More handpicked essays just for you.
Relations with Native Americans and colonists
Interactions between native Americans and colonists
Interactions between native Americans and colonists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In colonial times, the English settlers faced several issues with the Indians that inhabited the land before the English landed to establish colonies. Among these issues were communication and maintaining peace. This is proven through two distinctive Indian cultures. One of them led by Powhatan and the other led by Metacom. By comparing the two tribes, it will be clear that throughout the 17th century, Indian and English relationships differed because of the treatment of the Indians by the English and the communication between the two parties. When examining Powhatan and John Smith, it is necessary to analyze the methods of communication used by them. In an account of the exchanged discourses between John Smith and Powhatan entitled “What Can You Get By …show more content…
By proving his word, he was able to convince the Indians that maintaining peace remained a viable option. Furthermore, John Smith illustrated that Powhatan and his Indians had violated some of their previously recognized agreements, yet John Smith showed forgiveness and friendliness. However, this forgiveness was more calculated than stated by John Smith. Although the Indians may have wronged the English is some circumstances, John Smith decided to dismiss that as an issue because John Smith understood the importance of maintaining peace with the Indians for the purposes of preserving trade agreements. “What Can You Get With Warre” ends with a “Many other discourses they had, till at last they began to trade.” As the text says, John Smith and the Indians were able to discuss how they could coexist. Because of their communication, there were able to determine that it would be mutually beneficial for them to trade with each other. In order for trade to exist, peace was a necessity. Having the knowledge that peace was a requirement, John Smith looked past the wrongdoings to preserve
There was no definite property line in the early New England colony, causing animals roaming freely to become an issue between the two societies. The Indians were ultimately unprepared for the European’s livestock to wonder into their property without any boundaries. The animals would not only walk into their land but eat their resources and grass along the way. Destruction that the livestock caused to the Native American’s land led to a distinct boundary line between them and the Europeans, creating further tension rather than assimilation. Cattle were trapped into Indian hunting traps, causing both a problem to the Indians hunting rituals as well as the Europeans livestock supply. These issues among land division ultimately led to the acceleration of land expansion by the colonists during the 1660’s and early 1670’s. Before King Phillip’s War, Plymouth officials approached the Indians at least twenty-three times to purchase land. The author argues that previous mutual consideration for both the society’s needs was diminished at this point and the selling of the land would eliminate the Indian’s independence. Whenever livestock was involved, the colonists ignored Indian’s property rights
The terms of the Treaty included the acknowledgement of Indian tribes’ asking for forgiveness and the English dominating Indian trade and commerce. There were other terms that included the English being able to use Indian land for recreational use and any “remedy or redress” (Calloway 174) being brought to justice based on English laws. Overall, the terms and language used in the treaty is used to place blame of past hostilities on the Indians. The English completely twisted the language in the treaty to favor the English and shows the Indian people as rebellious savages that were begging for forgiveness for King George and the English.
The English took their land and disrupted their traditional systems of trade and agriculture. As a result, the power of native religious leaders was corrupted. The Indians we...
Powhatan questions why the colonist is not willing to live in peace and instead take by force. During his viewpoint, Powhatan shows the effects of the colonist getting along and having cooperation with the natives. Which is no violence, sharing of resources, the abundance of supplies, safety, rest, and enjoyment of life? Powhatan compares how life would be if they live in peace than to live with conflict. I am not so simple as not to know that it is better to eat good meat, lie well, and sleep quietly with my women and children; to laugh and be merry with the English, and, being their friend, to have copper, hatchets, and whatever else I want, than to fly from all, to lie cold in the woods, feed on acorns, roots and such trash, and to be so hunted that I cannot rest, eat, or sleep. Chief Powhatan states, “I, therefore, exhort you to peaceable councils.” In addition, he insists that the guns and swords be removed and sent away indicating he seeks a peaceful relationship between the two
The essay starts with the “Columbian Encounter between the cultures of two old worlds “ (98). These two old worlds were America and Europe. This discovery states that Native Americans contributed to the development and evolution of America’s history and culture. It gives the fact that indians only acted against europeans to defend their food, territory, and themselves.
John Smith explains the hardships of the voyage in the “General History of Virginia” he and others endured. While finally landing on land and discovering the head of the Chickahamania River, The colony endured Disease, severe weather, Native American attacks, and starvation all threatened to destroy the colony. Smith talks about his accomplishments of being a “good leader” and how he helped in many ways. John Smith was captured by the Native Americans and brought back to the camp. Within an hour, the Native Americans prepared to shoot him, but the Native Americans done as Chief Powhatan ordered and brought stones to beat Smiths brains out. John Smith gave an ivory double compass to the Chief of Powhatan. The Native Americans marveled at the parts of the compass. After the Native Americans admired the compass for an hour Chief Powhatan held...
The New England colonists were in constant contact with Indians since their arrival. Conflict was unavoidable between the two polar opposite cultures. The colonists sought to convert the Indians into Christians and attempt to civilize the "barbarians." Also, the expansion of colonies into Indian Territory was a major concern among the Indian tribes. King Phillip's War was the result of the ongoing tensions between the two cultures. Both the colonists and the Indians grew increasingly suspicious of each other eventually leading to war.
A Declaration in 1622 is a piece of history that will forever be debated. It was written by Edward Waterhouse who was a prominent Virginia official. In a Declaration in 1622, he describes his first-hand accounts of English genocide and the relationship between the Powhatan and settlers. The point of this paper is to claim that Waterhouse’s portrayal is realistic due to his factual perspective of the time period on the contrasting aspects of the Powhatan and settlers. Diving into Edwards historical accounts can show the hardships of the settlers, the varying characteristics of both groups, the importance of tobacco, and the demonization of Native Americans. The characteristics will conclude the factually sound delineation of Edward Waterhouse.
History takes place so rapidly that it’s often hard to recall the exact occurrence without technology. Most of our primary sources come from the writing of an individual as they experience history unfolding. It’s rare that two individuals provide stories so similar that they can be compared. John Smith and William Bradford provide this rare opportunity with their renderings. Comparing and contrasting the writing of the two allows the purpose, intended audience and more to be identified.
Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
At first meeting, the Powhatan considered the settlers as allies, who may be able to aid them in their struggle for land and power over the other tribes in the area. These relations strained when starving settlers started to take food from the Native Americans. In 1610, any notion of alliance between the Powhatan and the Virginia settlers was immediately crushed when Lord De La Warr arrived with a declaration of war against all Indians in the Jamestown area. De La Warr used his "Irish Tactics" of burning houses and crops and taking prisoners to destroy the Native Americans in what was known as the First Anglo-Powhatan war. A peace treaty was signed, but lasted only eight years.
When the peace negotiation between Great Britain and the United States occurred, Britain had disregarded its Indian allies. It transferred all British-claimed land from the west up to the Mississippi River to the Americans, even though Indians were living throughout all of the territories. In 1793, Governor general Lord Dorchester and Sir John Johnson had informed Joseph Brant about their intentions to achieve peace between the western Indians and the United States. However, both men had intended on deliberately deceiving Brant, and donated false information
Since the creation of the colonies, the colonists have always had their own sense of what it means to be a colonist and to live in the colonies. If a person did not associate with the views of the colonist, the colonist worked to push their views upon those individuals. This is especially true with colonist and the Native Americans. The colonist attempted to push the American identity onto the Native Americans in order to strengthen and build a relationship between the two groups. With the lines between Native Americans and the colonist starting to blur, Wheelock recognizes the importance of having the Native Americans on the colonist side during the Revolutionary war.
Wicken asserts his argument by analyzing the genesis of perceptions of the 1752 treaty from the late eighteenth century up until the 1928 appeal of the King v. Gabriel Sylliboy. In 1926/7 Sylliboy had been arrested, tried, and convicted for catching muskrats out of season, camping on private property, and cutting wood without a permit (64). The interpretation of the 1752 treaty by Sylliboy and five Mi’kmaq men played an integral part to Sylliboys defense.
Tension and disputes are sometimes resolved by force but more often by negotiation or treaties. On the other hand, the Natives were described as strong and very innocent creatures awaiting the first opportunity to be christianized. The Indians were called the “Noble Savages” by the settlers because they were cooperative people, but sometimes, after having a few conflicts with them, they seem to behave like animals. We should apprehend that the encounter with the settlers really amazed the natives, they were only used to interacting with people from their own race and surroundings and all of this was like a new discovery for them as well as for the white immigrants. The relations between the English and the Virginian Indians were somewhat strong in a few ways.