The struggles of Native Americans throughout our history. This chapter provides an overview of the historical disadvantage this population has experienced. Despite social movements and national attention to increasing
the self-determination of Indigenous people, Native Americans are still greatly affected by historically discriminatory laws. 1. Read Chapter 11, pages 174-189. 2. Watch the following documentary –
History of the Native Americans https://www.youtube.com/watch?viv5rgie0D04 3. Answer the following questions. Indicate the number of the question than the number of the answer – for example, 4a. and then whatever
you believe the answer is – 1, 2, 3 or 4, and complete the fill in the blanks. 4a. Native Americans have the highest arrest records in which of the following areas? 1. Homicide 2. Aggravated Assault 3.
Alcohol-related offenses 4. None of the above 4b. Criminogenic conditions for young Native Americans include which of the following?: 1. Alcoholism and substance abuse 2. Poverty 3. Lack of educational opportunities
4. All of the above 4c. Native American women have the highest sexual victimization rates of any group. 1. True 2. False 4d. Our textbook says starts out as a relationship of domination between an
Indigenous majority and a minority of foreign invaders who are convinced of their own superiority and of the ordained mandate to rule. What is the word that fits best in the blank? 4e. Our textbook says the relocated
Native Americans onto small lots of unproductive land and their children were stolen and put into boarding schools. What is the term that best fits in the blank? 5. Write a reflection/reaction paragraph
(paragraph needs to be at least 5 sentences) about the YouTube documentary – A History of the Native Americans. Answer questions: 1. When you think of Native Americans, what stereotypical thoughts come to your
mind and why? Also, what do you think about people pretending to be Native American when they are not???? 2. Briefly describe the impacts of colonialism on Native Americans. 3. Discuss the ways, Native
Americans have been victims of crime as both individuals and nations, please provide examples.
Personality depends on being the equivalent as a few people and not the same as others. The distinction is normally similarly weighted talk about with reference to the classification of 'race'. Personality is a standout amongst the most vigorously discussed elements of current social life. This is spoken to in the corpus of sociological research, by the significance set upon its impact in the distinctive manners by which people and social orders conceptualize themselves as well as other people. Character, above all else, depends on the thought of being the equivalent as a few people (to relate to a few people), and to be not the same as others. This can and regularly is translated as personality having both a constructive and an antagonistic angle, constructive in relating to a social gathering, and contrary in being extraordinary (or restricting) another. This may not really be the situation nonetheless. In this paper I will research the utilization of race as a character, as this has generally given us both the positive and negative model of personality, and in later occasions, a more constructive model in both personality and contrast. Personality, in its most fundamental sense, is framed from being 'other' than another specific individual or gathering. This fundamental distinction comes in numerous structures, from sex, to class, nationality, sexual introduction and race or ethnicity. While these are the a portion of the more significant character gatherings, there are incalculable different manners by which individuals relate to one another, from a way of life guided by a specific melodic taste to a radical political distinguishing proof. Personality hence remains an imperative manner by which individuals comprehend themselves and the world. Any one individual will have a place with various distinctive character gatherings nonetheless. A man may, for instance, be a British national with an Asian ethnicity, and have a place with a specific political gathering and financial class. Regardless of whether one specific aspect of a man's personality could easily compare to the others, is an issue that is savagely discussed. For a few scholars, for example, Miller (1997:11), 'countries are moral networks. They are shape lines in the moral scene. The obligations we owe to our individual nationals are unique in relation to, and more broad than, the obligations we owe to people all things considered'. Mill operator and others contend that nationality is the most essential manner by which individuals distinguish themselves, and in that capacity it renders their duties to co-nationals substantially more prominent than to other people. While Perry (2001:103-108) contends that sexual orientation is the most critical character gathering, and that woman's rights is in risk of being diluted and wrecked by hypotheses that place excessively accentuation on the multi-faceted nature of a person's personality. For, she contends (2001:107), 'Ladies everything being equal, sexual inclinations, and even classes, will be hindered by proposed changes in welfare direction, implies tried guardianship, and the moving back of premature birth rights and governmental policy regarding minorities in society rules'. Marxist scholars contend anyway that class is the most critical factor in social personality, for the monetary class you have a place with will decide if you have political power over you and your general public's future. Consequently Marx's (2001:8) well known opening line to his Communist Manifesto, 'The historical backdrop of all until now existing society is the historical backdrop of class battles'. For the motivations behind this paper in any case, I am will center around the impact that race plays in character arrangement, and its association with alternate features of personality. Race has for quite some time been bantered in sociological circles, however definitely what race is or considerably whether it exists to any critical level has been put in uncertainty by various scholars. Todorov (1999:64-70) contends that for a hypothesis of races (or racialism) to exist, it needs five unique presuppositions. Right off the bat the racialist must guess that there are diverse races of individuals by any means. Experimentally such a position is unsound, be that as it may, as Todorov contends, regardless of whether the man in the road figures along these lines does not rely on science. Besides the racialist must guess that individuals are racially isolated by appearances, as well as that there are lines of division among societies as well, which are personally connected with racial appearances. The third supposition is that the conduct of an individual is significantly influenced by their race. Fourthly there is a chain of importance of qualities between varying races, and in conclusion that some political request ought to be set up to mirror all the beforehand said components. For Todorov racialist tenet has not left but rather has simply changed its shape, from talks in light of race to those of culturalism and patriotism. For Todorov at that point there are a wide range of presuppositions that must be set up before race itself as a critical personality can be considered. Be that as it may, as he himself notes, there is an ideological type of racialism which is unadulterated and basically supremacist and does not depend upon hypothetical establishing or offer any type of legitimization. This is supremacist conduct and disposition is the most widely recognized one in the public arena, and this conduct can just make and stir race or ethnic character. This can take happen in both a positive and negative design, in that one gathering may characterize itself in a positive nature when under strain from another, or one gathering may fiercely nullify another and endeavor to destroy it. In such conditions, the criticalness that race or ethnicity plays in personality is highlighted and turns out to could easily compare to different components. To be sure, as indicated by Assad (1993), minorities in present day states are looked with two unmistakable decisions; they can submit to finish osmosis or be detested as various. In such conditions, the personality under risk goes to the fore of the life of the individual being referred to. To submit to the larger part is to lose your character, however to keep it is to confront threatening vibe and struggle. Obviously, the circumstance that Assad presents us with is to some degree extraordinary. In any case, while much of the time the distinctions among individuals may be treated with equivalent weight, inside the limits of a country state endeavoring to produce a bringing together character, racial and ethnic personality becomes more essential. England, for instance, present us with a multicultural society that joins an entire scope of individuals from various ethnic, religious and financial foundations. However, this does not imply that racial separation and terrorizing does not happen. As Solomos (2003) contends, the long history of racial segregation in Britain has prompted political activists in all the fundamental political gatherings, whose point and design is to battle for the privileges of ethnic minorities. Such advancements stir individuals around their ethnicity and frame new personalities with which individuals separate themselves against others. The Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies in the 1980s were keen on exactly this: A noteworthy worry of the gathering was the need to dissect the unpredictable procedures by which race is developed as a social and political connection. They underlined that the idea of race isn't just bound to a procedure of direction worked by the state however that the importance of race as a social development is challenged and battled about. In this sense they saw race as an open political development where the importance of terms, for example, dark are battled over. Aggregate personalities talked through race, network and territory are, for all their immediacy, ground-breaking intends to organize activity and make solidarity (Solomos 2003:28). Race can in this way be conjectured not as a characteristic classification or control of the state, however as a political development where personality can be shaped keeping in mind the end goal to battle for social equity. This political utilization of race contends that racial divisions in the public eye are a reason for real contrasts in personal satisfaction, and subsequently racial character is of significantly more significance than different elements. Such division can anyway cause more noteworthy disdain among various social gatherings and put more accentuation on contrast than on closeness. While positive segregation by the overwhelming social gathering, trying to review the power balance between various sections of society, can regularly enflame racial strain. As Solomos (2003:192) contends, enemies of racists are regularly delineated as accomplishing more damage to race relations than extraordinary conservative fan. This is on account of they feature racial contrasts and energize individuals between various racial personalities. It could be contended anyway that enemies of racists don't make racial pressure, yet only feature strain that is as of now there. Regardless, the significance that race plays in ordinary social life is plainly clear. Anwar (1998:99-100), for instance, asserts that racial victimization Asian individuals has been on the ascent as of late in Britain, and that in 1994 alone there were 170,000 occasions of racially persuaded violations and dangers, while an expected 74 individuals have been slaughtered by bigot assaults somewhere in the range of 1970 and 1989. Racial character can rouse individuals not exclusively to aversion and defamation one another, however even to achieve the boundaries of viciousness and murder. In view of this race is clearly, in spite of the fact that with no extreme defense, the main factor in a man's character in numerous social circumstances, abrogating different factors, for example, sexual orientation, political affiliations or, all the time, religion.>GET ANSWER