After the discussion about Alan Taylor’s book in class today, I have known more about colonial America and the relationship between France and Amerindians at the beginning of French colony. There are three main colonies in America: New Spain, New England, and New France. Unlike the brutal colony of Spain such as De Soto expedition or arrogant and distant English colony, French has a relatively equal relationship with the Amerindians. The relationship requires the exchange of goods, ideas, and practice and relies on trade. Shument makes an interesting point about the relationship between French and Amerindians is the “father-son” relationship that is discussed in the book. According to different cultural values, French and Amerindians interpret …show more content…
As the demand for fur in Europe is high, French colonists chose to purchase fur by exchanging European manufactured goods, such as beads, kettles, hatchets, and knives with the native Indians. The imported goods, especially weapons, make the fur company takes a relatively superior position in the war against other Amerindians. Taylor mentions in the book that “every native people tried to attract traders and worked to keep them away from their Indian enemies.” However, Chantal mentioned that French is actually less intelligent as the weapons they sold are finally used to fight against them. Thus, I think whether French’s introduction of weapons to Amerindians is a smart choice is debatable. An ally is formed between France and Amerindian to help both survived. However, the partnership broke down as France chose to help the enemies of Fox. France is in a passive condition, as Taylor states French are “grumbling at their inability to dictate to their allies.” From the discussion, the main problem of French family system is lack of manpower. In some ways, French is even inferior in the relationship to Amerindians or other European colonists at the beginning of their
Author Alan Taylor believes that our traditional views of colonial history need to be revised in order to truly appre-ciate the events leading to a developed American society. Taylor offers a reconsidered approach in his book, Ameri-can Colonies, along with explanation to the new inclusions that will offer a substantive variation of perspectives as opposed to more conventional historical summarization. In the introduction, Taylor formulates his claim: That the traditional story of American uplift makes too many generalizations on the groups of people involved in the coloni-zation process to warrant a truthful narrative of the settling of America. Previous volumes of similar matters fail to be mindful that not all of colonial America was English, as native peoples encountered the Spanish from Mexico, the Russians travelling through Siberia, and the French navigating around the Great Lakes region (xi). Furthermore, plenty of English colonists did not prosper in the
She’s talking about the diplomatic, and economic ties between the French and Quapaw people, as well with other indian American tribes and how that was in some aspects good for the economic side but bad on others points, she focused basically on the reality of the intermarriage and how the politics and the church plays a big part on hiding that the ever was any union between
Upon reading and analyzing this article, it appears to give a fair and accurate analysis about the idea of the French trying to take control of the new world. With the amount of information provided, it shows Gilles Havard researched a lot on the issue. I like how Havard divides the article with subheadings; it was a good way to keep readers like me focused every point he made. Overall, this article was a highly informative and carefully researched to properly show the relationship the French settlers had with the native people of New
For the most part, the French spent many years in trying to establish a colony in North America and they were unsuccessful because of various reason. In the meantime, this created to opportunity for the Spanish t to establish a relationship with the Native Americans. As stated in text, “French fishermen continued to visit the Grand Banks regularly and began to trade with the Native Americans for beaver skins” (Reich, 2011, p. 37). The beaver skins were very popular in Europe and in 1600s Samuel de Champlain founded the fur trading post at Port Royal and in Quebec (Reich, 2011, p. 37). The French valued their relationship with the Native Americans for various reasons and I will discuss some in depth. First, most of the Indian tribes were at
The Indians called the French their “European Father.” Indians gave the analogy of themselves being a son to the French as them being the dad. Soon as the Treaty was passed the French gave up the Indians land without agreement. The outcome of that led to the Indians being wounded by the lack of goods and gifts that they receive. Putting them in a place of struggle for their independency. (Pg.48)
When Europeans encountered the Native Americans, the encounter was fraught with difficulties for both sides, for the Native Americans more so than the Europeans. Europeans conquered the Native Americans, forced them into labor, and spread diseases which the Native Americans had no resistance to. In addition to this the Europeans considered themselves superior to the Native Americans. Despite this, the Europeans and Native Americans, both had things the other wanted and so they often engaged in trade with each other. However, the Native Americans thought that, despite not having the luxuries the Europeans had, they were better off than the Europeans. This sentiment is exemplified in “Your People Live Only Upon Cod” by French priest Chrestian LeClerq who was traveling with the Micmac Indians. It is a documented response by an unknown Micmac leader to European, particularly French, claims of superiority. In analyzing this document, we will find that the cultures of the French and the Micmac were vastly different. We will also discover what the Micmac and the French thought of each other.
The French relationship with First Nations has been a dominate factor in Canadian history. Their successful means in establishing such relations led them to great achievements and downfalls. This relationship was successfully earned by the French for a variety of reasons. One, the First Nations, already in awe of European culture, were eager to trade due to their further fascination of European items (232). More specifically, they desired basic European goods such as “…knives, hatchets, kettles, beads, cloth and, eventually, the firearms of the French (5). Unlike the English, the French seized greater advantage of First Nations cooperation by demonstrating acts of tolerance and respect (8). The efforts of Samuel de Champlain, who formed “The Order of Good Cheer” to increase friendly relations, highlights this sentiment (1.3). To further impress them, the French utilized the practice of gift giving, a tradition they discovered in Brazil (1.3). One other essential factor in establishing relations was partly due to intermarriages between both
The relationship between the English and the Native Americans in 1600 to 1700 is one of the most fluctuating and the most profound relationships in American history. On the one side of the picture, the harmony between Wampanoag and Puritans even inspires them to celebrate “first Thanksgiving”; while, by contrast, the conflicts between the Pequots and the English urge them to antagonize each other, and even wage a war. In addition, the mystery of why the European settlers, including English, become the dominant power in American world, instead of the indigenous people, or Indians, can be solved from the examination of the relationship. In a variety of ways, the relationship drastically alters how people think about and relate to the aborigines. Politically, the relationship changes to establish the supremacy of the English; the English intends to obtain the land and rules over it. Socially, the relationship changes to present the majority of the English settlers; the dominating population is mostly the English settlers. Economically, the relationship changes to obtain the benefit of the English settlers; they gain profit from the massive resource in America. Therefore, the relationship does, in fact, change to foreshadow the discordance of the two groups of people.
Closely followed by Columbus’ “discovery” of the New World in 1492 were the establishments of European colonies with the French primarily in the north and down the Mississippi, and with the British along the east coast. As a result, the Native Americans’ lives changed drastically. Before 1750, in terms of economically, French responded mutually in terms of economy, culturally befriended them and in terms of religion, responded benignly by encouraging Catholicism through missionaries and on were on the best terms with the Natives; the British by contrast, economically
and contemporary audiences. These are explored through the ambiguous nature of morality which is expressed within key scenes of the film.
During the early period of colonizing, the European colonists were facing many dangerous obstacles. The European colonists were not adept at farming in the North America soil and climate with the lacked of skills for surviving in unfamiliar territory . They were fragile and faced great threat of diseases and the lack of food supply. As a result, these European colonists sought out alliances with various native tribes for protection and help them stabilized their own colony. A good example of this was the colony of south eastern Massachusetts during the period of
William Shakespeare had made many great plays in his time such as Romeo and Juliet. There were a few films that were made to resemble Romeo and Juliet. Such as the films with Leonardo Dicaprio made in 1996, the play with Orlando Bloom made in 2014, and the movie with Leonard Whiting made in 1968. All the films highlight what each author thought about Romeo and Juliet. Each film has their similarities and differences.
Fur trade between the French and Indians began with the exchange of small items the Indians didn’t have, though it became an important trade source for all of Europe, especially by Samuel de Champlain
The fur trade was their main source of conflict. ““While the French and English vied with each other for the trade of the Indians inhabiting the Western interior, the various Indian groups competed with each other for control of the carrying
A good mystery story needs a hero, a villan and an out of the ordinary storyline. In my opinion the story should have a realistic drama and the right setting, something to drastic will not allow the reader to relate to the story. A narrator may make the story more personal and the reader can really get inside the story to know what the character is feeling and fears, increasing tension. There also should be a range of suspects; some of these characters can be used as red herrings, which can mislead the reader, adding to the shock at the end of the story. In ‘The speckled band’ the suspects are the gypsies, the exotic animals and Dr Roylott, there are some obvious and some not,