Translation Of Pontiac's Speech

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.

This section highlights that history has created a false narrative depicting the natives as a victimized people, which they were to some extent but only in the fashion that they did not possess the same technology for warfare, immunity of communal diseases transmitted, and they were not anticipating combat. All other factors considered, the natives stood to be a potential threat. In regards to knowledge obtained by Spaniards prior to arrival and knowledge gained from observation, it would be remiss had they not prepared for battle. This argument is not to be misconstrued in approving their actions; I do recognize colonization as an evil for both the reasons employed and its damaging effects, but rather to change the narrative surrounding that of the native people. While they did experience a tragedy, I feel that it is erroneous to write them into history as being incompetent resulting from their

Although the present day American is a totally a different person, at the close of the Revolutionary War the same individual was a European immigrant impacted by the nature of the American continent. In St. Jean de Crevecoeur’s perspective, an American is a race that results from a mixture of Swedes, Dutch, French, Irish, Scotch, and Englishmen (48). This race consists of unique type of people who are not governed by laws as strict as they experienced in Europe. They are a breed of people who had no home and no country in Europe. This paper discusses what the American was thought to be, in view of St. Jean de Crevecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer.

After observing local natives, the first Spanish conquistadors came to the conclusion that the Native Americans were barbaric and in dire need of Christian teachings. Thus, Spanish colonists made it their mission to convert the local natives to Christianity, using violence when there was resistance. In 1597, there were a series of uprisings by the Guale Indians in present-day Florida. They destroyed many missions, explaining that the Spanish missionaries had attempted to eliminate their religious practices such as feasts and celebrations. The Spanish also oppressed the Native Americans, and used them as a labor force under the encomienda system. The French, on the other hand, are known for their peaceful alliances with the Native Americans. Colonists established trade agreements with the local natives, obtaining raw goods such as fur and timber. Their peaceful relationship may in fact be attributed to the Spanish; the “Black Legend” of Spanish cruelty towards Native Americans made other European countries eager to prove themselves different. The French took pride in the fact that they treated the Native Americans more humanely than their Spanish counterparts. In addition, the French were not interested in expanding their territory, unlike the Spanish. They were simply looking for trade opportunities, and a mutual relationship with the Native Americans was advantageous. The primary goal of Spain

It proves not solely that this "common law" wedding between history and anthropology works, however conjointly that in several respects, it appears almost indispensable to a full understanding of early american history itself. The essays specialize in, and are for the most part held together by, the sole factor that mattered on the first yankee frontiers: the social and cultural interactions and competition between white and red peoples. And here we mean mostly between French, English, (and to a way lesser extent, Spanish), and eastern Native

Europeans tore through America in the 1700s and destroyed the lives of Native Americans, and yet their culture remained principled with a high level of respect and honor. This is shown in a meeting that was held by the six nations of the Iroquois, where Chief Red Jacket gave a speech on the Native Americans view on missionary stations that the Europeans wanted to set up. Red Jacket explained their past with the first settlers, “We gave them corn and meat; they gave us poison in return” (1). These first Europeans set the tone for how these new colonist treated the natives. They took what they wanted and left a trail of death and destruction in their path. However, the natives acted in return with upstanding respect and treated these missionaries

The Native Americans once thrived on the rich land of the Americas, and they built a long-lasting civilization with the help of nature, gods, and organized roles within the tribes. However, the thriving population plummeted after their encounter with diseases and forced labor brought upon them by the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadores. Although at first the conquistadores mistreatment of Native Americans seem shallow and unethical, their conquest of the Americas only partially reflects the claims of the English Black Legends..

No written history means much of Native American history is unknown, causing misconceptions and stereotypes about Native Americans to exist. Royal also discusses the name of this group that people label today as “Native Americans.” He questions, “ ‘America’ was a name formed in the wake of another Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci. It is difficult to see how being named after an Italian is less Eurocentric than being named after an East Native American” (Royal 46). The discussion about their name shows Europe’s influence on the Americas; it also shows that Native Americans yearn for their own identity without Europe’s input.

The history of the United States with regards to its native population is inaccurate and assumes that the history of this country began when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock (Richter, pp. 4-5). With regards to the native people’s

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

As all authors are undeniably guilty of, James Axtell has a bias, and not one shamefully swept underneath the rug. The enlightening article Axtell has published remains not only as informational; it stands convicting in a sense. Unfortunately, the reader may find themselves lumped into the assemblage of Americans that regard the Native Americans as “pathetic footnotes to the main course of American History” (Axtell 981). Establishing his thesis, Axtell offers plentiful examples of how Native Americans contributed to Colonial America,

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

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)

Today, in American history textbooks, the significant aspects of how America begins is display, however the details that assist in the making of America are not. With this in mind, Fredrick J. Fausz, an Associate Professor of history and director of the Honors Program at St. Mary's College of Mary, decided to display a component of the time, through the article, “Middlemen in Peace and War: Virginia’s Earliest Indian Interpreters, 1608-1632”. In summary, the article conveyed the importance of three significant interpreters, Thomas Savage, Henry Spelmen, and Robert Poole and their interactions between the Indians and Englishmen during the crucial time of war and peace with the Powhatans and other tribes. Fausz’s motivation in writing the article is to argue for the interpreter’s importance and how they interpreted not only the language, but experienced the benefits and detriments of being surrounded by the Indians and English.

In Jeannette Armstrong’s poem, History Lesson, she writes in perspective of Indigenous people reacting to the first encounters with European settlers. Historically, Indigenous people did not have a positive encounter with the first settlers due to their clash of beliefs and values of how communities and structures should run. Instead, they had many disagreements which caused the partial destruction of their whole culture. It is clear that Armstrong uses the theme of history to portray the destruction that the first European settlers had on the Indigenous way of life through various points in history. Armstrong imbeds the theme of history throughout her poem to further emphasize her stance on the assimilation of the Indigenous people with the restricting and destructive effects the early settlers had on them throughout history.