Explanation of Noun Clauses in English

Explanation of Noun Clauses in English Noun clauses are clauses that function as nouns. Remember that clauses can be either dependent or independent. Noun clauses, like nouns, can be used as either subjects or objects. Noun clauses are therefore dependent clauses and as subject or object cannot stand alone as a sentence. Nouns Are Subjects or Objects Baseball is an interesting sport. Noun: Baseball subjectTom would like to buy that book. Noun: Book object Noun Clauses Are Subjects or Objects I like what he said. Noun clause: ... what he said objectWhat he bought was awful: Noun clause: What he bought ... subject Noun Clauses Can Also Be an Object of a Preposition Im not looking for what he likes. Noun clause: ... what he likes object of preposition forWe decided to look into how much it costs. Noun clause: ... how much it costs objects of preposition into Noun Clauses as Complements Noun clauses can play the role of a subject complement. Subject complements provide a further description,\ or clarification of a subject. Harrys problem was that he couldnt make a decision.Noun clause: ... that he couldnt make a decision. subject complement of problem describing what the problem was The uncertainty is whether he will attend or not.Noun clause: ... whether he will attend or not. subject complement of uncertainty describing what is uncertain Noun clauses can play the role of an adjective complement. Adjective complements often provide a reason why someone or something is a certain way. In other words, adjective compliments provide additional clarification to an adjective. I was upset that she couldnt come.Noun clause: ... that she couldnt come adjective complement explaining why I was upset Jennifer seemed angry that he refused to help her.Noun clause: ... that he refused to help her. adjective complement explaining why Jennifer seemed angry Noun Clause Markers Markers are what introduce noun clauses. These markers include: that if, whether (for yes / no questions) Question words (how, what, when, where, which, who, whom, whose, why) Ever words beginning with wh(however, whatever, whenever, wherever, whichever, whoever, whomever) Examples: I didnt know that he was coming to the party. Could you tell me whether she can help us. The question is how to finish on time. Im sure I will enjoy whatever you cook for dinner. Noun Clauses Used with Common Phrases Noun clauses beginning with question words or if/whether are often used with common phrases such as: I dont know ... I cant remember ... Please tell me ... Do you know ... This use of noun clauses is also known as indirect questions. In indirect questions, we use a phrase to introduce a question with a short phrase and turn the question into a noun clause in statement order. When will he return? Noun clause / indirect question: I dont know when he will return. Where are we going? Noun clause / indirect question: I cant remember where we are going. What time is it? Noun clause / indirect question: Please tell me what time it is. When does the plan arrive? Noun clause / indirect question: Do you know when the plane arrives? Yes / No Questions Yes / no questions can be expressed as noun clauses using if/whether: Are you coming to the party? Noun clause / indirect question: I dont know if you are coming to the party. Is it expensive? Noun clause / indirect question: Please tell me whether it is expensive. Have they lived there long? Noun clause / indirect question: Im not sure if they have lived there long. Special Case of That The noun marker that which introduces noun clauses is the only marker that can be dropped. This is only true if that is used to introduce a noun clause in the middle or at the end of the sentence. Tim didnt know that she was available. OR Tim didnt know she was available.

American Settler Colonialism - Definition

American Settler Colonialism - Definition The term colonialism is possibly one of the most confusing, if not contested, concepts in American history and international relations theory. Most Americans would likely be hard-pressed to define it beyond the colonial period of US history when early European immigrants established their colonies in the New World. The assumption is that since the founding of the United States everybody who is born within the national boundaries is considered American citizens with equal rights, whether or not they consent to such citizenship. In this regard, the United States is normalized as the dominant power to which all its citizens, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, are subject. Although in theory a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people, the nations actual history of imperialism betrays its democratic principles. This is the history of American colonialism. Two Kinds of Colonialism Colonialism as a concept has its roots in European expansionism and the founding of the so-called New World. The British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, and other European powers established colonies in new places they discovered from which to facilitate trade and extract resources, in what can be thought of as the earliest stages of what we now call globalization. The mother country (known as the metropole) would come to dominate indigenous populations through their colonial governments, even when the indigenous population remained in the majority for the duration of colonial control. The most obvious examples are in Africa, such as the Dutch control over South Africa and French control over Algeria, and in Asia and the Pacific Rim, such as British control over India and Fiji and French domination over Tahiti. Beginning in the 1940s the world saw a wave of decolonization in many of Europes colonies as indigenous populations fought wars of resistance against colonial domination. Mahatma Gandhi would come to be recognized as one of the worlds greatest heroes for leading Indias fight against the British. Likewise, Nelson Mandela is today celebrated as a freedom fighter for South Africa where he was once considered a terrorist. In these instances European governments were forced to pack up and go home, relinquishing control to the indigenous population. But there were some places where colonial invasion decimated indigenous populations through foreign disease and military domination to the point where if the indigenous population survived at all, it became the minority while the settler population became the majority. The best examples of this are in North and South America, the Caribbean islands, New Zealand, Australia and even Israel. In these cases scholars have recently applied the term settler colonialism. Settler Colonialism Defined Settler colonialism has best been defined as more of an imposed structure than an historical event. This structure is characterized by relationships of domination and subjugation that become woven throughout the fabric of society, and even becomes disguised as paternalistic benevolence. The objective of settler colonialism is always the acquisition of indigenous territories and resources, which means the native must be eliminated. This can be accomplished in overt ways including biological warfare and military domination but also in more subtle ways; for example, through national policies of assimilation. As scholar Patrick Wolfe has argued, the logic of settler colonialism is that it destroys in order to replace. Assimilation involves the systematic stripping away of indigenous culture and replacing it with that of the dominant culture. One of the ways it does this in the United States is through racialization. Racialization is the process of measuring indigenous ethnicity in terms of blood degree; when indigenous people intermarry with non-indigenous people they are said to lower their indigenous (Indian or Native Hawaiian) blood quantum. According to this logic, when enough intermarriage has occurred there will be no more natives within a given lineage. It does not take into account personal identity based on cultural affiliation or other markers of cultural competence or involvement. Other ways United States carried out its assimilation policy included the allotment of Indian lands, forced enrollment in Indian boarding schools, termination and relocation programs, the bestowal of American citizenship, and Christianization. Narratives of Benevolence It can be said that a narrative based on the benevolence of the nation guides policy decisions once domination has been established in the settler colonial state. This is evident in many of the legal doctrines at the foundation of federal Indian law in the US. Primary among those doctrines is the doctrine of Christian discovery. The doctrine of discovery (a good example of benevolent paternalism) was first articulated by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), in which he opined that Indians had no right to title on their own lands in part because the new European immigrants bestow[ed] on them civilization and Christianity. Likewise, the trust doctrine presumes that the United States, as the trustee over Indian lands and resources, will always act with the best interests of Indians in mind. Two centuries of massive Indian land expropriations by the US and other abuses, however, betrays this idea. References Getches, David H., Charles F. Wilkinson and Robert A. Williams, Jr. Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, Fifth Edition. St. Paul: Thompson West Publishers, 2005.Wilkins, David and K. Tsianina Lomawaima. Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Indian Law. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001.Wolfe, Patrick. Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native. Journal of Genocide Research, December 2006, pp. 387-409.