Emma+B.


 * What is your //general// belief about who or what is most responsible for causing the conflict?**

I think that the Cayuse were most responsible for the conflict. If they had confronted Dr. Whitman about the dying Native American patients instead of just killing him, they would have discovered that the reason European patients survived is that they have a natural immunity. Instead, they jumped to conclusions and did not give him a chance to state his side in the conflict. Nearly all conflicts result from differing points of view. If the Cayuse had not been so hasty in there revenge, there would have been no conflict, and our textbook would be that much shorter.

**What is the relevant background information (i.e. who, what, when, where)?**

The Whitman massacre took place at the Whitman mission in 1847. It all started with an outbreak of measles. Both the native Cayuse and the settlers took their sick to Dr. Whitman for treatment. After a while, the Cayuse began to notice that the Europeans were more likely to recover than the Native Americans. Rumors were spread that Dr. Whitman was poisoning Cayuse patients. A few of the Cayuse decided to do something about it. I think that this was the wrong choice. There are better ways to solve conflicts than violence. They ways don't make epic stories, but a lot less people die. Unfortunately, these particular natives Americans didn't see it that way. On November 29 they entered the Whitman home and murdered Dr. Whitman. They then killed 14 others for no reason except that they were angry.

**What were 3 factors that helped cause the conflict (politics, economics, geography, history)?**

One factor that helped caused the conflict was the measles, which came from Europe. If that had not been the origin of the disease, then it would never have happened. The second cause was the many measles epidemics that had already occurred in Europe throughout history. Most of the settlers were descendants of people who had survived measles. Because of this, they had some natural immunity and were more likely to survive, which looked very suspicious to a culture who knew very little about genetics. The most important factor, in my opinion, is that the Natives were not acting properly. They were angry, so they resorted to murder, which is almost never necessary.

**Explain why one factor is more important than the others.**

I think that the last factor I mentioned is the most important because it is the one that made the conflict happen. Disease and natural immunity to disease are things that happen. But nothing made the Native Americans react the way they did (unless you believe in the devil or some other evil, supernatural being). Any of the other factors could have happened without causing a conflict, but Native Americans going around killing people obviously can't just be accepted without at least a minor disagreement.

**How could the conflict have been avoided?**

The only way for this conflict to have been avoided would be for the Natives to be more rational and not so quick to accuse. Some people seem to take the concept of misunderstanding as a poetic license which lots of writers and storytellers use; nothing to worry about in real life. I never liked how the Indians were referred to as "savages" around the 1800's, but these particular Natives really lived up to their stereotype!


 * What sources of information have you used? **

  Whitman, Narcissa. "Excerpts from Narcissa Whitman’s journal" __CCRH.org.__ 1836. Accessed May 20, 2009. []

Lambert, Dale A. and Clark, Dustin W. __Washington____: A State of Contrasts.__ East Wenatchee: DMI, 2008

Flora, Stephanie. "The Whitman Massacre." __oregonpioneers.com.__ 2004. Accessed May 18, 2009. []

Wilma, David. "Cayuse attack mission in what becomes known as the Whitman massacre on November 29, 1847" __HistoryLink.org.__ Feb 14, 2003. Accessed May 18, 2009. []