Experiences and Acceptance of the Minorities
Ethnic minorities refer to assemblages of individuals who vary in various aspects from the central unit (Chaiklin, 2017). Some of these characteristics in question include the ethnic group, color, nationality, religious conviction or cultural background. Ideally, this dominant faction under discussion mainly encompasses the greater part of the inhabitants of the country whereby these two groups exist. Usually, the distinctive physiognomies of the marginalized societies tend to be exhibited in several respects. These range from unique habits and ways of life to their philology or enunciation and modes of dressing.
Additionally, Chaiklin (2017) posits that these ways also include diet predilections, insolences, ethical ideals and financial or radical points of view advocated by affiliates of the group. Typically, the superior communities in a nation generally acknowledge the smaller groups. Nonetheless, they do not automatically tolerate or incorporate them within the state. Therefore, the kind of the rapport between the majority and minority societies in a nation eventually determines the smaller groups’ fate. This is whether the latter would either embark on the route towards integration to the former community or to self-isolation.
Chaiklin (2017) asserts that in some instances, the majority have purely left out these cultural subgroups from engaging in social activities in the nation. An outstanding illustration for this inference is how African Americans in the southern regions of U.S were treated throughout the later parts of the19th and 20th eras. As such, this paper brings out a comprehensive analysis on the various experiences and acceptance of these minority groups by 1840. This is through a primary focus on communities such as the African-Americans
Trail of Tears Migration Map. Accessed November 10, 2017 from https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/files/2014/11/1024px-Trails_of_Tears_en.png
To begin, the current American Indians inhabiting Oklahoma possess an intricate, thought-provoking and exceptional past (Fixico, 2009). Fundamentally, their account comprises of privation, ethnic and personal wins, discords of beliefs and contrasted involvements with the American majority. For the aboriginal Indians, the initial years of the nineteenth epoch turned out to be an extremely difficult phase. This period under discussion is commonly referred to as the “Indian Removal”.
Here, Fixico (2009) argues that the American government oversaw the relocation of the eastern Indian societies, over a span of years in the 1830’s, to their own Indian terrain. Amongst those evacuated from their native land to the Indian territory included the Creeks, Cherokees, Chickasaws’, Seminoles and Choctaws. Further, another society from the south-eastern parts of America moved to this community on the agenda was the Alabama. Moreover, other people from the North-eastern regions also joined them during and after the eruption of America’s political combat. They included the Shawnee, Sac and Fox, Potawatomi, Delaware, Peoria, Wyandotte, Seneca, Ottawa, Kickapoo and Iowa.
In addition to this, Savannah communities included the Otoe, Ponca, Kaw and Missouri. Besides, the Indian battles during the 1870s generated reserved space in Oklahoma for various Prairies societies like the Cheyenne, Comanche, Arapaho, Kiowa and others. More western populations embodied here consisted of the Modoc and Nez Perce. In total, the American administration took away an aggregate of sixty-seven unlike communities. Nevertheless, these individuals together with their societies later established beliefs whose backgrounds have subsisted to the present. This is regardless of some obstructions acquired because of interaction with people who were not from the Indian folk (Fixico, 2009).