As the group read the article that we chose to focus on for this project, we came across various contrasting ideas that Foner has in his book and the ideas in the article itself. From the very beginning of the section where Foner speaks about the War of 1812, brutality that American’s used to gain the Indian territory is completely played down. The book does not go into an extent of what the American’s did to the Indians to strip them from their own possessions and rights. In the article, since it is from Indian perspective, the readers are able to gain insight on the brutality and pain that was casted upon the tribes. This being said, it is clear that because brutality is played down and not mentioned, that the book focuses more on the American view point than on the Indian’s. We also learned in the article that it was not just Shawnee and Tecumseh but also the Saux and Fox that were anti-American and wanted to go back to their traditional ways. The article stresses that going back to Indian ways was the right thing to do and these tribes wanted to fight for their independence. The Saux were more anti-American than the Fox because their land was taken by Americans but this still did not stop any of the tribes from wanting to go back to their homeland and roots. Lastly, another contrast that was found was the idea of different consequences of the war. Americans broke the power of the Indians and they also solidified the control of land east of the Mississippi River. While the Americans were making progress for themselves, Indian land was being taken away, tribes were being killed and Indian identity was being stripped from them. Although there were similarities found, Foner lacks to include all of these, and more, contrasting ideas in his book.
Let me know if I need to change anything!