Two Sides of the Story

1. How can two groups present such a different image of the same relationship?

Two groups can present such a different image of the same relationship because they aren't willing to good. I think as humans it is just naturally to look for the bad in people than the goo. Both groups mostly realized the bad things of each other's group. They never looked at the things they had in common or the good things each group was doing. 

2. What causes these two viewpoints to happen?

Disagreements and the opportunity for prosperity causes these two viewpoints to happen. The whites needed the land in order to prosper, so they went after the indians. The indians needed the land to keep prospering, so the fought back. The idea of being able to prosper controls what we do as humans most of the time. They both wanted to prosper and had disagreements which lead to the Wounded Knee Massacre.

3. Whose side of the story was more widely accepted as truth and what impact did that have?

I think that the white man's side of the story of indians was more widely accepted as the truth. Every white man had not personally seen an indian. They were going off the description of the white man out in the Midwest. The whites accepting the truth of the indians acting like savages had a great impact on everybody. This description or statement gave the whites the idea that the indians needed to be controlled. Since the indians needed to be controlled, the whites thought they could make them sign treaties that limited their rights and take their lands. This action towards the indians up-setted them. Later, it resulted in war and of what I think are unnecessary deaths. The story of the indians through the white man's point of view started the friction between the two groups.