Why Do Native Americans And Settlers Break Down Over Time?

Ross Clair
Dr. Justin Pope
History 1300
9/10/2017
Why did the relations between Native American and Settlers break down over time?
In all of the encounters between the settlers and the native Americans, most of the relationships decayed over time, from peaceful trade into bloodshed. There are a few reasons that this occurred, and these are a lack of respect from the Europeans to the Native Americans, European greed, and the fact that the Native American ideals, customs, and mindset were completely different from the European viewpoints.
It is a well-documented fact that the European Settlers did not think very highly of the Native Americans that they found already inhabiting the new continent that they had found by accident. They thought they

their culture was superior overall but in a few areas in particular. These areas, being religion and social order.
The European Settlers thought of the religion of the Natives as blasphemy. They thought that they had to “seduce the natives from their ‘anarchy’ and ‘Devil-Worship’” (Axtell, 238). In doing so, they further cemented the fact that they looked down on the Native Americans, by thinking that the natives beliefs, that had been in the culture since the beginning, were wrong.
The other way that the European Settlers thought that they were superior to the Natives is in the respect to their culture.

The European thought so little of them that they would, in fact, take some of the Natives as “human souvenirs”. This was such a common practice that is has been remarked on in historical texts. Axtell, author of King Philip's Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problem of Livestock in Early New England, writes that “European explorers had an incurable itch for human souvenirs” (Axtell, 234-235). They were taken to be used as status symbols. They were also to be used for later use as guides and translators. This just showed that they thought so little of the natives that they were treated more as property, rather than people. They were also thought of as uncultured, in need to be

tamed.
After the European superiority complex, the next biggest cause of the breakdown in relations between the European Settlers and the Native Americans was the greed of the European Nations. After Cortez’s conquest of the Aztec, and subsequent looting, the Spanish became much wealthier. The Spanish, after gaining a lot of wealth, became the hope of every nation that was trying to gain a foothold in the “new world”. Because of this, many Natives were either killed, or lorded over, and forced to give their valuables to the Europeans who had taken over their clans, settlements, or their villages. Unfortunately, not many tribes of natives put much stock in gold, because they traded in more practical goods, such as tanned hides, furs, and food. The Europeans still expected and wanted gold, so it was a large point of contention between the two parties, that slowly eroded the peaceful foundation between them.
It was not just gold and other valuable metals and minerals that the European Settlers desired from the inhabitants of the New World. They were also trading and looting materials such as timbers, spices, and fabrics. However, the main thing that they took was land. The land that was taken from the Natives was used at first to create homesteads, small villages, farms, and eventually trading posts. This land later became another point of contention due to differences in mindsets, but that will be discussed in greater detail further on in the discussion. This land was then used for mining, and to raise livestock. Unfortunately, this slowly pushed the Natives out of their own land and away from what they had always known.
There was a final point of contention in between the Native Americans and the European Settlers.

This was the fact that so many of the Native American ideals, customs, and mindset were completely different from the European viewpoints. The first of the differences were due to the difference of opinion in how the lad should be treated, owned, and used for. The Native Americans thought the land was to be shared, and for all to use. The fact that many Native American Tribes were nomadic helped to enforce that particular belief. In contrast, the European Settlers thought the land was to be bought and sold and to be blocked off for the use of one.
Another one of the disagreements in opinion was over livestock. The Native Americans saw no purpose to keep a wandering herd of livestock for a few reasons. One of these is that the land provided everything that the Native Americans ever needed. Another is that there would have been no place to keep a herd wandering around, with no permanent place of residence. The herd would have also been direct competition with the tribes, as they would eat the same food. A herd also would have kept the buffalo away from the

tribe.
Eventually, after the Europeans took more and more land, they had to keep a herd. However, even then, the English and the Native Americans could not see eye to eye. The Native Americans still couldn’t keep them wherever they wanted. They could not put them on islands, where they would safe from predators. The Colonists could still tell the Native Americans where they could place their animals. A good example of this is shown in a story about Metacom, the Sachem of the Wampanoags.
“On a late spring day in 1669, the ambitious younger son of a promi- nent Rhode Island family received a letter from the town clerk of Portsmouth. Like many of his neighbors, the young man raised livestock and followed the common practice of placing his pigs on a nearby island where they could forage safe from predators. But that was what brought him to the attention of Portsmouth's inhabitants, who ordered the clerk to reprimand him for "intrudeinge on" the-town's rights when he fer- ried his beasts to "hog-Island." The townsmen insisted that he remove "Such Swine or other Catle" as he had put there, on pain of legal action. They took the unusual step of instructing the clerk to make two copies of the letter and retain the duplicate-in effect preparing their legal case even before the recipient contested their action.”(Anderson, 1).
It would be very easy to say that the man, whom the English called King Philip, was very surprised to receive this court order. As said in the embedded quote, it was a fairly common practice to place one’s livestock on an island, but only he was called to court because of it. They, the townspeople, had also already begun the process of legal action. It also is odd to look back upon this event, because it signals when the Colonists began to prize their own livestock and property over the peace and trade between themselves and the Native Americans. It also shows when the Colonists decide that they are in-charge of, and the rulers over, the Native Americans, who were there before the Colonists had even found the continent.
The European Settlers saw things a lot differently. They saw it as a necessary part of their lifestyle and culture. Part of their traditions revolved around being a pastoral people. Their livestock was also their main food supply. The starving times in the Plymouth colony ended when the next boat arrived which bore
livestock. Unlike the more nomadic Native American people, the European Settlers lived only in one spot. They also did not have any of the foraging skills that the Native Americans had.
Another point of contention where livestock was concerned was the destruction of Native American farmland and gardens. While the Natives could not put their livestock wherever they wanted, even on their own land, Settlers were allowed to place their animals wherever they wanted, on their land or not. It was fairly common for Settlers to just let their livestock run free, sometimes onto the farms and gardens of the Natives. The natives could not even raise complaints to the leadership of the settlements, because they would always be ruled against in a court case.
Eventually, all of these smaller transgressions led up to something far greater. These smaller transgressions led to open war. This war eventually led to the driving back and mistreatment of the Native people, for many, many generations. This influence has been seen in an even modern film, depicting many of the tribes a lot more savage and civilized than they actually were, as they had trade networks and a social hierarchy.
All of the bloodshed could have been avoided fairly easily. Of course, that is an outsider's viewpoint, hundreds of years after the fact. The easiest way that it could have been avoided would be for the European Settlers to have just been a little bit more empathetic, and a little less demanding that the Native Americans to reform their society to be a lot like the European civilization. Another way that it could have been avoided was if the Native Americans had at first
enforced or forced the Europeans to keep the first contract, as both parties could have gotten something out of the deal.

Anderson, V.D. (1994). King Philip's Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problem of Livestock in Early New England. Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 51, 601-624.
Axtell, A. (2001). Natives and Newcomers The Cultural Origin of North America. 234-238.