I. What are the terms of the Treaty between the Abenaki Indians and the English at Casco Bay? What argument does Sauguaarum then make in regard to it? What insights to gain from his perspective?
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.
Sauguarrum’s testimony on the negotiations reveals that the English had twisted what the Penobscot leader had said to the English. Firstly, Sauguarrum talked personally to an English man about the structure of the treaty and what will be addressed. However, the answers he gave to the English never showed up in the treaty. For example, Sauguarrum did acknowledge the English king, but did not see King George as his own king. Also, during the negotiations, the English allowed the Indian chiefs to decide on justice if any quarrels occurred between the two parties, but in the treaty, King George and the English get to decide the punishment. This account of the negotiations leading up to the treaty reveal that the English intentionally changed the language in treaty to give English complete control over the Abenaki Indians. The first-hand account of the negotiations also reveals that there were complications ...
... middle of paper ...
... warriors allowed the English to relate to Indian tribes. Also, the Indians also used many gender metaphors to insult their opposition. They compared nations looking for peace to women. For example, the Delaware Indians were dressed as women during their negotiations for peace. The gender metaphors helped characterize the fighting spirit of many Indian tribes. The view that men were warriors and did not give in easily during a fight allowed many young men to grow and helped establish a patriarchal system in many Indian tribes.
Overall, the gender metaphors used in Indian tribes and European societies were very similar. Shoemaker brings up an interesting point that gender metaphors come from a person’s daily experiences. This point complicates the thought that Indians and Europeans are complete polar opposites and maybe could have many more similarities between them.
America had a newfound fervor for land already occupied by the Indians. Although the Treaty of Paris ended the war, in the west, war continued. In the treaty the British gave up all claims to the lands, but declared the Indians still owned their lands. America thought the Indians had no real claims to the land so they made treaties to legitimize American expansion.
...y robbing the Indians of their land, the English upset and hurt many of the Native American tribes, which lead to many disputes over ownership of the land.
In the introduction, Hämäläinen introduces how Plains Indians horse culture is so often romanticized in the image of the “mounted warrior,” and how this romanticized image is frequently juxtaposed with the hardships of disease, death, and destruction brought on by the Europeans. It is also mentioned that many historians depict Plains Indians equestrianism as a typical success story, usually because such a depiction is an appealing story to use in textbooks. However, Plains Indians equestrianism is far from a basic story of success. Plains equestrianism was a double-edged sword: it both helped tribes complete their quotidian tasks more efficiently, but also gave rise to social issues, weakened the customary political system, created problems between other tribes, and was detrimental to the environment.
In Thomas King’s novel, The Inconvenient Indian, the story of North America’s history is discussed from his original viewpoint and perspective. In his first chapter, “Forgetting Columbus,” he voices his opinion about how he feel towards the way white people have told America’s history and portraying it as an adventurous tale of triumph, strength and freedom. King hunts down the evidence needed to reveal more facts on the controversial relationship between the whites and natives and how it has affected the culture of Americans. Mainly untangling the confusion between the idea of Native Americans being savages and whites constantly reigning in glory. He exposes the truth about how Native Americans were treated and how their actual stories were
Unfortunately, this great relationship that was built between the natives and the colonists of mutual respect and gain was coming to a screeching halt. In the start of the 1830s, the United States government began to realize it’s newfound strength and stability. It was decided that the nation had new and growing needs and aspirations, one of these being the idea of “Manifest Destiny”. Its continuous growth in population began to require much more resources and ultimately, land. The government started off as simply bargaining and persuading the Indian tribes to push west from their homeland. The Indians began to disagree and peacefully object and fight back. The United States government then felt they had no other option but to use force. In Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Jackson on May 18, 1830. This ultimately resulted in the relocation of the Eastern tribes out west, even as far as to the edge of the Great Plains. A copy of this act is laid out for you in the book, Th...
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.
The “Utmost Good Faith” clause from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 however, stated, “The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians; their land and property shall not be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed.” (Document 9). However, a letter from three Seneca Indian leaders to George Washington, President of the United States, argued, “When your army entered the country of Six (Iroquois) Nations, we called you the town destroyer; to this day, when your name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling to the necks of their mothers…” (Document 10). This, in fact, proves the American Revolution was not revolutionary because the Indians were promised the “Utmost Good Faith” and that their land and property would never be invaded or disturbed, but their towns were left completely devastated and halted society from changing into a better
Clashing swords, miraculous survivals, pain of loss, and heroic sacrifice are all terrifying yet thrilling moments in a battle. The strong possibility of death and the frailty of human life add into the suspense of battle. Yet the reasons behind the wars, death, and suspense can be overlooked. The stories behind the warriors who have died will not be told again, but the stories of warriors still alive are what give the men strength to continue fighting against impossible odds. Ultimately, the reason of why a man would risk his life in battle is for someone, or something, he loves. Like in Gilgamesh and the Iliad, women help encourage and influence the protagonists to be the heroes and protectors they are meant to be.
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."
Upon the death of his brother, whom the Indians suspected the English of murdering, Philip became sachem and maintained a shaky peace with the colonists for a number of years. Friendship continued to erode over the steady succession of land sales forced on the Indians by their growing dependence on English goods, and Plymouth’s continued unyielding policy toward Native leaders, it is reported by the Connecticut Society of Colonial Wars (www.colonialwarsct.org) and other sources.
-- William Clark, Superintendent of Indian Affairs negotiated treaties (agreements) with the Kansa and Osage Indians
“What!? What is this nonsense you speak of! I thought Poseidon and I signed a treaty!” Ruler of all the Narwhals, Norman III inquired. “You’re absolutely correct your majesty, but you didn’t read the fine print!” Nelson, Norman’s messenger boy stated. “Now let me see that document,’’ Norman said, snatching it straight from his hand “I don’t se-oh, oh my.” Nelson said as he struggled to get the words out of his mouth.
In considering the relationship between the meanings of myths and their representation of women, we learned that the major role in shaping the narratives was played by men.
The beginning of 1763 marked one of the major events that would contribute to the end of British colonial relations. On February 3, 1763 the French and Indian War finally ended in British victory, but while the British celebrated the French’s defeat, colonists feared the oncoming reverberations the war would have on them. The main motive behind the war was for possession over the French fur trade territory in North America. To the colonists, the war was being fought by and for Britain not the colonies. The benefits of the victory only pertained to Britain. The after effect of the war for the colonies was the trampling on their need for expansion. During the war, Native Americans had fought with the French because of how well they treated them. Britain was notorious for abusing the Native Americans, therefore once the French were defeated; they began attacking western settlements of colonists. To avoid confrontation, the Proclamation of 1763 was passed by Parliament. The Proclamation established a limit to the greatly needed colonial expansion. Specifically, the Proclamation forbid settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. The passing of the Proclamation of 1763 infuriated colonists ...
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.