Cultural Differences And Cultural Beliefs Of The Conflict Between Europeans And Native Americans

In his essay, “Peaceable Kingdom Lost: The Paxton Boys and the Destruction of William Penn’s Holy Experiment” Kevin Kenny argues that conflict between Europeans and Native Americans was indeed inevitable. William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, attempted a sort of “holy experiment”; a utopian land of equality and peace. Kenny argues that, despite the fact that “…Penn purchased land from Indians fairly and openly,” he did not do so for the Natives’ sakes (29). He had an agenda to sell the land to settlers and pay off prior debts. Still, Pen did want harmony and peace with the neighboring tribes and his legacy endured through hundreds of years (30). Despite William Penn’s efforts in creating a peaceful land with equality for settlers and natives alike, it all came to an end in a massive collapse eighty years later when the Paxton Boys entered the scene. The Paxton Boys were made up of a group of 50 or more “frontier militiamen” who went around to Native American villages, massacring whole tribes and then seizing and claiming the Natives’ lands for themselves (Kenny 29). Because these “Irish ruffians” or “squatters” weren’t really punished for killing entire Native American villages, other colonists started to follow suit and violent seizure of Native American lands became the norm. Kevin Kenny’s argument states that any chance of peace through William Penn’s vision was condemned by “…European colonists’

On the day of September 11, 1857, an emigrant party camped at Mountain Meadows was brutally killed by the Mormon militia aided by Indians. This essay examines two viewpoints regarding the massacre found in Sally Denton’s “American Massacre” and in “Massacre at Mountain Meadows” by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Turley.

Many of the Indians that left with the missionaries were gone for many years and did not know how much had changed back at home. In the story The Soft-Hearted Sioux a young man comes back home after receiving an education from the missionaries. He had left before he was taught how to survive out in the wild. He came back to dying and starving parents. He was brainwashed by the missionaries because he went against his family’s customs and told the medicine man never to come back and that God will save his father. He started preaching God’s words to his people and they left the community. His father was growing sicker and sicker and he needed food. His son went out everyday trying to get something but had no skills in hunting. His father had told him to go two hills over and he could find meat. With no concept of ownership, the son went and killed a cow that belonged to an American. Upon leaving with the meat he was chased down and attacked by the “owner” of the cattle. The son accidentally killed the man and fled back to his father’s teepee only to realize that he was too late and that his father had died. He was so conditioned by the white man that he had forgotten his ancestors’ ways of survival.

Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, was not a happy Native. He blamed the greed and oppression of the Europeans for the destruction of the Native American cultures. The Europeans greed led them to strip the land from the Natives, and try in forcing their religion upon the Natives. Tecumseh believed that the land was for all. There was nothing about selling, taking, and giving the land away. The Europeans just did not have that mindset at all. Red Jacket was a Seneca leader. He was very discouraged of the fact that they took the land of the Natives, but even more because they wanted to force their religion upon the Native Americans. The Europeans were ruthless when it came to this. They did not think about their feelings and the actions that could hurt the Natives. (Doc 4, 5, 6)

From the very first interaction, the social and political relations between the Native Americans and the Europeans had begun with much tension. Many Europeans came to the Americas with the intention of discovery. However, when it became apparent that these new lands were inhibited the motives changed, and then the natives were colonized, abused, and in many cases killed. From then and throughout the impending periods of time, the relations between the natives and the Europeans had a few points of mutual peacefulness, but were overall negative.

As a rule, the Native Americans are perhaps the most overlooked sector of the population of the colonies. This war completely varied their knowledge of their land and its value. “We know our lands have now become more valuable,” (Document B). No more would they be fooled by

The crown depicted the Indians as intractable, only to find that settlers resorted to violence against the Indians precisely because of their supposed intractability. Indigenous peoples, for their part, fought among themselves and against advancing settlers. All groups sought to “territorialize” their societies to secure themselves against competitors. In the final chapters, Langfur extends and qualifies this complicated story. In the later eighteenth century, settler pressures grew, stressing crown policies and threatening indigenous social orders, until all-out war broke out after 1808. For Langfur this was no Manichean battle between European invaders and indigenous victims. To a dominant narrative of violence he juxtaposes a “parallel history of cooperation” among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, and he concludes that war itself must be understood in terms of “the relationship of cooperative enemies.”

During the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Europeans started to come over to the new world, they discovered a society of Indians that was strikingly different to their own. To understand how different, one must first compare and contrast some of the very important differences between them, such as how the Europeans considered the Indians to be extremely primitive and basic, while, considering themselves civilized. The Europeans considered that they were model societies, and they thought that the Indians society and culture should be changed to be very similar to their own.

The Native Americans sustained and took care of their home, while the Europeans pushed and pulled for more money to fall from it. This caused the land to lose a lot of its density and eventually the Europeans’ wealth as well. Things that were lost were proper farming grounds, culture of the Native Americans, and wild life. Different views of the Europeans and Native Americans caused a lot of conflict. The Europeans’ views on the Indians’ way of life became critical once they saw and felt as if their society was not controlled

To better understand the conflict between the Europeans and the Native Americans, one must closely examine the state of Europe’s economy at the time. Europe struggled with difficult conditions. This included poverty, violence and diseases like typhus, smallpox, influenza and measles. There were widespread famines which caused the prices of products to vary and made life very difficult in Europe. Street crimes and violence were prevalent in cities: “Other eruption of bizarre torture, murder, and ritual cannibalism were not uncommon”.2 Europeans

I think that Simon Pokagon wrote this because he wanted his race to be remembered and talked about, and to tell people how he viewed their history. Do I think that he was bias toward the Indian race, yes, I do think that some of the things he wrote were not true. Such as, when he talks about how white men came to America and just starting killing the Native Americans. I do not think they would just kill the Indians, I think that the Indians had to have done something to these white people to make them attack. I do think that most of it is true, but also opinionated as well. Pokagon is just scared that his people, the Native Americans, would die out completely because of the mixture of races. He is scared that future people will not even know

The attacks on Indians by the whites could now be excused because the Indians had murdered family members. They could kill, scalp, and rob Indians without much fear of being caught or punished. A play based on real life, written by Indian fighter, Robert Rogers, showed how two hunters happened upon two Indians. As they talked, both told of how Indians had murdered some family members, so it was logical to them to kill the Indians, scalp them and robbed them of the guns, hatchets and furs. The “victims’ furs were a fantastic windfall”. (129)

When Europeans first came to the New World they were coming in search of land and new riches. The Europeans did not however account for the Native Americans already settled there and therefore led to a clash between the cultures. Some of the clashes between the two cultures include land, religion, disease, and slavery. One of the main clashes these two groups of people had was over land and how it was used.

The painting of Benjamin West’s “William Penn’s Treaty with the Indians” participates in myth, memory making, and in nation-building. The way the West’s painting participates in myth is by portraying a more noble and peaceful relationship between European colonist and Native Americans as the colonist continue to colonized the Native American’s land. The way that the painting participates in memory making is by letting us be able to visualize and remember the event on how the Pennsylvania colony was established, and it participates in nation-building because it portrays a nation that was built justly and honorably. It also participates in nation building because it helps establish the character that the settlers wanted their new nation to be

There is a definite conflict between individual freedom and social conformity in this book. It is shown through the interactions of Natty Bumppo and the settlers. The settlers are using methods of taming the wilderness to their own ends that show them to believe they and the wilderness can not co-exist. They look at the wilderness as dangerous and to be conquered and tamed so they can live in it. This is exemplified in their