网上有好多的! 你用"native American" history, "first nations" etc.之类的词找。。。 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~http://www.tolatsga.org/Compacts.htmlhttp://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/History/tm/native.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Native Americans in the United States (also known as Indians, American Indians, First Americans, Indigenous Peoples, Aboriginal Peoples, Aboriginal Americans, Amerindians, Amerinds, or Original Americans) are the indigenous peoples within the territory that is now encompassed by the continental United States and their descendants in modern times. This collective term encompasses a large number of distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of them still enduring as political communities. A comprehensive tribal list or "Classification of Native Americans" is impossible to assemble.The U.S. states and several of the inhabited insular areas which do not form part of the continental U.S. territory also contain indigenous groups. Some of these other indigenous peoples in the United States are not generally designated as "Native Americans". This includes groups such as the Alaska Natives commonly known as the Eskimo (i.e., the Inuit, Yupik, Aleut, etc.), Native Hawaiians (also known as Kanaka Māoli and Kanaka 'Oiwi), and various Pacific Islander peoples such as the Chamorros.Early historySee also: archaeology of the Americas, models of migration to the New World, and indigenous people of the Americas for more detailed history and migration theories.It is worth noting at this juncture that most aboriginal peoples or "Indians" of North and South America reject theories about their "arrival" to the western hemisphere. They maintain instead that they have always lived here. Any theory that holds otherwise is likely to be perceived by most aboriginal peoples as irrelevant; by some, as racist; and by many, as merely a politically-motivated effort to classify aboriginal American peoples ultimately as immigrants - on the theory that, if they're "really" immigrants just like everybody who came after 1492, they cannot have any special historical claims in regard to the land.While this position may not be a scientific perspective on the part of aboriginal Americans, it has had, and continues to have, decidedly important political ramifications.Ethnically based explanation for Ojibwe PeoplesIt is important to note as a continuation of the synopsis up above that the migrations from Siberia are discounted by a portion of North American tribes and especially Ojibwe based tribes due to the conflict with ancient religious and still living theories. This is and was fostered due to a massive divide between the scientific community who have focused on earlier primary and authoritative works that have attributed polytheistic beliefs to Aboriginal peoples in North America and to Aboriginals who have never believed in polytheism. Forcing old world conceptions like animal worship and geographical deification onto Aboriginal beliefs have discounted earlier religious beliefs as having no historical relevance thus leading to current major theories that say no tribes descend from the East as many Aboriginal religions and/or possible myths dictate.This type of framework has in the past and still helps to provide a lack of research into a possibility of eastern migration by comparing Aboriginals to other "nomadic" societies for example and then directly assuming a lack of religious evolution, whether this is relevant or not is in question. Commentators have revised their analysis of religious beliefs into the present but the underlying undercurrent has remained that very little research is done on analysing other versions of migration. Mitochondrial DNA analysis has helped push this back even further while not taking into account the increased social relations between groups in North America and the slowly increasing mixing of disparate groups of ethnically defined people. If the same amount of resources were poured into eastern migration theories it could be hoped that more results tending to agree with Aboriginal beliefs would come to fruition but this remains to be seen.Political reasons have stemmed from the earlier migration theories promulgated by scientists due to early ethnological analysis and sight based research assuming that because certain tribes had resemblances to Siberian tribes that this must have provided the early common base for Aboriginal migration into North America. This may or may not have or have had a racist reason and is not important for this discussion. It remains to be said though that research on these topics follows from past research with anything else classified as at best pseudo-science or mythological based research. More research really needs to be done before any conclusions can be made especially since the people in question a lot of the time still exist with wholly contradictory visions of their past in their minds.(*Personal Note by author. I will provide more information as to where the primary sources of current research stem from however as far as being able to post an authoritative work on current North American Ojibwe religion and antecedent sources using Ojibwe based sources this may prove ineffectual. Currently the Ojibwes in Canada practice their beliefs and still talk to each other about their origins; a body of research is growing and I intend to post this as soon as I can get to it. Currently Patricia McGuire of the University of Saskatchewan is pioneering a subjective historical project that may prove useful to providing the rigid scientific and analytical tools that may allow some thought and research about eastern origins to develop. Currently her masters thesis deals with the subjective analysis of Aboriginal culture as it relates to current objective theories. Her PH.D. thesis should be completed this year and provides the first framework to validate subjective knowledge about Aboriginal culture by an Aboriginal Person. March 21. 2006)The Bering Strait Land Bridge theoryBased on anthropological and genetic evidence, most scientists believe that most Native Americans descend from people who migrated from Siberia across the Bering Land Bridge between 15,000 and 9,000 BC, where the Bering Strait is today.[1] The exact epoch and route is still a matter of controversy.The primarily Siberian origin is widely regarded as the most likely, consisting of at least three separate migrations from Siberia to the Americas.[citation needed]The first wave, during the late Pleistocene, would be the forerunners of the Clovis and Folsom cultures, both hunting the abundant large mammals of the virgin continent. This wave eventually spread over the entire hemisphere, as far south as Tierra del Fuego.[2]The second migration brought the ancestors of the Na-Dene peoples. They lived in Alaska and western Canada, but some migrated as far south as the Pacific Northwestern U.S. and the American Southwest, and would be ancestral to the Dene, Apaches and Navajos. This group reached North America between 6,000 to 4,000 BC.[3]The third wave brought the ancestors of the Inuit, Yupik and Aleut peoples. They may have come by sea over the Bering Strait, after the land bridge had disappeared. They are believed to have reached Alaska as late as 1,000 BC.In recent years, molecular genetics studies based upon mitochondrial DNA shows that as many as four distinct migrations from Asia. These studies also provide surprising evidence of smaller-scale, contemporaneous migrations from Europe, possibly by peoples who had adopted a lifestyle resembling that of Inuits and Yupiks during the last ice age. [citation needed]A recent study in 2004 has claimed evidence which, if accepted, would extensively revise the timeline of human habitation in the Americas.[4] At the Topper site on the Savannah River near Allendale, South Carolina, a team led by University of South Carolina archaeologist Dr. Albert Goodyear reported recovering what they claimed to be stone tool artifacts from strata considerably below that of Clovis culture remains. Using stratigraphy and charcoal material found with the artifacts, radiocarbon dating performed by the University of California at Irvine Laboratory dated these remains to be at least 50,000 years old.[5] This would indicate the presence of humans well before the termination of the last glaciation. Other archaeologists have disputed the dating methodology employed, and have also suggested that these "artifacts" are naturally-formed, rather than of human manufacture. Other recent claims for pre-Clovis artifacts have similarly been made in some South American sites. The notion of pre-Clovis habitation continues to be a subject of scholarly debate, and the issue has not yet been satisfactorily resolved.[edit]Settling downBy 1500 BCE, many tribes had settled into small indigenous communities. In several regions, temporary hunter-gatherer settlements were transformed into small permanent or semi-permanent settlements and villages, frequently established in regions, such as river valleys, which were conducive to the raising of crops. Several such societies and communities, over time, intensified this practice of established settlements, and grew to support sizeable and concentrated populations. Examples include those of the Mississippian culture and the Pueblo peoples (Anasazi). They constructed large and complex earthworks, and were particularly skilled at small stone sculptures and engravings on shell and copper. Agriculture was independently developed in what is now the eastern United States by 2500 BCE, based on the domestication of indigenous sunflower, squash and goosefoot. Eventually, in the last eleven hundred years, the Mexican crops of corn and beans were adapted to the shorter summers of eastern North American and replaced the indigenous crops.The large pueblos, or villages, built on top of rocky talleland or mesas of Southwest around 700 CE, were a complicated aggregate of family apartments. Towns were one large complex of buildings, with multistoried houses arranged around courtyards or plazas. Wooden ladders provided access to upper levels. Under the courtyards, subterranean kivas, or ceremonial structures, served as meeting rooms for religious societies.While exhibiting widely divergent social, cultural, and artistic expressions, all Native American groups worked with materials available to them and employed social arrangements that augmented their means of subsistence and survival.[edit]European colonization[edit]Initial impactsThe European colonization of the Americas changed the lives and cultures of the Native Americans. In the 15th to 19th century, their populations were ravaged by displacement, disease, warfare with the Europeans, and enslavement.The first Native American group encountered by Christopher Columbus in 1492, the 250,000 to 1,000,000 Island Arawaks (more properly called the Taino) of Haiti Quisqueya, Cubanacan (Cuba) and Boriquen Puerto Rico, were enslaved. It is said that only 500 survived by the year 1550, and the group was considered extinct before 1650. Yet DNA studies show that the genetic contribution of the Taino to that region continues, and the mitochondrial DNA studies of the Taino are said to show relationships to the Northern Indigenous Nations, such as Inuit (Eskimo) and others.[6]In the 15th century, Spaniards and other Europeans brought horses to the Americas. Some of these animals escaped and began to breed and increase their numbers in the wild. Ironically, the horse had originally evolved in the Americas, but the early American horses were game for early human hunters, and went extinct about 7,000 BC, just after the end of the last ice age. The re-introduction of the horse had a profound impact on Native American culture in the Great Plains of North America. This new mode of travel made it possible for some tribes to greatly expand their territories, exchange goods with neighboring tribes, and more easily capture game.Europeans also brought diseases, against which the Native Americans had no immunity. Chicken pox and measles, though common and rarely fatal among Europeans, often proved fatal to Native Americans, and more dangerous diseases such as smallpox were especially deadly to Native American populations. It is difficult to estimate the total percentage of the Native American population killed by these diseases. Epidemics often immediately followed European exploration, sometimes destroying entire villages. Some historians estimate that up to 80% of some Native populations may have died due to European diseases.[7]Early relationsDuring the American Revolutionary War, the newly proclaimed United States competed with the British for the allegiance of Native American nations east of the Mississippi River. Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, hoping to use the war to halt colonial expansion onto American Indian land. Many native communities were divided over which side to support in the war. For the Iroquois Confederacy, the American Revolution resulted in civil war. Cherokees split into a neutral (or pro-American) faction and the anti-American Chickamaugas, led by Dragging Canoe. Many other communities were similarly divided.Frontier warfare during the American Revolution was particularly brutal, and numerous atrocities were committed on both sides. Noncombatants of both races suffered greatly during the war, and villages and food supplies were frequently destroyed during military expeditions. The largest of these expeditions was the Sullivan Expedition of 1779, which destroyed more than 40 Iroquois villages in order to neutralize Iroquois raids in upstate New York. The expedition failed to have the desired effect: American Indian activity became even more determined.The British made peace with the Americans in the Treaty of Paris (1783), and had ceded a vast amount of American Indian territory to the United States without informing the American Indians. The United States initially treated the American Indians who had fought with the British as a conquered people who had lost their land. When this proved impossible to enforce (the Indians had lost the war on paper, not on the battlefield), the policy was abandoned. The United States was eager to expand, and the national government initially sought to do so only by purchasing Native American land in treaties. The states and settlers were frequently at odds with this policy.[8]Removal and reservations Shoshone tipis, about 1900In the 19th century, the incessant Westward expansion of the United States incrementally compelled large numbers of Native Americans to resettle further west, sometimes by force, almost always reluctantly. Under President Andrew Jackson, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the President to conduct treaties to exchange Indian land east of the Mississippi River for lands west of the river. As many as 100,000 American Indians eventually relocated in the West as a result of this Indian Removal policy. In theory, relocation was supposed to be voluntary (and many Indians did remain in the East), but in practice great pressure was put on American Indian leaders to sign removal treaties. Arguably the most egregious violation of the stated intention of the removal policy was the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a dissident faction of Cherokees, but not the elected leadership. The treaty was brutally enforced by President Martin Van Buren, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4,000 Cherokees (mostly from disease) on the Trail of Tears.Conflicts, generally known as "Indian Wars", broke out between U.S. forces and many different tribes. U.S. government authorities entered numerous treaties during this period, but later abrogated many for various reasons. Well-known military engagements include the Native American victory at the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876, and the massacre of Native Americans at Wounded Knee in 1890. On January 31, 1876, the United States government ordered all remaining Native Americans to move into reservations or reserves. This, together with the near-extinction of the American Bison that many tribes had lived on, set about the downturn of Prairie Culture that had developed around the use of the horse for hunting, travel and trading.Students at the Bismarck Indian School in the early 20th centuryAmerican policy toward Native Americans has been an evolving process. In the late nineteenth century, reformers, in efforts to "civilize" Indians, adapted the practice of educating native children in Indian Boarding Schools. These schools, which were primarily run by Christians,[9] proved traumatic to Indian children, who were forbidden to speak their native languages, taught Christianity instead of their native religions and in numerous other ways forced to abandon their Indian identity[10] and adopt European-American culture. There are also many documented cases of sexual, physical and mental abuses occurring at these schools.[11][12]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Indigenous peoples in what is now the United States are commonly called "American Indians" but more recently have been referred to as "Native Americans". Such people make up 1.4% of the population, with 4.1 million people identifying themselves as Native Americans, although only 1.8 million are registered tribal members. A substantial proportion of US Native Americans live on Indian reservations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_native
|