Causes Of The Indian Removal Act Architecture Essay

Causes Of The Indian Removal Act Architecture Essay The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was unfolded was during a time of contradictions. While it was a period of expanding democratic institutions, it also pointed to obvious limitations of that democracy. States largely abolished property restrictions on voting and as the Western frontier was being expanded, it meant more opportunities of settlement for whites. However, the Western land of promise spelled disaster for the Native peoples who lived with the whites. No one better understood the contradictions of this age of democracy than the Cherokees, who adopted many of the white institutions only to suffer from the tyranny of the majority and were forced to the West against their will. In this study, I will answer the question: What were the causes of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and what were its effects upon the Cherokee nation? Before the act, the American government sought to civilize and integrate the Native Americans into their culture, and the Cherokees were an example of the successes of assimilation. I will explore why there was such a significant shift in American policies toward the Native Americans from assimilation to removal. I will also discuss the long term effects of the Indian Removal Act that negatively altered the internal organization of the tribes and created factions within the Cherokee nation. I relied on both primary and secondary sources to understand both Americans and the Cherokees perspectives on the act. In my research, I discovered the grievances harbored by the Cherokee nation when the American policies were changed and implemented. The Indian Removal Act is, without a question, a Cherokee tragedy, but it is also an American tragedy. The Cherokees had believed in the promise of democracy by the United States, and their disappointment is a legacy that all Americans share. Introduction: The Cherokees were only one of the many Native Americans forcibly removed in the first half of the nineteenth century, but their experiences have a particular significance and poignancy. The Cherokees, more than any other native people in their time, tried to adopt the Anglo-American culture. In a remarkably short time, they transformed their society and modified their traditional culture to conform to United States policies, to fulfill the expectations of white politicians, and most importantly, to preserve their tribal integrity. This civilization policy required a total reorganization of the spiritual and social world of the Cherokees. They established schools, developed written laws, and abolished clan revenge. Cherokee women became involved in spinning and weaving while the men raised livestock and planted crops. Some Cherokee even built columned plantation houses and bought slaves. John C. Calhoun, secretary of war, writes to Henry Clay, Speaker of the House of Representatives on January 15, 1820, The Cherokees exhibit a more favorable appearance that any other tribe of Indians. They are already established two flourishing schools among them.' (Ehle 154). By adopting the white culture, the Cherokees hope to gain white respect. Acculturation was also a defensive mechanism to prevent further loss of land and extinction of native culture. Even more adamant Cherokees firmly believed that civilization was preferable to their traditional way of life. The progress of the Cherokees astounded many whites who trave led through their county in the early nineteenth century. Adding to these achievements, a Cherokee named Sequoyah invented a syllabary in 1820 that enabled the Cherokees to read and write in their own language. They also increased the number of written laws and established a bicameral legislature. By 1827, the Cherokees had also established a supreme court and a constitution very similar to those of the United States. Their educated men even attended the American Boards seminary in Cornwall, Connecticut, and could read Latin and Greek as well as understand the white mans philosophy, history, theology, and politics (Anderson 7). The Cherokees exceeded the goals proposed for the Indians by various United States presidents from George Washington and Andrew Jackson. In the words of a Cherokee scholar, the Cherokees were the mirror of the American Republic. On the eve of Cherokee removal to the west, many white Americans considered them to be the most civilized of all natives peoples (Anderson 24). What then caused the Cherokees to be removed? Why were they forced to abandon homes, schools, and churches? From demographic shifts to the rise in political factions, the ensuing conflicts that arising from the Indian Removal Act of 1830 still affect the surviving Cherokee nation today. Causes of the Indian Removal Act: It is important to recognize that the decision of the Jackson administration to remove the Cherokee Indians to lands west of the Mississippi River in the 1830s was more a reformulation of the national policy that had been in effect since the 1790s than a change in that policy. In the early years of the Republic, seizure of Indian land was a way of civilizing Native Americans. First articulated by George Washingtons Secretary of War, Henry Knox, on July 2, 1791 in the Treaty of Holston, the policy of seizing native lands was that the Cherokee Nation may be led to a greater degree of civilization, and to become herdsmen and cultivators, instead of remaining in a state of hunters. The United States will from time to time furnish gratuitous the said nation with useful implements of husbandry. On the surface, the original goal of the civilization policy seemed philanthropic. Making civilized men out of savages would benefit the Native Americans and the new nation as well as ensure the progress of the human race (Bernard Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian, 119). However, the policy represented attempts to wrest the Cherokee lands. Knox and his successors reasoned that if Indians gave up hunting, their hunting grounds will become surplus land that they would willingly exchange for funds to support education, agriculture and other civilized pursuits (Perdue 25). For this reason, coercing the Indians to cede their hunting grounds would actually accelerate acculturation because they would no longer occupy the forest when they had fields to till. Thomas Jefferson, who became president in 1801, shared Knoxs beliefs. Jeffersons negotiating tactics were far more aggressive than anything Knox envisioned as Jefferson ordered his agents to intensify the pressure on tribes to sell more and larger tracts of land. Soon, he let it be known that treats, intimidation, and bribery were acceptable tactics to get the job done (Anderson 35). Jefferson, with his aggression, merely uncovered that these civilization policies were not for the benefit of the Native Americans. Rather, the assimilation policy was a disguised policy of removal of the Native Americans by the American government. It is therefore important to identify that the cause of the Indian Removal Act did not originate in the 1830s, but rather culminated in the early nineteenth century. However, more immediate reasons did cause Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act of 1830 during Jacksons presidency. The factors contributing to the fate of the Cherokees were the discovery of gold on Cherokee land, the issue of states rights, and the emergence of scientific racism. American speculators coveted the nearly five million acres the Cherokee Nation refused to sell. Whites desired land for settlement purposes as property was an obvious measure of wealth in the South. The southerners also desired more agricultural land as the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a lucrative business. In addition, intrusion into Cherokee lands became more urgent with the discovery of gold on its land in 1829. Also, the Americans began to embrace a belief in white superiority and the static nature of the red man in the period after the 1820s. Many Americans concluded, Once an Indian, always an Indian (Anderson 35). Culture, they believed, was innate, not learned. However civilized an Indian may appear, he retained a savage nature. When the civilization program failed to transform the Indians overnight, many Americans supported that the savages should not be permitted to remain in midst of a civilized society. Though earlier in his letter to Clay, Calhoun had praised the progress of the Cherokees, he concludes the letter writing, Although partial advances may have been made under the present system to civilize the Indians, I am of an opinion that, until there is a radical change in the system, any efforts which may be made must fall short of complete success. They must be brought under our authority and laws, or they will insensibly waste away in vice and misery.' The condescending tone tha t Calhoun takes to describe the Cherokees reveals the racist attitude of the early nineteenth century and sheds light onto one of the reasons why Americans urged Congress to remove Indians from their homelands. In this racist atmosphere of Georgia, another vital cause of removal was states rights. Although the Cherokees saw their constitution as a crowning achievement, whites, especially Georgians, viewed it as a challenge to states rights because the Cherokee territory was within the boundaries of four states. The 1827 Cherokee Constitution claimed sovereignty over tribal lands, establishing a state within a state. Georgians claimed that such a legal maneuver violated the United States constitution and that the federal government was doing nothing to remedy the situation. Sympathetic the Georgians cries was Andrew Jackson, who became president 1829. As a follower of the Republican doctrine of state sovereignty, he firmly supported a national policy of Indian removal and defended his stand by asserting that removal was the only course of action that could save the Native Americans from extinction. Jacksons attitude toward Native Americans was patronizing, describing them as children in need of guidance and believed the removal policy was beneficial to them. To congressional leaders, he assured them that his policies would enable the federal government to place the Indians in a region where they would be free of white encroachment and jurisdictional disputes between the states and federal government. He sought congressional approval of his removal policy and stated to Captain James Gadsden in October 12, 1829 that the policy would be generous to the Indians and at the same time would allow the United States to exercise a parental control over their inte rests and possibly perpetuate their race. Though not all Americans were convinced by Jacksons and his assurances that his motives and methods were philanthropic, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830 that allowed: 1) the federal government the power to relocate any Native Americans in the east to territory that was west of the Mississippi River; 2) the president to set up districts within the Indian Territory for the reception of tribes agreeing to land exchanges, and 3) the payment of indemnities to the Indians for assistance in accomplishing their resettlement, protection in their new settlements, and a continuance of the superintendence and care. Effects of the Indian Removal Act: The Removal Act of 1830 left many things unspecified, including how the removal of the eastern Indian nations would be arranged. During Jacksons administration, one of the most important Cherokee groups that decided to leave was led by the powerful Ridge family. At the beginning of the struggle against removal, the Ridge family firmly supported Chief John Ross, one of the elected leaders of the tribe. Ross and his people also believed that the Cherokees years of peace, achievements, and contributions gave them the right to remain on land that was legally theirs. However, the Ridges soon decided that the struggle to keep the Cherokee lands in the East was a lost cause. Major Ridge had been one of the first to recognize that Indians had no hope against whites in war. Two factions then developed within the tribe the majority, who supported Chief Ross in his struggle to keep their homeland in the East, and the Treaty Group, who thought the only solution was to emigrate to the West. Rather than lose all they had to the states in the East, the Ridge party, without the consent of Ross, signed the Treaty of New Echota in December 1835. They treaty conveyed to the United States all lands owned, claimed, or possessed by the Cherokee Nation east of the Mississippi River. Major Ridge explained his decision to give up the Cherokee homeland saying, We cannot stay here in safety and comfortWe can never forget these homesI would willingly die to preserve them, but any forcible effort to keep them will cost us our lands, our lives and the lives of our children' (Gilbert 21). By Cherokee law, the tribe owned all land in common, no individual or minority group had a right to dispose of it. Army officer Major William Davis who was hired to enroll the Cherokees for removal, wrote the secretary of war that nine-tenths of the Cherokees would reject the Treat of New Echota: That paper called a treat is no treaty at all (Gilbert 23). However, on May 17, 1836, the Senate ratified the Treaty of New Echota by one vote, and on May 23, President Jackson signed the treaty into law. The deadline for removal of all the Cherokees from the East was set for May 23, 1838. The Treaty of New Echota was not an honest or fair agreement between the United States and the Cherokee nation. Even Georgia governor William Schley, admitted that it was not made with the sanction of their leaders (Ehle 244). However, in January 1837, about six hundred wealthy members of the Treaty Party emigrated west, a full year before the forcible deportation of the rest of the Cherokees. Cherokee removal did not take place as a single expulsion but instead spanned many years. In the late summer of 1838, a detachment of Cherokees began to exit the stockade where they had been held for many months awaiting the long journey to their new home west of the Mississippi. Some Cherokees had voluntarily moved west, though most remained in their homelands, still not believing they would be forced to leave. In 1838, the Cherokees were disarmed, and General Winfield Scott was sent to oversee their removals. John G. Burnett, a soldier who participated in the removal described the event saying, Women were dragged from their homes by soldiers. Children were often separated from their parents and driven into the stockades with the sky for a blanket and the earth for a pillow. And often the old and inform were prodded with bayonets to hasten them to the stockades (Ehle 393). Those forced from their homeland departed with heavy hearts. Cherokee George Hicks lamented, We are now about to take our final leave and kind farewell to our native land, the country that the Great Spirit gave our FathersIt is with sorrow that we are forced by the white man to quit the scenes of our childhood (Anderson 37). For Cherokees, the Georgian land had meaning far deeper than its commercial value. Their culture and creation tied them to this place, and now they were being compelled to surrender their homes and march west. Above all, Cherokees lost faith in the United States. In one Kentucky town, a local resident asked an elderly Indian man if he remembered him from his service the United States Army in the Creek War. The old man replied, Ah! My life and the lives of my people were then at stake for you and your country. I then thought Jackson my best friend. But ah! Jackson no serve me right. Your country no do me justice now! (New York Observer, January 26, 1839, quoted in Foreman 305-307.) Exposure and fatigue during the deportation weakened immune systems, making the Cherokees susceptible to diseases such as measles, whooping cough, dysentery, and respiratory infections. The number of Cherokees who perished on the Trail of Tears, the name given to the 826 mile route taken took them west, is hard to determine. The most commonly cited figure for deaths is 4,000, approximately one quarter of the Cherokees, and is an estimate made by Dr. Elizur Butler, a missionary who accompanied the Cherokees (Anderson 85). By his own count, John Ross supervised the removal of 13,149, and his detachment reported 424 deaths and 69 births along with 182 desertions. A United States official in Indian Territory counted 11,504 arrivals, a discrepancy of 1,645 when compared to the total of those who departed the East. Sociologist Russell Thorton has speculated that removal cost the Cherokees 10,000 individuals between 1835 and 1840, including the children that victims would have produced have they survived (Anderson 93). Therefore, the overall demographic effect was far greater than the actual number of casualties. When the Ross detachments arrived in the spring of 1839 to the Indian Territory, melding with the Treaty Party who left before the forcible removal was a daunting task. Removal had shattered the matrix of Cherokee society, ripping them from their ancestral sources and shaking their infant institutions of government. Civil war burst forth as the political chasm brought on by the Treaty of New Echota divided the Cherokee Nation. For more than a decade, the Cherokee fought this bloody civil war, and a distorted version of the old clan revenge system reemerged. In June 1839, between six and seven thousand Cherokees assembled at Takatoka Camp Ground to resolve the looming political crisis. Chief John Ross insisted on the continuation of the eastern Cherokee government for several reasons. The Cherokee Nation had a written constitution and an elaborate law code and government, and they did constitute a substantial majority. However, the United States saw the Treaty Party as true patriots, Ross as a villain, and the recent emigrants as savages, thwarting all efforts to reconcile the divided factions in the Cherokee nation. When the meeting ended with a compromise to be voted on a later date, 150 National Party men met secretly and decided that the Cherokees who had signed the Treaty of New Echota were traitors who had violated the Cherokee law prohibiting the unauthorized sale of land. Early on the morning of June 22, one group dragged John Ridge from his bed and stabbed him to death. Another party shot Major Ridge as he traveled along a road in Arkansas, killing him instantly. About the same time, a third group came to Elias Boudinots house and split his head with a tomahawk. Reacting to these acts of violence, the Treaty Party remained opposed to any government dominated by the National Party. They held their own councils and sent delegates to Washington to seek federal protection and the arrest of the persons responsible for the killings. Most of the Treaty Party continued to resist the act of union and bitterly opposed any concession to the National Party, widening the growing political chasm. However, as long as the National Party refused to ratify the Treaty of New Echota, the nationalist Cherokees were refused payment of its annuities and funds by the federal government. The relative prosperity of the Treaty Party members ignited the dormant resentments of the impoverished Cherokees who had suffered the agony of the Trail of Tears (McLoughlin 17). In order to affirm the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation and to alleviate the suffering of his people, Ross pressed for a renegotiation of the fraudulent Treaty of New Echota. While Ross was in Washington in the summer of 1842, violence in the Cherokee Nation escalated as members of the Treaty Party began killing individuals who they believed had been responsible for the death of their leaders. Gangs began to attack and kill other Cherokee citizens, most of whom were identified with the National Party, but became impossible to distinguish between political violence and common crime. The Starr gang, for example, coalesced arou nd James Starr, a signer of the Treaty of New Echota. Under the guise of political resistance, Starrs sons and others terrorized the Cherokee nation. In 1843, they murdered a white visitor to the Cherokee Nation and also burned down the home of John Ross daughter. The violence gave the federal government an excuse to keep troops at Fort Gibson, decry the inefficacy of the Nations government and meddle further in Cherokee affairs. The Treaty Party renewed their hope of undermining Ross authority since federal officials tended to blame Ross for the carnage (Perdue 156). The letters during the time of this Cherokee civil warfare reflected the fear and anguish felt by the people. In November 1845, Jane Ross Meigs wrote to her father, Chief John Ross, The country is in such a state just now that there seems little encouragement for people to build good houses or make anything. I am so nervous I can scarce write at all. I hope it will not be long youll be at home but I hope that the country will be settled by that time too (Rozema 198). Less than a year later, Sarah Watie of the Treaty Party wrote her husband, I am so tired of living this way. I dont believe I could live one year longer if I knew that we could not get settled, it has wore my spirits out just the thoughts of not having a good homeI am perfectly sick of the world (Perdue 141). An uneasy peace came to the Cherokee Nation after the United States government forced the tribal factions to sign a treaty of agreement in Washington in 1846. The Cherokees, under Ross leadership was to be sovereign in their new land. It also brought the per capita payments so desperately needed for economic recovery of the Cherokee Nation. However, with this treaty, the Cherokees were caught in a series of contradictions. Cherokee leaders wanted to convince the white population that they were capable of managing their own affairs if left to their own self-government. But economically, they were tied to the financial aid of the federal government, growing ever more dependent on American funds. Furthermore, in midst of this peace, the Cherokees could not cast aside old fears that continued to haunt them. If whites could drive them from Georgia, why not from this place? From this fear spawned an attitude of distrust toward the American government that is still present in some Cherokee societies today (Anderson 115). Conclusion: The causes of the Indian Removal Policy of 1830 are numerous and varied in interpretation. Some historians have equated Jacksons removal policy with Adolph Hitlers Final Solution and have even called it genocide (Peter Farbs The Indians of North America from Primeval Times to the Coming of the Industrial State New York: E. P. Dutton, 1968). Not only did he encourage the geographical separation of Indians and whites, but thousands of Native Americans perished in the process. Whether or not he advocated this mass extinction of Indians, Jackson on the political front was a staunch supporter of state sovereignty and could not deny Georgias rights to the Cherokees expansive lands. In addition to the impact on the Cherokee demographics, the Treaty of New Echota caused factions within the Cherokee Nation that broke loyalties and caused them to revert back to old clan revenge warfare. The resentment that was fostered between the New Party and the Treaty Party created lasting divisions within the Cherokee nation. Moreover, the Cherokee Nation, before the Indian Removal Act, had prided itself on the fact that it had adapted to white institutions with great degrees of success. However, engaging in clan warfare, the Cherokees took a step back in progress when embroiled in such violence that was primarily caused by the Treaty of New Echota.   Furthermore, the Cherokees remained dependent on federal governments economic assistance when they were seeking to prove that they could function better as a soverign nation. The removal of the Cherokees west of the Mississippi is one of the greatest tragedies in United States history. While the Cherokees have shown incredible resilience in recovering from the decimating effects of their removal, the injustice they faced from fraudulent treaties, ethnocentric intolerance, and discriminatory laws will forever stain Americas history.  

Research Sources Essay

1. Genes, Behavior, and the Social Environment : Moving Beyond the Nature/nurture Debate In the midst of the twentieth century, staggering steps were made in decreasing disease and upgrading the soundness of individuals and peoples. General prosperity measures, sanitation, improved cleanliness, and antibodies incited genuine diminished in mortality and dreariness. Extended insightfulness with respect to the dangers of the workplace realized decreased injuries and better prosperity for experts. Advances in bio remedial examination had any kind of effect develop learning of affliction and nudged the change of new clinical and pharmaceutical meds. More starting late, the sequencing of the human genome has given information that holds the surety for further upgrading human prosperity. During the time a broad accumulation of proof has created showing that social and behavioral components, for instance, monetary status, smoking, eating schedule, and alcohol usage are key determinants of prosperity. Late studies in like manner prescribe that breaking down joint efforts among innate and social-regular components could fundamentally enhance perception of prosperity and illness. In a study showing how the social environment can affect natural response, found that the money related status of gatherings is associated with mixtures in central tactile framework serotonergic responsivity, which may have recommendations for the power of mental issue and practices, for instance, misery, incautious ill will, and suicide. While examine on the impact of coordinated efforts can encourage the cognizance of ailment peril and help in the change of effective pharmaceuticals to upgrade the quality of individuals and masses, there is an absence of investigation that encompasses each one of the three regions. Much stays to be got some answers concerning how these variables work together to impact prosperity, including the most vital thought of portraying association and how it can be depicted. Since more conspicuous etiological perception is relied upon to perceive future clinical research and make convincing meds went for improving prosperity comes about, the board fixated its attempts on etiological examination. 1. Regulation of Gene Editing Activity Directed by Single-Stranded Oligonucleotides and CRISPR/Cas9 Systems. The reengineering of mammalian genomes is a capable hereditary way to deal with both comprehension quality  capacity and growing new treatments for acquired maladies. While the conventional endpoint for hereditary building has been to disturb or debilitate a quality through complete knockout, it is presently conceivable to direct single nucleotide trade in a viable and proficient way. Quality or genome altering can be catalyzed by a progression of atomic apparatuses that when utilized in different mixes precisely change the arrangement of the DNA in a site-particular style. Single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides (ssODNs) have been utilized for a long time to build nucleotide changes in the genomes of numerous living beings. Also, while the instrument of activity furthermore, the administrative hardware are being explained, in any event partially, the low effectiveness with which single-stranded oligonucleotides work in segregation has since a long time ago hampered their advancement for helpful application. As a quest for adjuvants that can improve the recurrence of singlestranded ODN–directed quality altering has continued, it was resolved that the twofold stranded DNA breaks actuated preceding the presentation of the single-stranded ODN raised the general action of quality altering. 1. Engineered DNA-Binding Proteins for Targeted Genome Editing and Gene Regulation http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11156806 The engineereed DNA-tying proteins empower focused on control of the genome. zinc fingers are the most all around portrayed DNA-tying space and for a long time examination has concentrated on understanding and controlling the succession specificities of these proteins. as of late significant advances in the capacity to architect zinc finger proteins and also the revelation of another class of dna-tying spaces interpretation activator like effectors have made it conceivable to quickly and dependably design proteins focused to any grouping of hobby. The capacity to explicitly alter the genome has incredible potential for examination and restorative applications. the homology coordinated repair in a mixed bag of cell sorts and creatures this strategy has never been utilized to right an illness bringing about transformation in human affected pluripotent undeveloped cells. the human b troll locus to remedy the sickle cell sickliness transformation. Every one of us acquire a large group of more subtle destructive changes. Maybe you are more inclined to experience the ill effects of coronary illness, certain tumors, dementia or emotional sicknesses, or to lose your sight or go hard of hearing in seniority. What’s more, your youngsters and your kids and every one of their relatives will acquire a large number of these transformations, alongside the new ones created as nature’s irregular slips proceed. When you see how these changes come to fruition, the case for assuming responsibility of our hereditary fate appears to be unanswerable. We are getting the capacity to free ourselves from the things of 4 billion years of thoughtless development. Germ-line hereditary designing obviously has threats, not slightest its capability to be utilized for the wrong purposes or the potential for its expense to limit its points of interest to the affluent. In any case, numerous stresses are overstated – we couldn’t design Einsteins in the event that we needed to, for occasion, on the grounds that we haven’t discovered any quality variations that have a remarkable effect to knowledge, regardless of much attempting. What we could do is end a gigantic measure of affliction. What’s more, in the event that it is accessible to everybody, not simply the rich, hereditary building could even help make the world a much more pleasant spot. 1. Chinese researchers alter embryo DNA: Do results cross ethical tripwires? Christian Science Monitor. 4/24/2015, pN.PAG. 0p.  humankind is confronted with the crucial inquiry of â€Å"whether people ought to have this level of control over their own particular physical fates,† says Alta Charo, an educator of law and bioethics at the College of Wisconsin at Madison. â€Å"We’re hitting the point where individuals are asking: Would we truly like to have the force not quite recently to choose among the decisions given to use by nature, however to make totally new decisions we  could call our own detail?† The moral concerns encompassing hereditary control of conceptive cells are weighty to the point that numerous researchers and bioethicists are asking associates to start substantive discussions with partners, biotech-industry pioneers, controllers, vested parties, and people in general to make sense of what clinical uses, if any, future worthy. Others, incorporating some in the biotech business, contend for a ban on any germ-line exploration including human regenerative cells. One measure of the moral minefield into which the Chinese group walked: Two of the most high-perceivability science diaries, Science and Nature, declined to distribute the outcomes on moral grounds, the venture’s lead researcher, Junjui Huang, disclosed to correspondents from Nature’s news division. A hefty portion of the starting concerns in established researchers include wellbeing and adequacy for a device they see as having possibly capable restorative applications. The Chinese group shares this worry and refers to its own outcomes as confirmation that CRISPR-Cas9 is no place close prepared for the center.

History of Feminism in the United States

John Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men - 1822 Words

Gary Sienese, in his film adaptation Of Mice and Men, did not stray far from the John Steinbeck s novella of the mishaps of George Milton and Lennie Small, across Depression era America on their quest to achieve the American dream. Indeed, most of the praise surrounding the film hails from the book s adhesiveness to the original prose of Steinbeck in his novella. Roger Ebert, wrote The most sincere compliment I can pay them is to say that all of them - writer and actors - have taken every unnecessary gesture, every possible gratuitous note, out of these characters. The story is as pure and lean as the original fable which formed in Steinbeck s mind. And because they don t try to do anything fancy -- don t try to make it anything other than exactly what it is -- they have a quiet triumph. Similarly, Vincent Canby of the New York Times, described the book as one that remains faithful in almost every way to the stark Steinbeck tale. Thus, due to their almost identical storyline, the nov ella and film share common themes including, loneliness and disillusionment with the American dream. But despite the overall agreement with critics that Of Mice and Men scores it s highest marks in fidelity, it does mistakenly, on numerous accounts, diverge from the original plot, particularly in Lennie s the last moments. A major theme lamented by Steinbeck in Of Mice and Men is the elusiveness of the American Dream. despite popular opinion, it is barred from certain members inShow MoreRelatedJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1248 Words   |  5 PagesIn Steinbeck s novel Of Mice and Men, He uses imagery many times to create a realistic setting and plot. Steinbeck’s depiction of migrant workers and their daily complications during the depression are objectively precise due to his use of imagery with idioms, dreams, nature, loneliness and animal imagery. The main theme of the book transpires to be loneliness and fate. While George and Lennie, the main characters have a synerge tic relationship, fate steps in and does away with their dreams, whichRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men897 Words   |  4 Pagesthat we possess. Many people feel certain emotions based on events that have taken place in their lifetime or how they were raised throughout their childhood. In John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, he portrays the feelings of isolation and loneliness in three different characters. George’s isolation is illustrated in Steinbeck’s, Of Mice and Men. George expresses many hard feelings towards Lennie at the opening of this story. â€Å"‘...you’re a lot of trouble,’ said George. ‘I could get along so easy and soRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1243 Words   |  5 Pagesis what John Steinbeck achieves by portraying this through the characters in his novella Of Mice and Men. The main characters are affected by loneliness in their own different way throughout the novella. rf The loneliness is maintained by the challenges that the characters have to face, and they sustain those challenges of being inhumane towards each other. Crook, a figure in the story who experiences discrimination encounters the challenge of race, due to the book’s setting in the 1930’s duringRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1080 Words   |  5 Pagesâ€Å"I want you to stay with me Lennie. Jesus Christ, somebody’d shoot you for a coyote if you was by yourself.† The novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck shows the relationship between two migrant workers in the 1930s, George and Lennie, along with the other members on the new ranch that they began working on. Georgie and Lennie dreamed of following the American Dream and owning their own patch of land and the novel revolves around the dream and the obstacles that stand in their way. Lennie, a strongRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1286 Words   |  6 PagesThe realistic fiction novella O f Mice And Men by John Steinbeck explains the journey of two migrant farm workers. Lennie and George are forced to overcome the Dust Bowl and The Great Depression around 1938. This makes jobs even harder to come by because everyone wanted one. Lennie and George were kicked out of Weed and they now work at a ranch in Soledad. At the new farm the friendship between Lennie and George becomes harder to maintain. The people on the farm are all different shapes, sizes, andRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men2167 Words   |  9 Pagesjobs. In John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, George Milton and Lennie Small wander through California in search of a new job that would help them make enough money to live their American dream on â€Å"the fatta the lan’†(Steinbeck 14). George and Lennie’s hard work and determination is not enough for them to live their dream. Lennie has a mental disability that slows the two friends down from living their dream; they have to ru n from job to job because of Lennie’s unintentional actions. Steinbeck incorporatesRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1360 Words   |  6 Pagesfeeling, thinking and acting in everyday life. In the story Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, a duo of farmers, George and Lennie, search for work wherever they can. Their dream of having a farm of their own is coming into reach, while George has to wield Lennie away from the temptation of Curley’s wife and the reality of what Lennie can do. John Steinbeck uses characterization to illustrate the nature of human existence. Steinbeck portrays George as a man who tries to help, and helps others soRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1448 Words   |  6 Pages In the novella, Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck discusses the idea of loneliness and how people who work at the ranch have no family and no future in lives. He indicates that all people at the ranch are lonely, but he specifically uses a few characters to highlight their state of being lonely and more miserable than the others. He emphasizes the loneliness of ranch life during the Great Depression, and shows how people are willing to try and find friendship in order to escape from the state ofRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men1205 Words   |  5 Pagesand the time period of John Steinbeck s novella, Of Mice and Men, exemplifies the idea that people from minorities are held back from achieving their version of the ‘American Dream’. This goes to prove not everyone will overcome the overbearing tidal waves of their hardship s, which makes the American Dream nothing more than a dream to them. Crooks, the black stable hand, faces discrimination due to his skin color as this unfortunately was common in the 1930’s. John Steinbeck uses Crooks’ situationRead MoreJohn Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men968 Words   |  4 PagesSolidifying the theme of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, the protagonist George expresses his significant loneliness despite a strong kinship with his friend Lennie, â€Å"’I ain’t got no people†¦ I seen the guys that go around the ranches alone. That ain’t no good’† (41). Published in 1937, amidst the horrific turmoil of the Great Depression, Steinbeck’s novella struck a sensitive chord with readers. Set in the heart of California’s Central Valley, this story follows two men, George and Lennie, as they