"since . . cultural and political movements failed to achieve a binding national unity, a militant campaign of whiteness rapidly emerged as [andrew] jackson’s principal safeguard of white american identity. . in the national culture . . racial mixture rapidly moved to a central focus of public concern because it was the only thing the great majority of white americans genuinely agreed on—that mixture was wrong. racial unity had always been important, but now racial purity became the elixir of national salvation. national consciousness was now shaped not just by fearfulness about the ‘blackness’ of indians, but especially about the mixed bloods. they were not only ‘black,’ they were ‘black hearted’ in their . . attitudes towards whites, and they threatened to pollute whites’ bloodstream by intermixture." — thomas ingersoll, historian, to intermix with our white brothers: indian mixed bloods in the united states from earliest times to the indian removals, 2005 the point of view illustrated by the excerpt was most likely a reaction to which of the following developments occurring in the united states at that time?

Gentile observation for general culture. At this time and the current times. There were not contamination of white blood. That is due to the next reasons:

1) when some different genes are mixed is produced a genotype with more variability, that means less probability of genetic illness due to natural selection. 2) In the real life, the race doesn't exist in humans. If the race exist in humans the parents should be identical to their siblings.

3) Skin color can be changed by sunlight. If a human skin are exposed to UV rays enough time, mutates in order to protect it from skin cancer usually

social contract theory basically says that all individuals are born equal, and provided a god given right to consent to be governed. american government is based of this

thomas hobbes and john locke said that we are selfish, individualistic, and constantly at war with each other, therefore we need to be controlled. 

government is defined as the legitimate use of force to control human behavior within territorial boundaries, here comes in hobbes and locke.

hobbes takes the part about controlling human behavior. while locke takes the part of legitimate use of force, since force is not legitimate unless there is consent of the people. 

there are basically 3 goals of the government: 1) maintain order by protecting life and property. 2) providing public goods, those which are typically not provided by the public sector, such as roads and education. 3) promote equality be it political, opportunist or outcome equality. 

disease was the number one killer of native peoples. they had had little exposure to the diseases of europe. this led to some villages being almost completely wiped out and some tribes destroyed.