How the Manifest Destiny Affected Native Americans in the U.S Research Paper

How the Manifest Destiny Affected Native Americans in the U.S - Research Paper Example The paper tells that almost four decades after the ratification of the Relocation Act, the removal procedure keeps on. Even though the initiative has been seriously and constantly denounced, it has had merely narrow modifications and has never been severely pressured with closure. The hesitance of Congress to financially support it at a point that would have terminated it more quickly may partly reveal the undecided sentiments of several of those who permitted its continuation. Opposition from the targets of relocation, under the headship of quite a few religious leaders and aged Navajo women, resulted in a chain of constitutional measures, the most triumphant being the case of Manybeads claiming that relocation infringed their religious rights. Just like in numerous other cases of relocation, the underlying reason of the relocation of the Navajo people had nothing do with their interests or welfare. The case of Navajo is distinctive in the sense that it does not require the ravaging of their territories and does not belong to any development plan. Nevertheless, as in other instances of displacement, Navajos target for relocation were not permitted to choose freely whether to abandon or stay in their lands. Scudder and Cernea emphasize in their relocation classifications that triumphant relocation plans should take into account the needed socioeconomic elements for building enduring bonds to the new land. Nevertheless, both scholars argue that majority of relocation plans was unsuccessful. The senior consultant on social policy for the World Bank, Michael Cernea (1998), supports positive collaboration between sociological and economic disciplines for the purpose of decreasing relocation and improving the subsistence of relocatees.4 The Navajos’ relocation from the Hopi Partitioned Land (HPL) has been disastrous. It was badly premeditated and executed forcibly. The relocation procedures have been performed in lack of knowledge of the Navajo people’ s land possession and dwelling patterns, livelihood, and economic production.5 A number of the most unfavorable outcomes of this relocation could still be alleviated with sufficient subsidy, developmental design, and practical conditions for actual community involvement. However, with no such dedications, aimed at reviving or regaining abandoned economic production prospects, it is not likely that complete economic resurgence will ever happen.6 Examining the responses of the Navajo people to forced relocation from HPL clarifies several common features of the response differences of the displaced people, the vitality of economic production self-rule, and importance of traditional land possessions. Relocation is comparatively triumphant merely when the targets of the relocation revive or broaden their economic production tasks.7 Nonetheless, forced removal harms inhabitants and no measure can quantify the difficulties of these people against the actual reparation they get. The U.S. Go vernment versus the Navajo John O’Sullivan, an American correspondent, introduced the concept of ‘manifest destiny’ in 1845 to characterize American westward expansion. As stated by this principle, white Americans were fated to expand westward by God’s will. American merchants, as early as the 1820s, disseminated encouraging accounts of the Navajo People and frequently conveyed compassion and high regard for their attempts to oppose the Mexicans inhabiting contemporary New Mexico.8 Frontiersman Josiah Gregg, for instance, assumed that the New Mexican people and their chief had â€Å"greatly embittered the disposition of the neighboring savages, especially the Navajos, by repeated acts of cruelty and ill-faith well calculated to provoke