Dawes act 1. what did sincere individuals reason would happen if native americans adopted white clothing and ways? 2. what did the dawes act/general allotment act allow the president to do? 3. what did members have to do to receive allotted land? 4. what was the result of the dawes act? (the paragraph outlines several negative consequences) 5. what is your opinion of what the government tried to do with the dawes act? native american education

1. Sincere individuals thought that if Native Americans adopted white clothing and ways, they would try first-hand how much better it was and leave behind their native culture, thought as uncivilized by that time. As they would become more assimilated to the American society, the Government wouldn't have to overlook their welfare.

2. The Dawes Act, named after its creator Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts, allowed the President to survey Native American tribal land and divide it into allotments to be handed to Native Americans as individual property.

3. Native Americans registered on a tribal "roll" were granted allotments of reservation land. They had to leave behind their culture and adopt the white American one. If they did so, they were granted U.S. citizenship.

4. Excess land after the distributed one to tribal members was sold on the open market. The land allotted to Native American families were a lot of the time desertic, and could not sustain them. The self-sufficient farming techniques were very different from tribal ones. Many of the tribal members didn't want to take up agriculture, and the ones that did couldn't afford tools, seeds and so to get started. Inheritance was also a problem: if there were many inherent, the parcelled allotments wasn't enough to sustain all of them.

5. The government succeeded in erasing a vital part of tribal culture, the common property of the land, setting the foundations for their assimilation and the destruction of their culture. In the long term, these various cultures still exist, despite the government's efforts on the contrary. If the government wanted to protect Native American rights, it failed.

for starters, there is the structural trend of rising primary government expenditure as a share of gdp, which reached 36% in 2014, up from 22% in 1991. this increase reflected a political desire to address the poverty and inequality that had gone unaddressed during previous decades. to support the increase, brazil’s government increased taxes on consumption and promoted progress toward labor-market formalization. nonetheless, public investment, particularly in infrastructure, took a hit. in fact, with the exception of the 2005-2008 period, total investment as a share of gdp has remained below 20% since 1991.

typical characteristics of global cities include all of the following except being culturally isolationist.

explanation: