History has provided a description of past life, never living creature that big, tall, and has an incredible body.

One is an animal called Argentinosaurus, this is the largest animal living on land of all time.

The largest land animal of all time, is part of life history that continues to be studied by experts, to find a fact of life the past.
 
Animal animal form is estimated, which has a length of 45 meters, and weighs 95 tons, or 30 times the weight of the African elephant.

The life of this creature in the past, has a life time of cretaseous, about 100 million years ago.

The way their lives, that live in groups, and even fall prey to predators such as giganotosaurus giants who lived at that time.

      Wealth means the objective of richness . In general , we think ,  if we have a huge bank balance , a fancy car , a beautiful house and everything what we want , we are wealthy .

      Exceptionally some people think being wealthy is to be sound and healthy , physically and mentally . According to them , we are a wealthy person when we have an independent life which is free from sins and other biases . Of course , money is inevitable for them too .

      Basically , money is a lot of things but not everything . We should have a virtuous mind and creative mentality to operate the money we have . Whatever it is , wealth is not forever , we came naked on this earth and we gotta go  naked, so wealth should not be a cause of crime , hatred and sins in life .

Life after racism is no longer a part of everyday life:

    Conflicts between groups and countries: Racism plays a big part in wars, fights and other conflicts between groups of people and countries. If racism was no longer around, these wars, fights and other conflicts would no longer exist. People will be able to get along without problems that exist today.
   
    Friendships and other relationships between people of different races: If there was no more racism more relationships between people of different races could exist. People who are put down or outcast because of their race will be able to live life without the pain they face today because of their race.

    Hate crimes against people of other race: Hate crimes against people of other races would no longer happen. The world would not be filled with criminal and racists, like it is today.

    Prejudice, ignorance and stereotyping: Many people these days tend to be very prejudice and ignorant of people of other races, they tend to judge them without getting to know them first. They also tend to make up stereotypes about other people without caring to learn about them first. If racism did not exist,people would not be making up  stereotypes, being prejudice and ignorant of other people because they look different.

Primarily, in order to give a valid response to the title question, the meaning of the word ‘frontier’ must be examined. Frederick Jackson Turner in his ‘Frontier Thesis’, delivered in 1893, defined the frontier as ‘the line of most rapid and effective Americanization’[1]. This suggests the frontier is a border where change is happening, but also crucially emphasising that it was where ‘Americanization’ took place, ultimately regarding the frontier as resulting from American actions, through Americanization. Turner’s definition also describes the frontier concept as a process, which may cease to exist if the process halts, which may then turn the frontier into a border. John Juricek describes the frontier ‘not as a boundary or line, but as a territory or zone of interpretation between two previously distinct societies’[2]. This definition interprets the frontier as a mixing of two cultures, implying not a clash of cultures but rather a coexistence of both the American and Indian peoples. Another source, separating the contrast between the concepts of the frontier and borderlands, illustrates the frontier as ‘a meeting place of peoples in which geographical and cultural borders were not clearly defined’[3]. This definition emphasises the ambiguity over the land ownership rights of the land to which both sides put forward their claims, not associating the frontier with either side. The same source then proposes that ‘the frontier accommodates for extended cohabitation between natives and newcomers’[4], that the frontier does not have to be a clash between two sides and that unless it is in their best interests not to, then peaceful coexistence should be the most attractive proposition.

One of the key conflicts of the frontier between the Indians and Americans was the debate of to which side the land of American belonged. Turner thought that ‘the American frontier lies at the hither edge of free land’[5], which with the Native Americans would dispute. The ‘free land’ beyond the frontier was not free of settlers as large portions of it were inhabited by differing Indian societies. In calling it ‘free land’ the American views it as uninhabited and therefore open to exploration and settlement. In actuality even Columbus could not have discovered any free land in the western hemisphere because ‘native people already lived there’[6], only in the American mind did the land not belong to anybody, therefore allowing them to claim it for themselves. Robert Frost, in The Gift Outright, demonstrates this American mindset when he quotes that ‘the land was ours before we were the lands’[7], implying that the land has no voice in deciding who it belongs to, and thus it is open to anybody. However this does not present a justification for the American right to over Indians to the land of the frontier, rather suggesting that sharing the land would be the most equal method. However the fact that ‘there had never really been any “free land”’[8] did not deter ‘Missourians from reinventing borderlands as virgin lands’[9] and thus showing their ignorance of the Indian rights to the frontier lands. Also as the Missourians reinvented the land as virgin lands, this means that they thought the lands were not virgin beforehand, acknowledging that the Americans were taking lands from another side, the Indians. This consequently leads to the continued existence of the frontier being more of a result of American actions, as they are the ones taking land from the other causing the frontier process to carry on its existence.

Following the war of independence, the newly formed American nation sought to establish itself as a unique country, moving away from its colonist roots. By ‘moving westward, the frontier became more and more American’[10], as by moving west America was moving away from the Atlantic, and additionally the British, establishing America as its own country, rather than one formulated by others. However by moving westward America was also moving the frontier further into Indian Territory. This combined with the establishment of new American goals set the frontier to continue its existence until the Indians amalgamated into the United States. Two major goals dominated the white’s treatment of the frontier. These goals were: ‘the expropriation of native resources and the acquisition of their lands; and the transformation or elimination of native cultures in favour of white models’[11]. Both these goals treat the frontier as something of commercial value to the American capitalist system and preach white superiority of the subject Indians whose lives are less valuable than the advancement of the U.S nation. These goals also show that it is the Americans who continue to distinguish themselves from the Indians and to seek rapid Americanization, again showing that the continued existence of the frontier was more a result of American actions. These frontier goals, led to the American thirst for land. However in order to gain more land, the Indian populations needed to be moved westward. ‘Jefferson persuaded Indians to cede lands and move west’[12] to places where they would be protected from further American expansion. However after the Indian movement westward, Jefferson still ‘failed to protect Indian claims’[13] to the land, exemplifying the American lust for land, and failure to transcend the frontier concept, causing it to continue to exist.

Turner also described the American frontier as ‘the meeting point between savagery and civilization’[14], the savages, in his eyes, being the Native Americans. However whether the Indians were savages or not is relative to how their society was viewed, as the Indians may have thought that the Americans were savage, which could be easily backed up by their discrimination and violence against other races. Even if the Americans thought that an Indian ‘cannot himself be civilized’[15], this still does not provide a justification for the ‘elimination of native cultures in favour for white models’[16], which supposedly stood for democracy and freedom, which then only applied to certain peoples. Civilization, as John Chasteen puts, was ‘everything money could buy from Europe’, and that, ‘whoever accepted this outrageously Eurocentric definition of civilization more or less had to accept the ‘more civilized’ white ruling class with it’[17]. This definition also fits with the American view of civilization, which meant that the Indian, or non-whites, could never be civilized. Using these definitions of the frontier and civilization, the frontier was created by the American mindset. By deeming themselves to be civilized and the Indians as savages, the Americans created a difference between the two cultures, thus constructing a barrier between the two cultures which culminated in the continued existence of the frontier.

The American perception of the Indians as savages completely misses their normally peaceful nature. When Columbus first set foot on North American land he described the Indians as ‘so peaceful’[18], due to their hospitality. If it were not for the Indian hospitality towards the early English colonists, their survival would have been far less likely. The Indians in this time shared their stocks of food with the starving colonists, and in remembrance for the Indian help the Americans now celebrate thanksgiving. However even though the Indian ‘tribes were peacefully inclined’[19], the Americans still avoided a ‘mutual process of frontiering’[20] in favour for expanding American supremacy. The Chivington massacre of 1867, where Indian ‘chiefs did not lift an arm, but were shot down’[21], is a perfect example of the non-aggressive nature of the Indians, and how wrong the American view of them as savages really is. If the views of the Indians as peaceful are taken to be true, then the continued existence of the frontier was not down to Native American actions.  

‘These peoples called Indians by Europeans were divided into hundreds of tribes and thousands of societies’[22]. Rather than just one nation, the Indians constituted of many different cultures and so calling them all ‘Indians’ would be the same as calling all Europeans ‘whites’ and treating them all the same way. Even tribes were likely to be a ‘secondary organisation derived solely from contact between stateless and state people’[23], thus making it an American creation. The American society was elementally hierarchical and revolved around the rule and power of their leaders. On the other hand, Indian society was almost anarchical, without any form of state, and the Indian societies only became tribes and nations after American imposition gave them ideas of power. By imposing power, small societies merged into ‘tribes’, in American minds, which in turn allowed them to think of ‘tribal societies as a “side”’[24]. By creating ‘sides’, the Americans distinguished themselves from Indian tribes and by acknowledging themselves as different, the opposing sides necessary for the existence of the frontier were created.

The different ‘sides’ of the frontier, in the Indians and Americans also caused the ‘frontier to become identified as a combat zone’[25]. The wars of the frontier played a big part in its continued existence and this was due to a combination of both sides. Edward Waterhouse justifies the American war against the Indians in that they should ‘destroy them who sought to destroy us’[26]. However if this statement justifies American violence it also provides the Indians with reason to destroy the Americans for retribution for instances like King Phillips war and the genocide of a number of eastern Indian tribes. George Custer, a general in the American war against the natives, upon seeing the aftermath of an Indian outbreak, where three station keepers were found dead, announced that an ‘Indian war with all its barbarities had been forced upon the people of the frontier’[27]. Even if the outbreak leading to three American deaths deserved retribution, it did not deserve the American ‘destruction of their villages’[28] or a declaration of war. The authority the Americans tried to impose on the Indians led to numerous outbreaks of violence. If it were not for the constantly increasing American demand to fuel capitalism which led to the destruction of Indian partnerships in favour of war then the frontier wars would have likely been far less catastrophic for the Indians. However the ongoing expansion of the American people and the random Indian attacks on American outposts kept the frontier alive.

The frontier as a concept was ultimately a meeting of two different cultures of two different perspectives. The mixing of the two cultures at the frontier could either work out peacefully with cooperation or create conflict between the two sides. However the American goals of the ‘acquisition of land’ and ‘transformation or elimination of native culture’[29] caused the frontier to become a combat zone until the Indians realised that their only chance of survival would be to succumb to white rule. The frontier could have ceased to exist if the American and Indian populations could have co-inhabited the land peacefully, thus causing the process of the concept of the frontier to end, but these American goals kept the frontier in the American agenda. The American also sought to distinguish himself from the Indians by naming them as savages, which could not be civilized. By branding all the different multicultural Native American societies as Indians and savages, the Americans found a common enemy. By creating a common enemy the two sides of the frontier were formed, causing its existence. Therefore the continued existence of the frontier, due to the American goals and perception of the Native Americans, was inherently due to American actions.

[1] Mary Ellen Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints (San Diego, 1994), p.21

[2] Howard Lamar and Leonard Thompson, The Frontier in History: North America and South Africa compared (Yale, 1981), p.7

[3] Jeremy Adelman and Stephen Aron, ‘From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in between in North American History’, The American Historical Review, (Chicago, 1999) p.815

[4] Adelman & Aron, ‘From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in between in North American History’, p.815

[5] Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints, p.26

[6] Patricia Nelson Limerick, ‘Disorientation and reorientation: the American landscape discovered from the West,’ Journal of American history 79, no. 3 (1992), p.1025

[7]Robert Frost, ‘The Gift Outright’, The Poetry of Robert Frost (1942)

[8] William Cronon, ‘Revisiting the Vanishing Frontier: the Legacy of Frederick Jackson Turner’, The Western Historical Quarterly (1987), p.109

[9] Adelman & Aron, ‘From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in between in North American History’, p.828

[10] Frederick Jackson Turner, The Significance of the frontier in American history’ (1893)

[11] Lamar & Thompson, The Frontier in History: North America and South Africa compared, p.53

[12] Adelman & Aron, ‘From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in between in North American History’, p.828

[13] Adelman & Aron, ‘From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in between in North American History’, p.828

[14] Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints, p.26

[15] Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints, p.67

[16] Lamar & Thompson, The Frontier in History: North America and South Africa compared, p.53

[17] John Chasteen, Born in Blood and Fire: The concise history of Latin America (2006), p.138

[18] Dee Brown, Bury my heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian history of the American West (U.K, 1972), p.1

[19] Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints, p.78

[20] Adelman & Aron, ‘From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in between in North American History’, p.827

[21] Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints, p.84

[22] Lamar & Thompson, The Frontier in History: North America and South Africa compared, p.45

[23] Lamar & Thompson, The Frontier in History: North America and South Africa compared, p.63

[24] Lamar & Thompson, The Frontier in History: North America and South Africa compared, p.72

[25] Lamar & Thompson, The Frontier in History: North America and South Africa compared, p.49

[26] Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints, p.66

[27] Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints, p.76

[28] Jones, The American Frontier: Opposing Viewpoints, p.77

[29] Lamar & Thompson, The Frontier in History: North America and South Africa compared, p.53

The decline of Eastern Native American religion should be attributed to the arrival of the English colonists. The ‘main reason the Puritans came to New England was to convert the Indians to Christianity’[1], thus ridding the Native Americans of an integral piece of their culture. The Puritans ‘strove to replace all elements of Indian life and culture’[2], which they disrupted due to ‘their certainty that they were doing Gods work’[3], causing them to believe that exterminating the pagan Native American religion was just. The oppression of the Native religion through colonisation is exposed by the Puritan imposition of a ‘death penalty for any “whether Christian or Pagan”, who would “blaspheme his holy name”[4], this repression gives no respect to Native American religion, commencing the dominance of Christianity over Native American religion. Although the Puritans sent ‘no more than a dozen New England missionaries’[5] to try and convert the Native Americans there were ‘by the 1670s, twenty five hundred converts’[6]. The relative success in converting the Indians may be down to the Native American attribution of the ‘growth of English power to the strength of the whites God, and to accommodate themselves to Christianity as a means of survival’[7]. The perception that the Christian religion was more powerful than the Native American religion also originated through the smallpox disease which wiped out large percentages of Eastern Native American tribes, appearing to indicate that God was on the side of the English’[8]. The losses of the Native American tribes created land space for the English expansion, which ‘the whites saw as a nudge from the almighty’[9], causing them to believe that the Native American culture was intended to be destroyed by their Christian God.  William Wood, from New England, claimed that the ‘Lord put an end to this quarrel by smiting them with smallpox’[10], again showing the feeling of Christian superiority over the Native American religion. However although many Native Americans deserted their culture for Christianity, Puritan conversion was greatly unsuccessful. All the ‘major New England tribes had avoided or rejected the English efforts to change their beliefs’[11] and those that did try to convert to Christianity often failed to meet the ‘vigorous Puritan requirements for proof of visible sainthood’[12]. The imposition of Christianity on the Eastern Native American culture caused major disruptions in the religious Eastern Native American culture. It caused Native Americans to convert and caused many to doubt the effectiveness of their own religious customs, due to the relative success of the colonists. The ‘acceptance of new religion dismantled the traditional local ceremonies and reduced their stature among the remaining villagers’[13], causing the destruction of Eastern Native American culture.

The English arrival threatened the land of the Eastern Native Americans due to the colonist expansion. Land was important to Eastern Native American culture, as retaining their land was ‘identified as vital to their continued existence as a people’[14]. However the English brought with them ‘European ideas about private property’[15] and land ownership of which the Puritans agreed the Native Americans had ‘no civil right’[16] to own. Through disease epidemics, which wiped out large proportions of Native American land, ‘large parcels of land were opened over vast stretches of the Americas’[17] creating an empty space for colonist expansion. The diseases which opened up the land were attributed to the English ‘God punishing his enemies, and clearing the Promised Land for English settlement’[18]. The expansion of the colonists into Indian land can also be attributed to the statement that ‘Indian land became more useful than the friendly contacts with the Native peoples which had ensured that survival’[19] to the interests of the colonies. The English then used alcohol to ‘cheat the Indians out of their land’[20], rather than the clearing effect on the land that the diseases had. The expansion of the colonists bore significant effects on the activity of the Eastern Native Americans. The Indians were ‘faced with the unwelcome alternatives of being driven from their homes, of joining the white society, or of fighting the invaders’[21]. All of these alternatives confronted the Natives with the destruction of their values, causing the destruction of their culture. A lot of the Indians ‘were induced to move west of the Mississippi’[22], causing the tribes to become increasingly nomadic, instigating ‘the stable village life which had been supported through agriculture to be disrupted’[23]. For the tribes who ‘accepted English settlement’[24] came a ‘rupturing of the functional and sacred relationship between man and nature’[25] which was once integral to Native American culture, causing a cultural decline for the Eastern Native Americans.

Throughout the colonial rule of the English, the culture of the Eastern Native Americans was oppressed by the English. The English ‘accepted fully that the tribal people were backward’[26] and considered the ‘Indians, like the Irish, to be at the same primitive level of development as the ancient Britons’[27]. The English misunderstanding from the cultural clash between the two cultures initiated the British oppression of Indian rights and culture. The English believed in the ‘concept of cultural evolution’[28], wanting to convert the Native Americans to English ways of life, turning the Native Americans into white, cultured Englishmen. There were instances where ‘runaways from various colonies went to live as Indians’ and ‘chose to remain with them when captured’[29], demonstrating that some of the English were drawn to the Native American culture and actually preferred it. However mostly the ‘English ‘despised them and their culture’[30]. The first instance of English oppression over the Native Americans was in 1605 when ‘George Waymouth kidnapped five Abenakis and took them back to England’[31], which provoked bitter Indian relations from the outset. This and other events may have led to the Indian reception of the English settlers consisting of the Native American ‘warriors showering the palisaded camp with a rain of arrows’[32], showing one of the only unprovoked acts of aggression from the Native Americans. There are far more instances of the colonist’s aggression towards the Indians through the Pequot war and King Phillips war. During the time of colonisation the Puritan views on white supremacy was evident by an order of council which ‘in effect gave every white person the police power of life, death and summary execution over every Indian’[33]. This dissolution of the Native Americans basic civil rights led to the demise of the Native American society, which, overpowered by white rule, ‘submitted to the political authority of the colonial government’[34]. Colonial oppression, through the ‘English rejection of tribal customs, was a major element in the invaders cultural onslaught’[35], instigating the demise of Eastern Native American culture to the increase of the overpowering white colonisation. The expansion of the oppression of colonisation on the Indians ‘proceeded to accomplish the demolition of the native culture’[36].

The destruction of Eastern Native American culture was influenced by the mixing of European culture with that of the Native Americans. The Europeans brought guns, disease and whiskey which all contributed to the downfall of the Indians both in number and culturally. The introduction of guns to America gave the Europeans a major advantage in warfare which the Indians had to cancel out. The Native Americans therefore took any opportunity to ‘seize guns, ammunition and any other arms they could get’[37] to protect themselves from the English. In doing so they gave up their old methods of fighting which were nullified by the more advanced European weapons. However the guns also helped them to preserve their culture from the English, as shown by the ‘Indians of the vineyard who had many guns, knew how to use them, and were the only group of Massachusetts Indians who refused to give up their weapons’[38], thus protecting themselves from the Christian advance of the Puritans. However the importance of guns to the Native American survival was recognised by the English who then ‘prevented existing traders from dealing with the tribes’[39] who were known to deal weapons. The surrender of guns was ‘more damaging to tribal welfare’[40] than most other factors to the Indian decline. This was because the ‘recipients of liquor and arms became dangerously dependent on whites for replacement stocks’[41], allowing the English to exploit the Native Americans due to this position. Another way that integration caused losses to Indian culture was through social mixing between the two cultures. However ‘despite some experience in working together, living near each other, and even intermarrying; as in the case of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, they rejected any substantive cultural mixing’[42]. The introduction of European diseases, such as smallpox, to the Native Americans resulted in the deaths of ‘more than ninety percent of the Amerindians’[43], causing a huge loss of cultural knowledge. Although the cultural clash mainly affected the Indians culturally, aspects of Native American culture were adopted by the Europeans. The growth of tobacco and the effectiveness of burning crops to rejuvenate the land were both adopted by the English. The Native American Iroquois league even ‘had an “indirect” influence on the establishment of the union and the structure of the new government in 1789’[44] which shaped the United States. However in the great culture clash, ‘whereas the whites where inclined to destroy what was strange to them, Indians were prepared to add aspects of white culture to their own’[45], causing the demise of Eastern Native American culture, and the increasing dominance of the whites.

The introduction of the English colonists to Eastern America initiated the destruction of Eastern Native American culture. Through the colonist’s aggressive approach to enforcing Christianity, the Native American religion was oppressed and erased by Christian superiority. The expansion of the colonists into Indian Territory caused the loss of vital land, of the Natives, which was the cornerstone of the Native American cultural relationship with nature. Furthermore the land taken by the expansion of the colonists was then forced under English jurisdiction, causing Native American culture, despised by the English, to be oppressed and forgotten. The result of the amalgamation of the Native American and English cultures was the triumph of the aggressive English culture over the natural Indian nation. The Natives added aspects of English culture to their own, whereas the English treated the Native culture as greatly inferior and of no value. Through all these factors the Eastern Native American culture was destroyed, diluted and forgotten. All of these factors can be blamed on the European bearing on the Native Americans as it where the English colonists that oppressed the Native American cultural views. Through the destruction of their nation due to the English aggressiveness, the Eastern Native American culture was lost, as tribes of the East migrated westward.

[1] G.Thomas, ‘Puritans, Indians and the Concept of Race’, William Mary Quarterly (1975), p.5

[2] Roger L. Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.74

[3] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.69

[4] Thomas, ‘Puritans, Indians and the Concept of Race’, p.5

[5] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.75

[6] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.79

[7] Christine Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.19

[8] Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.25

[9] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.62

[10] Cook, Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650, p.166

[11] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.78

[12] Thomas, ‘Puritans, Indians and the Concept of Race’, p.7

[13] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.81

[14] Bernard W Sheehan, ‘Indian-White relations in Early America’, William Mary Quarterly (1969) p.272

[15] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.66

[16] Thomas, ‘Puritans, Indians and the Concept of Race’, p.10

[17] Noble Cook, Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650, p.198

[18] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History,p.62

[19] Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.20

[20] Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.22

[21] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.52

[22] Sheehan, ‘Indian-White relations in Early America’, p.268

[23] Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.24

[24] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.70

[25] Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.23

[26] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.59

[27] Nicholas Canny, ‘The ideology of English colonisation’, William Mary Quarterly (1973) p.596

[28] Canny, ‘The ideology of English colonisation’, p.598

[29] Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.17

[30] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.55

[31] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.61

[32] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.64

[33] Thomas, ‘Puritans, Indians and the Concept of Race’, p.20

[34] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.79

[35] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.82

[36] Sheehan, ‘Indian-White relations in Early America’, p.284

[37] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.53

[38] Thomas, ‘Puritans, Indians and the Concept of Race’, p.22

[39] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.59

[40] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.85

[41] Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.22

[42] Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative History, p.48

[43] Cook, Born to Die: Disease and New World Conquest, 1492-1650, p.206

[44] Sheehan, ‘Indian-White relations in Early America’, p.277

[45] Bolt, American Indian Policy and American Reform, p.20

Paternalism: the government thought the Aboriginals lived appallingly so they tried to help them and force them to live like the white people. They were given food and other resources.   

Segregation: the government separated Aboriginals into separate environment  and segregated from the white population because of fights between them. The Aboriginals were sent to mission stations.   

Integration: the government tried educate them forcibly for the Aboriginal to become like the white people and live like the white people.

Assimilation: the government policy was made to take the Aboriginal children away from the family and train them to be like the white people.

Self-determination: the government decided to let the Aboriginals take care of themselves by offering them jobs and decisions of their own.

A Ugandan Mother is still totally shocked at the unbelievable behavior of her only daughter. She is a divorced single mother who brought up her only daughter with love and determination. She had been thrown out of her marital home by her ex husband, but worked hard as a single parent and educated this only child with sweat and love upto University level.

Looking at her life and the property she had acquired, this loving mother decided to bequeath her earthly little acquisitions to her only daughter while she was still studying at the University. The mother gave her the Land title of the premise the lived on all these years and declared that the ownership of the land was moving over to her. The girl was well pleased with this move and kept these legal documents away as her personal property.

Two years ago, she fell in love with a guy in town whom she introduced to her mother. The mother felt so happy to receive her potential son in law that she organized a grand reception for relatives and friends. The daughter soon after the introduction, moved out to live with the boy and left her mother on the family land.

Recently, she sent a text message to her mother informing her that she now wants full control of her land which  exists in her name. This message was so distressing to the mother that she passed out for a few hours, because she never expected her only daughter, whom she willingly handed over her own possession to even consider throwing her out of the family property. In the Sms text message, the girl made it clear that the mother needed to move out immediately because her and the fiance would like to occupy and develop the land or else she would refer the matter to court.

This kind of behavior shocked the entire neighborhood. It is very possible that the so called fiance is just a gold-digger keen on reaping the poor girl off her possessions in the name of love. Such men are not so few these days.

Finding a survival plan when almost none are available is going to be a challenge. But as more people continue to end up homeless, new solutions will need to be considered. Wal Mart has offered their parking lot to many homeless who are now sleeping in their own cars. If you network and find a group that is suited to you, consider going in together to rent a home or lease a piece of property to park on and live. You will be able to park more permanently or set up a tent and begin a new life.

As each person finds their own way into your group, they can offer whatever they have in the way of products or services. It may feel like the old commune of the hippie days, but no one has to share everything. Just what they feel they would like to share. Sit down together and plan your community or yard to the best advantage of everyone. From how to park and maintain a bit of privacy to projects to the best advantage of everyone.

Begin by planning how to park everyone so they have their own space. Next consider how to cook meals. Some people may be in campers with propane stoves and ovens. If they are willing to contribute cooking for meals, be sure to take up a collection to keep their propane filled for the future. Add an outdoor bbq pit everyone can enjoy and cook on so cooking meals a few times a week is possible for everyone. Use it once or twice a week and cook for several people at once while it is hot and the coals are ready.

Use your local food bank to help provide the group with something to cook and create soup and bread meals. Use fresh fruit during the summer months as much as possible and look for discount sweets that need to be eaten that night. Otherwise everyone is on their own, but as a group you have helped to provide each other with a place to park and live for a while.

Continue to network with everyone in the group for jobs, sources for food and care. You can even set up an outdoor, private area for a solar shower for a very low investment. Maintain security and protect each other so you can survive until better times are available.