1) How would you characterize Andrew Jackson’s attitude toward Native Americans? 2) Imagine you were forced to relocate to a distant place or face death. What would you take with you? How would you feel about your new surroundings? 3) Can you imagine any alternative policies that would have protected the interests of white settlers while preserving the rights and respecting the culture of Native Americans?

1) I would characterize Andrew Jackson’s attitude toward Native Americansas a remover.

2) Imagining I were forced to relocate to a distant place or face death, I would you take my lucky charm.

I would feel completely deprived about my new surroundings.

3) There is always the alternative of a respectful policy that would have protected the interests of white settlers while preserving the rights and respecting the culture of Native Americans.

Explanation:

1 ) President Andrew Jackson got the right to allow his people to get the unclaimed lands in west Mississippi in exchange for Indian lands within existing state borders, just by just signing the Indian Removal Act into law, on May 28, 1830.

2) Many tribes or group of people could leave their homeland peacefully, but relocation policy or plundering cause the people to leave everything behind without the possibility of a clear future, so only God or Luck might help against the powerful one´s greed, a cross or a lucky charm may or may not help, but needs to be taken.

3) A respectful policy might sound as a fallacy, but America had already an owner, and those were the Native Americans. But settlers awarded themselves the right to deprive their land due to the empire´s greed, as history has shown the human being to be since the very beginning of its history, therefore they would never recognize Native Americans´ rights nor their culture.

answer; ///the declaration of independence;

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )