<span>The term "Seminole" is a derivative of "cimarron" which means "wild men" in
Spanish. The original Seminoles were given this name because they were
Indians who had escaped from slavery in the British-controlled northern
colonies. When they came to Florida, they were not called Seminoles as
they were actually Creeks, Indians of Muskogee derivation. The Muskogean
tribes comprised the Mississipian culture which were temple-mound
builders. Among the Muskogean tribes were the Creeks, Hitichis and
Yamasees of Georgia, the Apalachees of Florida, the Alabamas and Mobiles
of Alabama, and the Choctaws, Chickasaws and Houmas of Mississippi.
<span> The Origins of the Seminoles
The original Seminoles came to Florida because it was controlled by the
Spanish, who had no interest in returning slaves to the British. They
were mostly Lower Creeks who spoke the Mikasuki language, but other
Indians, including Yuchis, Yamasees and Choctaws who had confronted
Ponce de Leon and DeSoto, also joined the tribe in their trek to
northern Florida from Georgia during the early 1700s.
</span> By this time, many of the tribes in Florida, including the Tequestas,
Calusas, Apalachees, Timucans and others, had been decimated by the
Spanish presence, either in battles or by diseases such as smallpox. Out
of an estimated 100,000 native Americans that occupied Florida during
the 1500s, less than 50 survived.
In 1767, Upper Creeks from Alabama, who spoke the Muskogee language,
settled in the Tampa area. Shortly after this, in 1771, the first
recorded usage of the name "Seminole" to denote an actual tribe was
recorded. In 1778, the Seminoles were joined by more Lower Creeks and a
few Apalachees.
<span> The Five Civilized Tribes
Together with the Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and Cherokees, the
Seminoles were called "The Five Civilized Tribes." The name was coined
because these tribes in particular adopted many ways of the white
civilization. They lived in cabins or houses, wore clothes similar to
the white man and often became Christians.
</span></span>
After the Civil War, the Seminole government was split between:
<u>"American Indian and freedmen factions". </u>
Explanation:
Seminole Indians were portion of a Creek Tribe that has settlement in Southern Georgia, Alabama and Oklahoma.
When Europeans annex their land, they coerced some Indians to move towards down and make some of them slaves, As a result, Seminoles ended up in the state of Florida.
Seminoles had a form of democratic government.
After the Seminole Wars, the democratic government did not work. Since the democratic government didn't work, they formed a clan which is a group of related family members. They picked one leader and his name was Osceola.
The Black Power movement led by Malcom X had ideas similar to King's movement, being that they both wanted rights for African-Americans, but the way they protested is where they differed. Malcom X criticized MLK's method of peaceful protest, and took to having a more radical and violent way of protest and fighting back against oppression. I hope this helps :)
Northerners lost interest in the Reconstruction era because the Northerners got tired of trying to help fix the South's social problems and the Northerners wanted to start working on fixing their own social problems.
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
