Getting to Know Portugal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Getting to Know Portugal - Essay Example The other important issue that changes in different countries is the taxation. Different countries tax different amounts for different goods. A person willing to venture into international spheres needs to realize this and thus find out the tax for the country he is going to. Additionally, it is important to note that there are some international rules that govern all countries in the world. A good example is dumping. Dumping is disallowed by international law. Therefore, this law applies to all countries. This paper will go into the details regarding international business particularly in Portugal and how one would conduct international business in the country. Legal System For decades, Portugal has been known to be a bit relaxed as regards their legal system. However, business people coming to Portugal must adhere to the Commercial Code, Competition legislation, Securities Code as well as the /Commercial Companies Code. Therefore, carrying out business in that country may seem to b e easy relative to its more stringent European counterparts. It is important to identify the sources of law in Portugal. The country has both a parliamentary system and constitutional republic (Ibpus.com, 2008). Other than the constitution, the law that regulates trade in Portugal is also found in the ordinary laws that govern the land as enacted by the National Assembly. The country also follows the laws of the land as stipulated by the European Union, of which it is part. The EU became one trade area without internal tariffs. Additionally, it applies common standards to the entire range of commercial life. The unit of currency used in the country is the Euro. It is important that one familiarizes oneself with the law as per the European Union because Portugal too is part of that law. Culture The Portuguese take their culture rather seriously. They speak their language and are very adherent to their particular customs and norms. The Portuguese are a rather laid back people who even when conducting business do it in a very relaxed manner. The country has a very rich history that is the pride of its people. The Portuguese culture is one that embraces its people indiscriminately. When one is in Portugal, one feels a special sense of belonging and thus one has to conform to their ways. However, it leaves room for personal development and preference. It is imperative that the Portuguese build lasting bonds with each other and take their personal time to develop those relationships. The citizens of Portugal may be assumed to have a certain degree of xenophobia. This is in the sense that they only conduct business with those that they know. It is rare for the Portuguese to associate with a stranger even if it is only for professional reasons. For one to successfully conduct business with the Portuguese one must foist take their time to get to know these people and their ways. It is important to note that in Portugal unlike many other countries, business relationship s subsist between people as opposed to companies (Paulo and Bento, 2009). Communication The official languages in the country are Mirandese and Portuguese, although Portuguese dominates (Sitkin, & Bowen, 2013). Most business people in the country speak some bit of English although not fluently. Therefore, language barrier remains a big problem for the conduct of business in Portugal. As a business person with the intention of setting up

Woman vs Society Essay Example for Free

Woman vs Society Essay The idea of the individual is ingrained in modern society, where oppression, at any angle, seems foreign and is looked down upon. In contrast, the female characters in Kate Chopin’s The Awakening, Toni Morrison’s Sula, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper†, are portrayed fighting against the â€Å"man’s world†, an atmosphere present in our country not too long ago. Edna, Jane, and Sula all reject the parameters put upon them by society and attempt to remain separate from it ,yet vary in degree of success due to their preparedness. The needs of individuals take precedence over society’s expectations when they are oppressed; but,if not prepared for the consequences of being outcasted by society, they will inevitably fail. Edna is the least successful among the three women, simply because she was not prepared for her choice of lifestyle. Enda was raised in Kentucky as a Presbyterian, and moved down to the Grand Isle later on. â€Å"Though she had married a Creole,[she] was not thoroughly at home with the Creoles†(Chopin, 12) As such, she is innately opposed to their alien lifestyle. Edna is not confined, but she longs to be separate, distinguished from them: an individual. She recognizes the importance of her identity in saying, â€Å" I would give up the unessential I would give my life for my children; but I wouldn’t give myself† (Chopin, 64). Though her aims were clear, Edna remains chained to society, just by having a husband and children. Edna still attempts to have an affair with Robert, effectively breaking the trust and expectations of everyone around her, yet she cannot fulfill her goal, as even Robert pushes her away for that very reason. It is impossible for her to be independent because of her upbringing. Edna longs to emulate Mademoiselle Reisz, who has reached the pinnacle of independance and freely expresses herself through the piano. The factor which differentiates Reisz from Edna is that she has left society behind, along with the option of family, whereas Edna is held back by that very thing. She sees her own children as â€Å" antagonists who had overpowered and sought to drag her into the soul’s slavery for the rest of her days. But she knew of a way to elude them. †(Chopin, 151). This took the form of Edna’s suicide, resulting in not her escape from oppression, but rather signifying her defeat, acknowledging her inability to overcome society’s grasp on her. Edna was prevented from actively rebelling against society, because her pre-existing commitments prevented her from doing so. In â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper†, Jane Doe, though confined by her husband, is able to fight for herself to assume some degree of independence. As treatment for her depression, she is put to bedrest by her physician-husband, and comes to terms with the limitation set around her. This limitation is the assumed position of authority that a man is expected to have over a woman, especially his spouse. She says, â€Å"I sometimes fancy that in my condition if I had less opposition and more society and stimulus—but John says the very worst thing I can do is think about my condition, and I confess it always makes me feel bad. So I will let it alone and talk about the house. † (Gilman, 1) Jane has already internalized her husband’s authority into her own mind, even interrupting her train of thought to his instruction. She seems to walk in line with what he is telling her to do at the end, but her own rebellious nature seeps out, marking a descent into madness. These repressed feelings are projected onto her obsession with the wallpaper, where a portrait of Jane’s mind is shown. It is ultimately John’s disregarding of his wife, the hierarchy of the household, that is responsible for Jane’s mental breakdown. He vetoes her smallest wishes, such as when he refuses to switch bedrooms so as not to overindulge her â€Å"fancies. † The barrier of understanding leaves Jane no outlet for her to freely express herself. Thus, she writes. But she does this in secret, saying, â€Å"There comes John, I must put this away- he hates to have me write a word. † (Gilman, 2) Jane is actively disobeying her â€Å"authority†, but in hiding it from him she is still limited by John’s expectations of her, which is her weakness. Without him, she would be free as an individual, but John is her pre-existing conditions that holds her back. Jane likens the rest of the women in the world to her own struggle with John. â€Å"There are so many of those creeping women, and they creep so fast. I wonder if they all come out of that wall-paper as I did? (Gilman, 5) Jane clearly resisted in her situation, and she is specific about the women who she thinks have had to break out of the same resistant cage that she had to. They seem so independent, so much freer than her, and after finally escaping that cage, she feels she can relate her situation to theirs. However, Jane’s struggle has driven her ne arly to insanity, and is now unable to be the individual that she strove to be in the beginning. In recognizing the barrier to her individuality, Jane is able to actively rebel against the constructs set by society against women, but at the same time she submits because of her commitment to John. Putting herself in that position causes her to lose herself as a whole, making all of her struggle in vain. Sula differs from both Edna and Jane in that she defies her place in society at a young age and becomes a model individual. When she was a child, Sula lived in a chaotic household, preferring the quiet one of Nel. Sula is not often characterized as the calm individual, but she is described as being able to â€Å"sit on [Helenes] red-velvet sofa for ten to twenty minutes at a time – still as dawn (Morrison, 29). It is very easy to forget this Sula as the narrative progresses, but this passage shows Sula’s search for identity. She is shaping her self into who she wants to be, marking a contradiction of craving the order that she does not have in her home. This state does not last indefinitely; there is a corner point where she changes into her defiant self. As she recalls from her deathbed, â€Å"The one time she tried to protect Nel, she had cut off her own fingertip and earned not Nels gratitude but her disgust. From then on she had let her emotions dictate her behavior. † (Morrison, 140). To her, this was logical and rational, but receives the complete opposite reaction from what she had hoped for. This is a defining point in her life, which is responsible for the disruption she causes in all of the people who interact with her. Sula returns to the Bottom as an adult, characterized not so much as a person, than as a force of nature. She has accepted the consequence of alienation and rejection The repressive nature of society still confronts her. Eva berates Sula for not marrying or having children, but in response, she states, I dont want to make somebody else. I want to make myself†(Morrison, 92). As a women, she is expected of these things, but it is clear that Sula desires to control her identity. She recognizes that any person or thing that compromises her self-determination will limit her from being an individual, by being bound to society’s standards. Yet even Sula falls prey to to this trap, in her relationship with Ajax. â€Å"There was the morning when she actually wondered if Ajax would come by that day. † (Morrison, 131) Through their encounters, Sula was always cautious to keep him under her control, but that morning reveals an emotional attachment to him, however small. This minor detail turns out to be the beginning of her slow death as an individual- this is to be expected-after a life of such detachment from repressive society, the smallest disturbance would amplify itself to ruin her. Only those who are completely isolated from society are able to withstand its parasitic effect on the individual, but Sula, though prepared for the isolation, is caught off guard, and suffers for it. Women in the times of these books are set under strict guidelines by society, and they all recognize it, and attempt to free themselves by seeking their individual self. Edna, Jane, And Sula vary in degree of success, a product of their upbringing, and their ability or inability to accept the consequences of being an individual. Through these oppressed female characters, we see the various outcome of the sacrifice required for independance, but their ties to society bring them down. Is it ever possible to be a distinct individual in any society? Even Sula, who goes to such extremes, fails. How much more do modern people need to strive for this characteristic? Today’s western thinking has encouraged the idea, but perhaps â€Å"their individual† is not truly as free as it claims to be.

Leadership in The Once and Future King :: Once and Future King Essays

The Once and Future King  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Leadership In The Once and Future King T.H. White conveys his personal thoughts on leadership through the help of Merlin, and Wart's transformations. Through each transformation Wart experiences different forms of power, each being a part of a whole idea on how a leader should act.   He must piece together these ideas for the definitive way he should rule as king.   In order to teach Wart,   Merlin transforms him into several different forms, a fish, hawk, ant, goose and a badger.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   "‘I wish I was a fish,' said the Wart." (p.45) At that, Wart's first transformation plunged him and Merlin into the castle's moat. They proceeded to meet the largest fish in the moat, who is the ruler. This fish took what he wanted because of his size. In a speech about power, he told Wart "Might is right," and might of the body is greater than might of the mind. Because of the way the fish-king ruled, his subjects obeyed him out of fear for their lives. Wart experienced this firsthand when the fish-king told   him to leave. He had grown bored of Wart, and if Wart didn't leave he would've eaten him. The king used   his size as his claim to power, therefore his subjects followed   him out of fear.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In Wart's next transformation into a hawk   he soared into the castle's mews. All the birds in the mews had a military rank. Their leader was an old falcon, who was kept for show. The birds who ranked below the falcon, held her in highest regard because of her age. She applied her power over the other birds with no concern for their lives. In one instance, Wart is ordered to stand next to the cage of a crazy hawk who almost killed him. On the other hand, her age brought   respect.   The falcon was much older than the others because she had   not been released once she outlived her usefulness as a huntress.   Her age and attitude allowed her to maintain a powerful grip over all the birds she ruled through fear and respect.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Next, Wart was transformed into an ant and posted within an ant colony. There was a single leader of the ants, and she was the only thinking individually in the whole nest.

Mistakes Made by Society and The Work of Louis Pasteur and Rachel Carso

Held as one of the most highly regarded facts of the scientific community, theories often change with the presentation of new evidence. However, the motivation behind obtaining this new evidence is often overlooked, wrought with political and personal motives guiding the work of scientists, as these scientists are able to make an impact on the rest of the world. Though separated by a century, Louis Pasteur and Rachel Carson offered evidence to solve some of the biggest questions of their time period, with Louis Pasteur effectively concluding the spontaneous generation debate and Rachel Carson promoting awareness of our careless use of DDT and the impact this had on future generations. By the mid 1800’s, Louis Pasteur was caught up in the spontaneous generation debate after reviewing the contradictory experiments performed by Francesco Redi, John Needham, and Lazarro Spallanzani. Two centuries prior to Pasteur, Redi had argued that spontaneous generation could not occur, supported with experimental evidence. However, only one century prior to Pasteur, John Needham had shown that growth would occur in a flask of sterilized broth, which directly refuted Redi’s claim that spontaneous generation did not occur. Seeing a flaw in Needham’s experiment, Spallanzani repeated the experiment, this time sterilizing the broth and the air present in the flask. Without this source of contamination, the flask remained sterilized, while a similar flask of broth which he left open to the environment began to show signs of growth. In refute of Spallanzani, those who believed in spontaneous generation said that the air carried a necessary â€Å"life forceâ €  which life may directly come from. One hundred years later, Louis Pasteur joins the debate... ...n with their work, the needs of society demanded their work be done, whether explicitly stated or not. Society had failed to recognize a potential threat in their time period and the work of these people changed the way people conducted their lives. Without people like Pasteur and Carson to correct the overlooked mistakes made by society, society may crumble under the weight of its own ignorance. Works Cited 1-9 Spontaneous generation was an attractive theory to many people, but was ultimately disproven.. (2003, January 1). . Retrieved May 8, 2014, from http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27 Regis, E. (2008). What is life?: investigating the nature of life in the age of synthetic biology. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Carson, R., & Darling, L. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin ;.

Peopod

CASE: III Peapod Online Grocery—2003 The online grocery turned out to be a lot tougher than analysts thought a few years ago. Many of the early online grocers, including Webvan, ShopLink, StreamLine, Kosmom, Homeruns, and PDQuick, went bankrupt and out of business. At one time, Webvan had 46 percent of the online grocery business, but it still wasn’t profitable enough to survive. The new business model for online grocers is to be part of an existing brick-and-mortar chain. Large grocery chains, like Safeway and Albertson’s, are experiencing sales growth in their online business but have yet to turn a profit.Jupiter Research estimates that online grocery sales will be over $5 billion by 2007, about 1 percent of all grocery sales, while it expects more than 5 percent of all retail sales to be online by then. A few years ago, optimistic analysts estimated online grocery sales would be 10 to 20 times that by 2005, but it didn’t work out that way. One of the fe w online grocers to survive in 2003 is Peapod, the first online grocer, started by brothers Andrew and Thomas Parkinson in 1990.However, even Peapod was failing until 2001 when Dutch grocery giant Royal Ahold purchased controlling interest in the company for $73 million. Peapod operates in five markets, mainly by closely affiliating itself with Ahold-owned grocery chains. Peapod by Giant is in the Washington, DC, area, while Peapod by Stop and Shop runs in Boston, New York, and Connecticut. The exception is Chicago, where Peapod operates without an affiliation with a local grocery chain. Peapod executives claim the company is growing by 25 percent annually and has 130,000 customers, and all of its markets except Connecticut are profitable.Average order size is up to $143 from $106 three years earlier. The online grocery business seemed like a sure winner in the 1990s. Dual-income families strapped for time could simply go online to do their grocery shopping. They has about the same choices of products that they would have had if they went to a brick-and-mortar grocery, about 20,000 SKUs (stockkeeping units). They could browse the â€Å"aisles† on their home computers and place orders via computer, fax or telephone. The orders were filled at ffiliated stores and delivered to their homes in a 90-minute window, saving them time and effort and simplifying their daily lives. For all this convenience, consumers were willing to pay a monthly fee and a fee per order for packaging, shipping, and delivery. Since most of the products purchased were well-known branded items, consumer faced little risk in buying their traditional foodstuffs. Even perishables like produce and meat could be counted on to be high quality, and if consumers were concerned, they could make a quick trip to a brick-and-mortar grocery for these selections.However, while all of this sounded good, most consumers didn’t change their grocery shopping habits to take advantage of the online alternative. Currently analysts do not expect the online grocery industry to take off in the near future, if ever. Miles Cook of Bain & Company estimates that only 8 to 10 percent of U. S. consumers will find ordering groceries online appealing, but only about 1 percent will ever do so. He concludes: â€Å"This is going to remain a niche offering in a few markets. It’s not going to be a national mainstream offering. Jupiter Media Metrix analyst Ken Cassar concludes that â€Å"The moral of the story is that the ability to build a better mousetrap must be measured against consumers’ willingness to buy it. † Question: 1. What behaviors are involved in online grocery shopping? How does online shopping compare with traditional shopping in terms of behavioral effort? 2. What types of consumers are likely to value online grocery shopping from Peapod? 3. Overall, what do you think about the idea of online grocery shopping? How does it compare with simply eating in res taurants and avoiding grocery shopping and cooking altogether?

Indian Removal and the Focus on the Cherokee

Indian Removal and the Focus on the Cherokee Free Online Research Papers When one thinks about the topic of Indian Removal during the 1830s in American history, there tends to be a focus on the Cherokee tribe as the only Indians to be affected. This of course is not the case. There were five main, â€Å"civilized† tribes that were impacted by American policy and were left with no other choice then to move west. Those other tribes are the Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and the Seminole. With that knowledge in mind the question remains as to why the Cherokee stick out in the minds of those discussing the issue. The reason for this is that the Cherokee have been made to represent the poster child for the entire Indian removal period in American history. This will be shown through an analysis of the Cherokee’s relationship with the Americans and through an analysis of what the other tribes did during the same time period. First, the amount of land the Cherokees lost even before they were forced to move was enormous. Before the American Revolution the Cherokee inhabited 124,000 square miles of land. After the war they had suffered a loss of 60% of their land. By 1819 they only inhabited 17,000 square miles. The Cherokee were willing to work with the Americans. The Cherokee more than the other tribes in North America, tried to adopt the Anglo-American culture. Very quickly the Cherokees had completely altered their society and modified their traditional culture to adjust to United States policy. They were hoping to preserve their tribal integrity. The Cherokee believed that if they could do the things the white man requested, they would in turn gain the white man’s respect. The Americans initially wanted to â€Å"civilize† the Indians. This assimilation into the white’s culture involved the Indians giving up things like, hunting, their language, religion, tribal organizations, and their customs. The Whites believed that if the Indians did the things they asked it would benefit the Indians and the new nation. From this perspective it seemed generous. All of it was really just an attempt to take land their land. One idea that the Americans had was that if the Indians did not hunt, their hunting lands would become something that the Indians would willingly exchange for funds to support their assimilation process. The assimilation process had the opposite effect of what the Americans had hoped for. The Cherokee wanted respect as tribe for honoring all the requests that the whites had given them. â€Å"They established schools, written laws, and abolished clan revenge.† There were even the few Cherokee who built plantation houses and ow ned slaves. This road the Cherokee had taken to assimilate did not go without some hinders to the progress. In 1803, when the Louisiana Purchase occurred, the Americans had an option. They did not have to civilize the Indians if they didn’t want to, they could remove the Indians from their lands. Because many Indians didn’t want to give up their ways, and it was taking too long for most Indians to assimilate, whites started to believe that the only option besides destroying them, was removing them to the west. In 1817 the first treaty with the Cherokee was negotiated that included provisions for removal. The plan was that Cherokees that wanted could exchange lands in the southeast for territory west of the Mississippi river. The American government promised assistance in resettling for those that chose to move. About 1500 to 2000 did move. The treaty also included a provision for an experiment in citizenship. The plan there was that an Indian could apply for a 640-acre reserve and citizenship. The Cherokee leaders were in opposition to this treaty as were most Cherokees. The experiment in citizenship might have worked to benefit assimilation had it not been for white greed and the growing strength of the states rights movement. In 1819 the Cherokee council voted to deny citizenship to any Cherokee who emigrated to the west or accepted a reserve. They were stuck in the middle because they wanted to remain as their own people and yet not are forced to move from their land. In 1819 another treaty was negotiated with a provision that stated that the Cherokee could, â€Å"maintain communal ownership of more than 10 million acres of their ancestral lands in the East.† This meant that the Cherokee ceded 4 million acres of land to the Americans. The Cherokees hoped and believed that this final cession would end any removal efforts. The Cherokee accelerated their acculturation efforts. They increased written laws and established a bicameral legislature. In 1827 they established a supreme court and a constitution. They were trying to prove that a Cherokee could do all the things a white man could do. It is clear that the Cherokee rose to the standards that were set out for them by the whites. The problem was that most whites ascribed to the idea of white superiority. They believed that no matter how civilized an Indian might seem; he would always maintain his savage nature. The states saw the Cherokee constitution as a challenge to states rights, especially Georgians. The Cherokee constitution claimed sovereignty over tribal lands, which effectively established a state within a state. Georgians argued that this violated the United States Constitution and that the federal government was not doing anything to fix the situation. When Jackson gave his inaugural address he recognized state control over local Indians, repudiated Cherokee claims to sovereignty, and called for Congress to provide for Indian removal. Gerogia, believing the federal government would back them, passed laws abolishing Cherokee government. The Cherokee took their case to the United States Supreme Court. In Worcester v. Gerogia Chief Justice John Marshall declared that Georgia had exceeded its authority by extending state law into Cherokee territory. Georgia chose to ignore the decision instead of challenge it. This along with other factors shaking the country at the time led the fed eral government to make the decision to remove the Cherokee west in order to preserve the union. A minority group led by John Ridge believed that removal was eventually going to happen and they sought to get it on the best possible terms. The majority of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross opposed removal. The United States ignored the majority and negotiated the Treaty of New Echota in 1835 with the minority group. In spite of a petition of over 15,000 Cherokees protesting the treaty, the Senate ratified the treaty in 1836. The Cherokee were given two years to move. In the two years time only 2,000 had moved. The government decided to send 7,000 militiamen and volunteers to force the Cherokee to move at gunpoint. Thus began the Cherokee â€Å"Trail of Tears.† The Cherokee worked extremely hard to gain the respect of the whites, but in the end were forced to move anyway. To better understand why the Cherokee are the poster people for Indian removal, I will examine the other â€Å"civilized† tribes, starting with the Choctaw. For the most part, the Choctaw were neutral in the American Revolution. Some served as scouts for Washington, but that was about it. The Choctaw did have reason to side with the British against the American settlers who had take some of their land, but they also were upset with the British for driving out the French, who had been friends with the Choctaw. The American settlers had reason to befriend the Choctaw. They were seen as a buffer between the United States and the Spanish and French. Once the Spanish and French were gone, the Choctaw no longer served this purpose to the Americans and the whites eyed their land greedily. Under President Monroe, John C. Calhoun was secretary of war. During his time in office, he completely reorganized the war department, including how Indians were to be dealt with. He was moderate in his views. He wanted to remove the Indians, but he did not want to use force. He chose to attempt to remove the Choctaws first because he felt that if the relat ively peaceful removal of a large tribe was successful, it would make the other tribes consider removal on their own. The Americans felt Calhoun’s policies were taking to long to get rid of the Choctaw. They wanted their land immediately. When Jackson became president the handling of the Choctaw changed drastically. Before Jackson became President the Choctaw had signed many treaties with the United States government. The first, known as the Treaty of Hopewell, signed January 3rd, 1786 ceded 69,120 acres of Choctaw land to the United States in exchange for protection. The Treaty of Fort Adams signed in 1801, gave the Choctaw relief from a famine but cost them over two million acres of land. Then in 1802 the Treaty of Fort Confederation saw the Choctaw loss of another fifty thousand acres. Trading posts in Choctaw areas encouraged them to run up massive debts on credit. In order to pay back the debt the Choctaw signed the Treaty of Hoe Buckintoopa in 1803 and the Treaty of Mount Dexter in 1805. Jackson was willing to use force to remove the Indians. State and federal threats on the Choctaw forced them to sign the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830. The Choctaw were removed in three groups stating in 1831. The United States government wanted to be as generous as possible to the first to le ave in order to encourage the rest to follow suit. When the first group reached Little Rock Arkansas a reporter interviewed a Choctaw chief. He was quoted as saying the removal had been. â€Å"a trail of tears and death.† This quote was picked up by the eastern press and later associated with the Cherokee removal. Some Choctaw remained but those who did found life quite difficult. From the information here it is easy to see that the Choctaw complied with removal years before the other tribes. Next I will examine the Chickasaw tribe. The Chickasaws did not sign a formal treaty of removal until 1837, however, they were very aware that removal was inevitable. In November of 1830 Chickasaw leaders traveled west of Arkansas to survey the land for a possible relocation site. The Ratification of the Treaty of Franklin depended upon this trip. A few months after the trip one tribal leader, Levi Colbert, wrote a letter to President Andrew Jackson in which he described the land as unsuitable for the Chickasaw. The Treaty of Franklin was void, but excitement began over the possibility of Indians passing through central Arkansas during emigration. A few months after the 1830 Chickasaw leaders passed through Little Rock the Arkansas Gazette reported on the probable route of the tribes through central Arkansas to their new homes. The strategic positions of the North Little Rock and Little Rock sites were evident. In 1833 another group of Chickasaw leaders went through the area to find suitable land under the Treaty of Ponto toc. There were parties who traveled west in 1835 and 1836 as well, but it took until January 1837 for a treaty to be agreed upon by both sides. The party of 1836 established an agreement with the Choctaw at Doaksville, Indian Territory, whereby the Chickasaws could purchase a part of the western portion of the Choctaw domain as a permanent home. At the time, the Chickasaws numbered about 4,914 and 1,156 slaves. Once this treaty was signed, arrangements were made for Chickasaw removal to begin in the summer 1837. During the years of 1837 and 1838 parties of Chickasaw emigrated west. By the end of 1838 nearly all of the Chickasaw had moved off their land. The Chickasaw did not move as early as the Choctaw, but this is because they took time to find land suitable enough to settle on. They did, however, cooperate with the idea of Indian removal, just as the Choctaw had. Next I will look at the Creek tribe. The Creeks for the most part remained neutral in the American Revolution. There were some small factions that fought on either side, but nothing to take note about. In 1783 two chiefs, Tallassee and Cusseta ceded Creek land to the United States. After this the relationship between Georgia and the Creeks was growing worse. In 1786 the Creeks declared war. Two attempts at treaty were made, but there was no peace between the two sides until after the War of 1812. After a war with the Red Sticks, where General Jackson fought alongside Creeks and Cherokees, Jackson forced the Creeks to cede a third of its entire land to the United States. Chief McIntosh had gained the support of a strong majority of the Creeks. He was however the first cousin of George Troup the governor of Georgia elected in 1823. In 1825 the two men signed the Treaty of Indian Springs. This gave Georgia all Lower Creek land. McIntosh had been played by the government and technically had no mandate to sign the treaty fr om his people. Still the treaty was ratified. In 1826 President John Quincy Adams negotiated the Treaty of Washington with the Creeks. This treaty was no better that Indian Springs, but Troup was against it. He began to remove the Creeks by force. The federal government did not step in. The Creeks were forced west. The Creeks as opposed to the tribes previously discussed took on a course of violence against the United States and had to be removed by force. The final tribe we will look at is the Seminole, who also fight back against the United States, but to an even greater degree. After the United States took control of Florida in 1821, instigated partially by fighting between United States forces led by General Andrew Jackson and the Seminoles in North Florida between 1817 and 1818, which is referred to as the First Seminole War, it negotiated the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823 to establish a Seminole reservation in Central Florida. In 1832, the U.S. arranged a second agreement; the Treaty of Payne’s Landing, which required the Seminole people to move west of the Mississippi within three years. Ratified in 1834, the treaty was signed by some but not all Seminole leaders. As the United States Army moved in to force the Seminoles’ removal, many resisted, led by fighters such as Micanopy and Osceola. The result was a lengthy and bloody war between 1835 and 1842. This became known as the Second Seminole War. As in the first war, fugitive slaves fought beside the Seminoles who had taken them in. Thousands of lives were lost in the war, which cost the Jackson administration approximately 40 to 60 million dollars. The Seminole consisted of many towns, clans, and political organizations that shared a common culture and language. Because they were nowhere near as unified as the American forces, confusion and accusations of betrayal amounted upon the Seminoles. This ultimately led to their defeat and forced emigration west. A few did remain and had to defend themselves in the Third Seminole War from 1855 to 1858 from being forced out. They were finally paid to leave. The Seminoles took similar approach as the Creeks, but a completely different approach to dealing with the Americans than the Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw. While the latter three sought peaceful means to emigration because for the most part they had accepted their fate, the Seminoles lashed out against the United States and fought violently to keep their lands. In the end of course they were no match for the United States Army. The â€Å"Five Civilized Tribes† did not want to give up their land to the United States. The tribes eventually took their own path in how they would deal with the United States. Some like the Choctaw and Chickasaw saw the futility in trying to fight and worked with the United States for peaceful removal from their lands. Others like the Seminole and Creeks fought back against the United States, but were eventually defeated and forced to move. Then there is the Cherokee. They appeared to have taken the noblest of paths. They wanted the respect of the whites, but they went above and beyond in terms of assimilation, when compared to the other tribes. Yet in the end they were disgraced and forced to leave their lands. It would seem appropriate then for the Cherokee to be made out to be the â€Å"poster people† for Indian removal. The Choctaw and the Chickasaw basically gave up and moved peacefully. This would seem hardly appropriate to make them the symbol of the hardships faced on the â€Å"Trail of Tears.† The Seminole and Creeks have a better shot and being recognized because they tried to fight to keep their lands. Even so the use of violence on their part takes away from their effectiveness as the symbol of the struggles faced on the â€Å"Trail of Tears† The Cherokee make for the best symbol. They worked so hard to establish themselves as equal among the whites, and yet the white sense of superiority won in the end the Cherokee were forced off their land to face the hardships on the â€Å"Trail of Tears† This is why we hear so much more about the Cherokee and why they are the only tribe typically associated with the â€Å"Trail of Tears.† Although the five Indian nations had made earlier attempts at resistance, many of their strategies were non-violent. One method was to adopt Anglo-American practices such as large-scale farming, Western education, and slave holding. This earned the nations the designation of the Five Civilized Tribes. They adopted this policy of assimilation in an attempt to coexist with settlers and ward off hostility. But it only made whites jealous and resentful. The United States put into action legislation to remove the Indians from their lands. They did this out of greed and a belief of superiority to the Indians. The Indian tribes in turn chose their course of action. There were some that gave in and moved west without much of a struggle. Others defended their rights to their land and fought the United States before being forced to move. But it was the Cherokee who rose above the other tribes as the one most often talked about and associated with Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears. It was b ecause of the path they chose to gain respect of the whites without violence that established them as a poster people of the Trail of Tears. Research Papers on Indian Removal and the Focus on the CherokeeWhere Wild and West Meet19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoBook Review on The Autobiography of Malcolm XCapital PunishmentCanaanite Influence on the Early Israelite ReligionThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationPETSTEL analysis of IndiaEffects of Television Violence on ChildrenQuebec and Canada

Affirmative Action3 essays

Affirmative Action3 essays There are many issues in todays society that have two solid sides to them, sides, or positions, that cannot be proven absolutely wrong or right. Issues such as capital punishment, abortion, labor unions, animal rights and the list goes on and on. But one issue of this sort haunts our schools, our industries, and the subject, or core, of the issue has haunted our country for the last century. The subject of race, and the issue of affirmative action. In the case of affirmative action, like other controversial issues, each side is strongly supported and neither side can be proven right or proven wrong. The supporters claim it is the best way to ensure equal opportunity in the schools and in the workplace, while those opposing it claim that it merely takes away opportunity from one race, and unjustly hands it to another. The side of this fine line that will be exploited in the following paragraphs is the side opposing affirmative action. The results of affirmative action are more ha rmful than helpful because it negatively affects the general public, denies opportunity to the deserving, and is an abuse of law and power by government. First, affirmative action negatively affects the public by setting quotas and standards in fields of life that race should have no preference to. For example: colleges and universities. Standards should not be set on which percentage of which race should attend a college or university. An Ivy League school shouldnt be required to have a percentage of students of each race and nationality. They should be allowed to enroll whom they feel best suits the educational requirements needed to be successful at the school. When standards are in effect students, who were accepted as a result of affirmative action, may find they cannot meet the educational requirements at the school and fail out. This in turn will more than likely either waste a years worth of work, and the individual will just a ...