Describe efforts by the us government to assimilate native americans into american culture?

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.   

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development. 

barrio is a spanish word meaning neighborhood. in spain, several latin american countries and the philippines, the term is also used officially to denote a division of a municipality while a ghetto is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, typically as a result of social, legal, or economic pressure. the term may have originally been used in venice to describe the part of the city to which jews were restricted and segregated.

the covenant that god made with abraham was a unilateral (one-sided) promise from god to abraham.   apart from anything abraham did, god was promising that he was going to bring about a great nation from abraham's offspring, and that the messiah (meaning "the anointed one") would come from abraham's descendants, as one through whom the whole world would receive favor from god.   as god promised abraham, "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed" (genesis 22: 18).

the "new covenant" was announced by jesus of nazareth, who had asserted that he was the "son of david" (and descendant of abraham) that fulfilled those promises to abraham.   when jesus introduced the sacred meal that we now refer to as the lord's supper, as told his disciples in reference to the wine they drank, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (luke 22: 20).   this "new covenant" through jesus was also a unilateral (one-sided) covenant.   he gave himself in sacrifice for all people, without conditions attached.   as his friend and apostle john later wrote, "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 john 2: 2).

so the covenant with abraham and the "new covenant" ushered in by jesus are, in essence, connected as one covenant -- because jesus was saying he was the one promised to abraham that fulfilled that covenant and brought blessing to the world.