Read the following two documents and comment on the differing approaches English settlers took to dealing with the native population as time passed and English needs changed.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5837/
For the following document, focus on the sections entitled Of Their Subtilty and That the Savages Live a Contented Life
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1637morton.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Okay, this really coincides with are reading, but I have a couple of questions....
1) How could the term "savage" come when looking at the Native Americans?? Sure their life style was DIFFERENT from what European settlers were used to, but look at them as soon as they got settled!! Their was few towns that managed to make it passed disease. Not to mention, the last time I checked, the Native American's were not the ones that stomped onto other people's lands, to take over without even giving so much as a thought to the natives there!! A couple of colonies managed to get along great with the Native Americans, why couldn't all of them get along!! This thought boggles my mind, because over in England, they managed to share their lands amoungst themselves, why couldn't they carry that overseas!! In other words, the French never marched onto England's shores and said, this is our land now, and all of you are gonna listen.
2) Somewhere (I believe in the text) it was mentioned that the Native American's didn't have a writting system, but didn't they have paintings on the outside of their tipees? Kinda of like hyrogliphics, the symbols had meanings....so... isn't that a writing system??
3) In the reading, there was multiple examples of religion battles. One religion going after another. Wasn't one of the strongest pull factors to come to the New World, religious freedom!!!!! So why are they trying to imposing religion on top of each other???
So those are my questions, and anyone who can answer them, it would be greatly appreciated. After reading through all of this, it's really hard to believe that somewhere mixed in, are the people who are gonna make the new world, a new country, and develope the U.S.!!!
Its really interesting how they seem to respect the indians and what they do even though they disagree with much of what the indians think. The term "savage" does degrade them a little bit but that was just how europeans felt that anyone different was not "civilized" and should become "civilized" by becoming a christian and act and dress like a european and should only get the leftovers when they are "savages".
Sarah
The french did march onto England's shores with William the conqueror
Well Sara.. where to begin. First of all however much these documents may have been interesting they consumed almost an hour of my life i'll never get back to read them. Did anyone else find them a little long? To answer Sara's inquiry about why couldn't the colonists and Native Americans get along it's really quite simple. The uneducated of that time aren't all that much different from the uneducated of our time. Because they haven't been exposed to cultural horizons beyond their own and still cling to the dreadfully low concept of racial superiority they develop a deep rooted hatred towards those who don't look like them or act like them at first glance. I agree with the point made about the colonists' hypocracy in accusing the Native AMericans of being savages when their own petty display of globalization proved that as they pointed to the Indians and cursed them as barbarians they only needed to look into a mirror to see what they were describing. Yes the age of exploration was glorious and the age of colonialism was renowned but what is miscounted in the plethora of tales and histories is the systematic annialation of the Native American race. Plymouth may not be the best judge of ethinic diversity but go ahead and spend a day in New York city, or Chicago, or Detroit, or Atlanta and talley for me the number of people whose inheritance descends from a line in the tribe of the Alnobak, or the Bode'wadmi, or the Lassik, or the Mangoac. I didn't just know these names I found them online. Believe it or not there's a website devoted to listing and describing Native American tribes that still live a remedial existance in some remedial reservation. It was an advertisment more than anything, a nonprofit organization claiming they didn't need money but it would certainly help them out a bit. Whether the tone was implicit in the website or not these people have been subjugated for hundreds of years and are desperate, no starving for a chance at a revival of their culture, their way of life as their ancestry would have had it. They were here first. Settled and established before the eastern world ever considered exploration. They were here first and we invaded and shot first and asked questions later. They were here first and we raped their land of it's resources for gold. We sent them the eviction notice for there land but don't you worry we gave them reservations... some of the most ignored and underfunded programs that exist today. They were here first and heads rolled because we were too afraid ask them what they were all about. Now maybe some colonists tried to make friendly contact and maybe some tribes were abnormally aggressive but you look at that same talley from before and study it real damn hard. In the war the colonists fought with the Native Americans... who won?
Connor, talk about long! This is just a reminder that the second document reading just has to include the sections listed. No need to burn the midnight oil like you must for the book reading.
I think it is really interesting how some settlers seem to have a lot of respect for the Indians, and respect their lifestyle and the way they live, but others are prejudiced against them and and call them "savages" Some of the settlers didn't choose to live like the Indians did, but the Indians seemed to be perfectly happy with the way they were living with their uncivilized culture and limited means. Also it is obvious that the people's opinions of the indians affected how they dealt with them. The people who respected them had better relations with them through peace and trading. The people who disrespected them fought them and a lot of the colonists died from revolts from the Indians.
Hey Connor, I think it took me longer to read your response then it did to read the documents!!!! Two things, first my name is spelt with an H. and two, from question one, if you x-out my frustrational rambling, then what I mostly asking is a retorical question of why the Native Americans were looked down upon. I know they were different to the pilgrims, and people who traveled over to the New World, but they people of Europe have delt with meating new people before, and I feel like they were treated a lot better then the Native Americans were.
Not to mention, MR. B. could you anser my number 2 question, I've looked it up a couple of times, but no such luck.
thanks
Sarah, or according to Connor, Sarahs Dubey, or Darah Subey :D
Oh, and P.S. Andrew, THANKS, that was REALLY helpfull. I meant that political boarder lines were established, and the people of Europe respected them, why couldn't they make one, and ASCEPT it in the New World???
Dubes,
You could say that some of the spiritual design they put onto their housing is meant to communicate, so is therefore a writing system, yet in our (European) concept of writing, it does not equate to a system. Just another example of putting our western values onto something that is different from us.
I don't think the Pilgrims had any right to refer to the Native Americans as "savages", considering that their own lives consisted of little more than food, shelter, and religon. The Europeans seemed to think that anyone who was different ftom them was not to be accepted into their ideas of civilized. Its sad to say, but not much has changed in the past 400 years. I find it interesting tha some of the Europeans seemed to get along with the Native Americans, but others thought they were better because their ideas were different from what they considered to be civilized.
Jen, the Europeans had the right to call the Natives anything they wanted. it may not have been right or ethical but they did anyway. I have the right to call Sarah a "savage", but that doesn't mean i'm right. They felt that the indians didn't have God so that they could have their souls saved. Just like black slaves were called multiple names starting with "n". It wasn't right or fair, but we had the right to express what was on our minds. We also thought that black people couldn't amount to a white person, but now we realize that they are just as equal as white people are and Indians were just as equal too. They lived differently but they were just as happy until we came along. Just another instance of where white people came along thinking they knew best, and then ended up screwing up the situation more than before.
ha ha. i dont understand why over the course of time white people almost always think they are better than other ethinicities. how did that start? is it just because we seem to be more technologically advanced or what. i think the colonists should have dealt with the Native Americans in a more civilized manner. im sure they would not have liked it if some foreigners went over to England and decided to take over everything they've known and force their foreign ideas on them.
i realize not all the colonists treated the Native Americans poorly
When reading the first document I couldn't help but chuckle at the hipocracy of Elder Johns on March 12. Then on August 24, "the wily Philip hath been killed." And on May 7, a man and woman hath been fined 5 pounds for playing cards. How dastardly!
But anyways, regarding the first and second documents and the relationships between Indians. The first document regards the Indians as savages or slaves/worker types to be paid little. The second delves deeply into the culture of the Native American and shows how cultured they were.
Speaking of Indian relations, how is this for a first impression, "Hello I am Father John, I'm here to show you savages the error of your ways and save your souls by converting you to Christianity. The devil wilt not have your souls." Sarcasm! It angers me how quickly the settlers tried to impress their religion unto the Native Americans. (Ya know, I don't feel like typing out Native Americans every time so henceforth they shalt be knowthed as NAs... or Nas) The settlers were tired of being told what religion to practice, in England, so they run of the the New World and they say, "Yay, were free! we are number 1! Yay, we're our own bosses..... let's go boss around some Nas! YAY!"
PS. Rest in Peace Luciano Pavoratti
Neither narrative is quite how I expected them to be. Based on our reading in the text, I was sort of getting the vibe that colonists straight up did NOT like the natives. The girl seems to have no resentment or hatred toward the natives. Although they don't fully trust their servant, she seems to tolerate him at least. She also speaks of friendly indians. Of course, being a 15 year old girl, she's a bit more sensitive than most. She even pities Metacom.
The second author seems to be somewhat in awe of them. He commends their ingenuity and "subtilty." He also almost seems to long to live their free life. He doesn't ever really call them heathens or anything of the sort until he mentions that they're ruled by the devil.
Based on these documents, I would say that the English cautiously respect the natives, although they will not hesitate to anhilate them if they see fit. The girl's family servant was almost a part of the family. They were very nice to their trading partners. However, both of these situations of niceness occur only because the English have a use for them. Even the "friendly" natives were probably only appreciated because they were back-up and desperately needed to defeat Metacom.
So, basically, the colonists were nice to the natives when they had a need for them, such as servant work or trading partners.
Oh, and Sarah Dubey:
The natives the colonists encountered didn't live in teepees. That would be natives more in the mid-west and west. And if you saw lots of little pictures, would you assume it to be a writing system? I'll go ahead and assume that you'd answer, "no."
England was VERY bad at sharing land amongst itself. The gentry owned the land and poor families worked it. So, considering they had no sharing skills there, there were none to carry over into the New World. We talked a bit in class about the enclosement act? Or something like that... it was in the reading, too.. but it mentioned how the poor families were being kicked off the land they used to farm for their keep. I'll put it this way: If England was in kindergarten with all the other countries, it would have spent time in the corner for being bad at sharing.
Religious freedom is sort of outlandish. Once a religion stops being opressed, they start opressing. Once they're the majority they tend to throw their weight around just because they can. Don't ask me why, it's just human nature. It's been seen time and time again in history.
I agree with Danielle, I was astonished at how highly the indians were spoken of in these documents.
The girl writing the first document seemed to have no problem at all with indians, though at times she seemed confused about whether or not her tolerance was accepted by God.
The second document really shocked me, with the author saying that the indians were ingenious. He seems to even admire thier ways over ours when he compares them to plato with their sharing of resources.
woody in a way the native americans were ingenious. they had to find what was able to grow indifferent climates and how to save what they grew. they also had to hunt with bow and arrow and learn how to stalk their prey. IN some instances they probably had to kill their prey with a simple knife. YOu seem to believe or atleast lead on that our way is better than theirs which is probably what the europeans thought when they arrived they didn't think of them as people but more as savages certainly not as another race. This short sight is what drove the natives to "captivity" for lack of a better word. But in their own respective way they were most definatly ingenious.
Not to beat the dead horse here or anything, but i do agree with everyone on the fact that the colonists calling the native americans "savages" was politically uncorrect and just goes to show how intolerant the colonists were. they didnt agree with something out of thier element and really didnt accept any other cultures. i mean they did respect them, but to say that one group of people is better than another just based soley on differences is repulsive, but unfortunatly there really isnt much difference between back then and some of the fighting and such going on today in the world. i thought that the diary entries were particularly interesting, it seems crazy that religion can control someones life so fully.
O YEAH! i have a story! this summer me and my family and caitlin luciano went to the Naragansett indians pow wow on their reserve in rhode island. no one lives on the reservation but some tribemembers still live off the land. they also have a church on the grounds that has so much history. another thing--they had to fight so hard to get ELECTRICITY on to their land...people are stil somewhat prejudice against these native americans today!
ps sorry for writing a novel =]
Seems like everyone has the same point...the Native Americans, were fine, but the European ways were used to classify them, and they were classified wrongly!! This probably inflicted the scare between the new commers and the Native Americans, which probably led to the wars and battles between the two.
P.S. Thanks Mr. B for answering my question.
P.S.S. Ben, leave me out of your conversations! It was not a cool comment!!!!
I also found it very interesting that for the most part the authors in the documents were accepting of the Native Americans. I thought that the author of the first document (the little girl) must have been very brave and confident to even think about disobeying god in that time period.
It seems that in different periods of our education we learn different thinks about our early relationship with the Native Americans. When we were in preschool we learned about Thanksgiving and how we worked together with the "Indians". Then in middle school we leaned about how we fought and killed the natives. And now i read this document, which show tolerance between the settlers and the natives. I realize that all of this information is true, i am just curious to why we learn about these different feelings and parts of this relationship in different stages of our education. Perhaps teachers think that we shouldn’t learn about how we mistreated the natives when we are so young.
Although these documents don't represent the views of everyone living then, I found it interesting that they didn't speak in strong disrespect or hatred of the Native Americans. Hetty Shepard (the 15 yr-old girl), however, had a Native American servant, but didn't speak of him cruelly. Still, it's just not right to come into a brand new setting and make the natives work for them. She felt somewhat sorry for Philip when he was killed, but would she feel sorry for what strong effect the settlers had on the Native Americans' lives? The other document spoke highly of the Native Americans and commented that they were "ingenious" people. The author had high admiration for their "content" lives.
In the early colonies peopple will forget they were in a far diffrent mindset then we are today. The Indians were already dieing heavily from disease brought by earlier fishers. The colonists from Britain had heavey religious views and were told they were superior being white. Also the coming colonist came to get land and when the Native Americans had the land and they also were told to be superior taking the land from them seemed easy and rightious. Alot of people would have good outlooks at them but again when most Native Americans were dieing and when you had to choose your life or theres again the answer became obvious. So as most of us sit happy in our homes saying what we did to the Native Americans was wrong is easy to us back then our religious views were far more heavy, we're far more educated and we no longer have the urgent need for land and are not running from religious prosecution or bad politics.
The authors of the documents pretty much seem like they don't have problems with the Indians. I think that colonists everywhere would have been better off if they treated all the Indians they encountered with respect because the Indians could have showed them how they survive and helped the colonists. When the colonists arrived and encountered the Indians they should have thought that the Indians must know what they're doing because they live and survive here, so we should be nice to them because they can help us out.
so, agreeing with everyone else pretty much, i couldnt stand when the native americans were called savages. It makes it seem like they are unhuman or something. But i am suprised that both the suthors of the two documents spoke of the indians as they respect them. I think that if all of the colonist were to respect the indians all the time, instead of just when they wanted something from them, they could have gained helped for surviving. And not so fights, or kings phillips war would have taken place. I like how the 15 year old girl doesnt hate the indians, and has respect for them, even if she thought it was a sin sometimes.
I totally agree with Ben/Jen, the europens shouldn't have just come into the Indians territory and call them anything because they thought they were more powerful and whatever. It was nice to see that there were people who did respect the indians and stood up for them. In chapter one i remember reading about Squanto and how he helped the pilgrims with the growing of corn, then the europans betray him and all his people ended up dead. The indians really wouldn't have minded the colonists if the colonists treated them with respect and taught them things and intermigled, then things would probably have been different but no. They had to be big and bad and make everyone's life harder than it had to be. What a shame. But yet again i am very impressed with the people who did respect the idians. I'm not at all saying that i think ALL europeans are bad. I do agree with SaraH though, it is hard to see how all of this could become the United States because at this time, they were pretty ffar from it. OH bethany i completely agreeee! where did whites come up with this crazy idea that they were better. HELLO were all people.
it's suprising how much the two documents differ. the first shows that not all colonists disliked the indians, and that in fact some befriended them. whereas the second document only degrades the indians by calling them savages. not to say i agree with the colonists to call them savages but when the indians forcefully retaliate to the colonists taking over their land, it seems somewhat justifiable. but so is the fact that the indians do something about new people coming in and taking what is rightfully theirs, i would be mad to. so in both senses there is some justification to it all.
The author shows the indians a lot of respect even though not all of the people at the time gave it to them. Everything would have been much better if the other people just gave the indians respect at the time instead of causing unnecessary problems amongst them. They would have been better off not fighting with each other and getting land and everything else might have gone a lot smoother overall.
the colonists seem to have a respect for the indians even though they dont show it all the time. the colonists often times wanted the indians to become christian or to change their ideas but most of the time they got along alright with a few altercations.
I find the english approach to making peace with the indians not so great. The terms in which the indians are described is very cruel and descriminating which would quickly alter and good views the indians may have hap upon the english settlers. The settlers approach was rude and invading to the indians which was proably a main factor to why there were so many controversies between the settlers and the natives.
Post a Comment