cavalry Soldiers. African Americans have just recently fought for their rights in the Civil War. The people and government then did not think much of African Americans, mostly treated them like animals than people. But now, in the late 19th century, African Americans were put into Cavalry Troops to fight for their country. This was well intentioned gesture on the government's part. They wanted African Americans to be able to fight and have a job to do because most African Americans did not previously have one. Buffalo Soldiers were given uniforms, duties, and were overall well respected. They were very courageous and eager to fight. The Buffalo Soldiers served in the Indian Wars and the Spanish American War. Although the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers was generally respected some people were intentionally discriminatory. Just coming out of the Civil War feelings were still raw on the topic of desegregation. Many fights broke out between the soldiers, citizens, and some men in the forces, who did not want African Americans to have any type of authority. The Buffalo Soldiers were also given the jobs that no other white soldier would want to do. These actions were intentionally discriminatory.

Group of Buffalo Soldiers
source-http://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/programs/buffalo-soldiers/

Native Americans during this time lived peacefully in the West without White interference. Native Americans and the Federal Government originally had a tranquil relationship. However, in 1830 Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act which made many tribes including the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole tribes, relocate to territory west of the Mississippi River. This was said to be done because it gave benefits to the Natives, not only the whites. However this was intentionally discriminatory to the Natives. It was done so whites could continue to settle west and build onto civilization. Once gold was found on the Natives land the Government ordered the Soldiers to become violent to Natives who resisted them. Things quickly became bloody. The technique of total war was used to wipe tribes. In Helen Hunt Jackson: A Century of Dishonor (1881) it states, “These Indians found themselves of a sudden surround by and caught up in the great influx of gold-seeking settlers, as helpless creatures on a shore are caught up in a tidal wave.” The government also removed the buffalo from Native lands, which was their prime source of everything from food to clothing to tools. This was all done intentionally by the Government that was run on their hunger for gold. The government also wanted to help civilize the Native Americans, which involved putting Native children into white-lead schools. This was done with both a good intention and was also discriminatory. Government thought that they were doing a good deed by giving the children an education and helping them become one with society, when in reality these schools ultimately changed their way of life for the worse. Government wanted to ‘Americanize” the Natives. This was thought to be a good and moral idea on the Government's part at this time, but ultimately was bad for the Natives. While these children were now educated, these schools made the children lose the rich culture and tradition of the Native Americans, which stumped the growth of Native Americans way of life for future generations.

Group of Native American Students at Indian Boarding Schools
source- http://www.accmuseum.org/Boarding-School-Sports

As you can see, the government's intentions were both discriminatory and well intentioned. For example, as stated before, the Government was well intentioned when they had African Americans become a part of the Cavalry units for the United States. This made these Soldiers, the Buffalo Soldiers, proud and excited to fight, even though there was still some discrimination. Sometimes The Government had well intentions, but it turned out to be the opposite, like the schools put in place for Native children. The intention was good on their part to give children education, but it actually made the kids leave all of their Native American culture behind and become “Americanized”. Other times the Government was directly discriminatory, especially with violently removing the Natives off their lands for the benefits of Whites. In conclusion, the government was both well intentioned and also discriminatory toward the Buffalo Soldiers and the Native Americans. I enjoyed the way this lesson was set up. I like being able to focus on one topic, like key terms, instead of struggling to capture everything from the sources. I wish my class would have done more of this type of learning earlier in the year. 

The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

In the Late 19th and early 20th century the American economy drastically switched from relying on farming to industry. This time period was known as the age of industrial growth. The lucky businessmen who knew how to do business created monopolies at this time. A monopoly is when a single corporation controls all of a product or industry. The monopolistic leaders at this time were crucial in the success of the economy as a whole. The actions of these leaders affected the common worker, but did their actions affect in a good or bad way? That was the question of the day. In order to search for an answer we were given many sources to read and analyze, such as biographies of big time leaders and video lessons of that time period. As a group, we put all of the components from these sources together to figure out how the actions of monopolistic leaders altered the life of a common worker. 

John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were two of the wealthiest names at this time. John D. Rockefeller was the co-founder of the Standard Oil Company. Rockefeller business practices were cut-throat and he was able to wipe out almost all of the rival oil companies. He did this by lowering and raising his prices often so surrounding companies could no longer compete, then he bought the fallen company and turned it into part of his own. Andrew Carnegie was also a tough businessman. Carnegie started off in a poor family but soon became one of the wealthiest men in America. After working as a bobbin boy and a messenger for a telegram office, Carnegie went into the steel business. He noticed that the steel production industry was struggling. Carnegie invested in this business and made a stronger, cheaper version of steel. He managed every process of producing the steel, which added dramatically to his bank account.   

John D. Rockefeller
source-http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h957.html

Rockefeller and Carnegie did not keep the money to themselves. Along with using it to invest more in their companies, and using it to their advantage during the Great Depression, their money was also given to the public. Both men were philanthropist. Philanthropist are people who seek to promote welfare in others, especially by donations of money. Carnegie wrote his beliefs and believed that a person's life should have 2 stages: accumulation of wealth and then the distribution of that wealth back to the community. Rockefeller and Carnegie were active in giving back and donating to education, medicine, science, and other things in the communities. Not just the average worker, but the average citizen benefited from these men's generous actions. The American economy also benefited from these large companies the men lead. But these leaders’ reputations did not stay sweet for long.

Andrew Carnegie
source-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande01.html

Over time Rockefeller and Carnegie were referred to as ‘Robber barons’ and were attacked by the media. Robber Barons are cruel leaders during the industrial growth who gained their fortune by unfair ways and crushing the competition. Other business men loathed Rockefeller because they believed his ways were too cut- throat and many lost their businesses. People became to think these men were run by greed. During the time of being criticized by the public, Rockefeller continued to donate to several charities. In 1892 a strike arose in one of Carnegie's mills, the Homestead. Carnegie wanted to get rid of the Homestead Union and bring in Strikebreakers, people who are hired to replace the people on strike, after he said that he would never do such a thing. The Homestead workers were furious and knew about Carnegie's plan. The workers attacked the Pinkerton soldiers that were hired to guard Homestead and the Strikebreakers that were coming in. This ended in a bloody battle. The world press scolded him and the event scared Carnegie for the rest of his life. These actions and accusations enraged the average workers and made them resent the big leaders. Some were directly affected by either the strike at Homestead or losing a business.

As you can see, the Monopolistic leaders, such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, both hurt and helped the average worker. Both men monopolized their industry so it was very difficult for men already in the oil and steel business to stay afloat. Carnegie hurt his workers during the Homestead Strike, and both he and Rockefeller were later criticized by the public and media. At the same time their monopolies helped better the economy. Although they were said to be people only influenced by greed they continued to donate to charity and help better people's lives.

The sources given, I found to be very reliable and helpful. I thought the way we organized the research in our class was the most efficient way possible. Each group read each source but focused on different topics, like important people, key terms, etc. We then had a combined google doc to share all of our information. It was very easy to learn about this time period and these people through this process. You could read about the same information but in different ways, a way of learning that I find very effective. I would recommend this style of analyzing text for future research activities.