Chapter IV Responses

1) (read last blog post)

2)The outbreak of the French and Indian War was caused by the struggle between the English and French in North America for control of the Ohio river valley. After the English attempted to build a fort on the opposite side of a river of a French fort, the French kicked them out and discontinued the English fort building. This heightened tensions. Also, the Native Americans has to choose sides and loyalties which further escalated the conflict between the French and English. The key ignition for the war was when Washington accidentally attacked French diplomats and then the half-king leader of the Indians killed him. By conduct of European warfare, Washington was supposed to capture him as a POW, but the half-king leader was out to get revenge for his humiliation that happened earlier, caused by the English getting driven out of their fort (the half-king had convinced his tribe that the English were well-suited as allies, but their defeat at the fort showed otherwise. Therefore he killed the Frenchmen for revenge because they embarrassed him).
The effects of the war were that they put Britain in huge debt, which resulted in them taxing the colonies, which resulted in the colonies getting mad, which led to the American Revolution. Although, at the conclusion of the French and Indian War, since England had won, their was a strong atmosphere of English loyalty floating about the colonies.

3)For: The French and Indian War was a key contributor to the anti-English sentiments. Without the F & I War, there would not have been a huge bill at England's table. This gave England the excuse to tax the colonies, which set off the colonist's resentments.
Against: Without the French and Indian War, the American Revolution would have happened anyway. After the Navigation Acts, England was quite happy with the results it had got. Therefore, who says they wouldn't have imposed more taxes after the one they just imposed went so well? England was already beginning to interfere in the colonies. It had wanted to start making them worthwhile and profitable to itself. Therefore, since the colonies had started out with so much freedom, England was bound to take some of it away somehow at sometime. This would have angered the colonists because they had lost something that they had previously had. So whatever England does to it's colonies, it can only make the colonists angry. Also, the colonies were bound to expand into the Ohio River Valley for more land and such. Therefore, they would've inevitably met the French and had to duke it out with them for the area. Thus, England would get involved in some way which would lead to them restricting the colonies in some way; whether to put soldiers or taxes on them. Their reason would be because the colonies owed them for their services and that they had to fund their own protection. Nonetheless, the colonies would start to grow apart from England.

9/22 DBQ Thesis

"O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in...", preached Jonathon Edwards, a Christian theologian.  Listeners stared in awe as they heard Edwards vividly weave together the doomed fate that all sinners would inevitably face if they continued to conduct their daily lives in such unmoral ways. Edward's ideology was not unlike others of this time; during the Great Awakening the American Colonies experienced an epiphany of religious revival. Some people feared the religious dissenters and prosecuted them as witches. These sort of people happened to be concentrated mainly in the Northeast. Others believed that the way to go was not through fear, but instead living a sincere religious life filled with happiness. These people lived primarily in the Mid-Atlantic. The differences in interpretation of the Great Awakening can be traced to the divisions among social classes and ethnic groups.

Chapter II and III Response Questions

Chapter II Response Questions

1. European societies differed from one another in many ways. One way was that each of the colonies had different motives and such. The Chesapeake colonies were settled primarily for the sake of the establishing a settlement in the new world. The people spent valuable time looking for gold instead of farming. The New Englanders on the other hand wasted no time in working. Their reason for coming over was to escape religious prosecution. There was also a difference in the type of people that came over. Many English people were quite wary of the New World, after they had heard of the disappearance at Roanoke. Therefore since not many were willing to make the passage, criminals and such were sent over because for them it was either go to the new world or face execution; they chose the new world. Also, many gentlemen and indentured servants were on board. As the indentured servants died out, many of the gentlemen were too ignorant to work and thus the colony starved. The New Englanders were hard working, religious devoted people; therefore they got a lot of work done. Also from the start, the colonies were planned out much differently. Pennsylvania carefully planned out the colony; William Penn made several drafts of the colony’s governmental structure. The New Englanders made treaties on board the ships so that the colony had a body of rules to be governed upon. The Chesapeake settlers did not have such foresight.

2. The role of religion was very important. It is responsible for the founding of both the New England colonies and the Pennsylvania colony. Missionaries also worked hard at spreading Christianity, even up in Canada and down in Central/ South America. If the Church of England hadn’t been corrupt or if there was religious tolerance in England, then the Puritans may never have migrated over the New England area. If the Quakers were tolerated anywhere in Europe (or New England), then they may never have founded Pennsylvania. The total devotion to one’s religion and the total intolerance of these new ideas in traditional regions paved the way for religious groups to come to the New World.

Chapter III Response Questions

1. England realized that they weren’t making any huge profits of the colonies, like other countries were with there colonies. They also realized that the colonies were trading with foreign countries, making them wealthier. Also, at the time the mercantilist thought process was that there was only a fixed amount of wealth in the world. Therefore if one country gets richer then they take more from the pot of money, leaving less money for other countries to take. Therefore with all this going on, England decided that it had to do something about it. They passed the Navigation Acts so they could get sole control over trade with the colonies, and subsequently block the Dutch from trading with the colonies. The Navigation Acts proclaimed that the colonies only import from England, therefore letting England export more, thus making them richer. England also passed two other acts, The Stamp Act of 1663 and the Plantation Duty Act. The Stamp Act of 1663 forced the majority of products to be shipped to England first and then to the colonies. This way England could regulate what goods went into the colonies. The Plantation Duty Act of 1673 wanted to redirect revenue to England and to have traders trade exclusively with England. For example, a penny tax was placed on each pound of tobacco and there was a five-shilling tax for every hundred weight of sugar. There were also appointed collectors of these taxes. England established it’s first revenue collecting system with the Plantation Duty Act.

2. The Indians realized that they probably needed to band together to help stop the European colonization. In the north, the Indians formed the Five Nations of the Iroquois. They supported each other in the fight to keep their land. Yet, peace talks were reached when Edmund Andros negotiated a peace treaty between the Iroquois Confederacy, the British colonies, and other Indian tribes to form the Covenant Chain. Here, they settled trading, violence issues, and settlement disputes. Other Indian tribes resulted to war for survival. The Wampanoags and their leader, Metacom, started some trouble up in New England. Allied tribes to the English also fought against the Wampanoags, like the Mohawks.

3. Mercantilism is the idea that one should export more than they import to generate a profit. They also believed that the world’s wealth was fixed and it was a survival of the fittest to gain the most of it. Therefore, countries believed that as they got richer there was less money for them to take. The Navigation Acts expressed mercantilistic ideas because they wanted the colonies to trade more with England and less with foreign countries like the Dutch. This way they could export more goods to the colonies and hopefully gain more money. This is important because at the time England wasn’t making any huge profits off of it’s colonies and they also wanted the colonies to develop into more favorable ways to the British.

4. The authors meant to describe the variety of differences between the colonies even though they all emerged, or came to be, from one source: England. Each color on the spectrum represented a colony. Each color was unique from one another. They had their own shades and hues. The same went for the colonies. Each colony had its own demographic differences, religious views, economical foundation, etc. For example, the sugar islands down in the south could have been a whole another world to the Puritans up in the north. Yet they could all trace back their beginnings to England, which sustained some kind of unity between them.

5. There were many demographic differences in the colonies. The most notable are the life expectancy standards in the north and south. The north had a much higher life expectancy. There also was a higher men to women ration in plantation areas, which were mainly located in the south. Each area had it’s own sort of aristocracy develop, especially in the south. The race and ethnicity differences between the two regions were different as well. There are far more blacks in the south than in the north. Black slaves account for a majority in the West Indies and the lower south. The New England region and New France region was almost all English or French, respectively. There was also quite a European ethnic mix in the Mid-Atlantic colonies. The farther north one got, the less diverse it became. The father south one traveled, the more diverse it became. The driving forces and goods of the economies of the two regions also differed. In the south, the economy was driven by plantations that grew either sugar or tobacco. Up north, fur-trapping and farming were popular. New England, being a center of commerce and trade, also had ship building mixed into their daily economic activities. The religious views of the regions also had a discrepancy. The farther south one traveled, the less religious fervor there seemed to be. For example, the West Indies regarded religion as irreverent, and that slowly works it’s way up to the New France region where religion fervor is intense. The Mid-Atlantic to New England region had mostly family-based piety, although religion is slowly losing ground in New England due to the increase of attention to trade and wealth. In all areas except the Mid-Atlantic, there was some form of established Church. The Mid-Atlantic seemingly lacked an established church because the biggest colony there, Pennsylvania, was tolerant of all religions.

European view of native americans 9/8/11

1.The europeans had mixed views on the native americans based on country. The French generally had a more positive attitude to the native americans. For example, in document 15, the French seem to portray the Indians as having a lot of teamwork and that they value the animal very much, since they sent so many men to go after it. Also in document 16, the French portray the Indian's cleverness in dressing up as deer to hunt other deer.
As for the other countries, the view was negative. In document 1, Columbus describes the Indians as good workers, but then quickly shifts the attitude to saying that they would make good "servants". In document 6, the artist displays the Inca king getting trampled by the Conquistadors. This is not only degrading to the Native Americans but also very pretentious of the Spanish. Who says that the Spanish were better than the Native Americans? Others like captain John Smith give a very unbiased view of the Indians; describing their way of lifestyle and not putting in any opinion.

2. The Europeans are most intrigued by their culture and way of living. In may documents, Europeans describe how they live, farm, and how their social order is established. For example, documents 2,8,9,10,11,12,16, and 25 are all primarily concerned with how the Indians live and how they go about their lives. This time, each country had it's own fascination with the Indians. Also, a couple of documents were particularly interested in the environment. Document 13 and document 14 both describe and express the nature of the Americas, especially document 14.

3.In many of the picture documents, the native americans status is portrayed as inferior, as in document 3 and These tend to be from the Dutch, Italian, and Spanish. The French on the other hand were more fair to the indians, as they gave depictions that were nonbiased, and even a little positive to the native americans, like in document 16. The written work has the same implied meanings as the pictures based on country. In document 20, the Spanish insult the Indians by implying their stupidity and mocking their simple minds.

4. We learn from many of the documents what the Indians eat, that they are very strong, and how they conduct their daily activities. We also learn that the viewpoints from different countries vary. France has the most positive outlook on the Indians, with most of their documents being unbiased or at least respectful to the Indians. Other colonizing countries like the Dutch and Spanish were rather mean and unfair to the Indians.

5. These documents may present a biased view. There may also be inconsistencies with the facts that they thought were true. Also, historians can't generalize a view on the native americans for all of europe because almost everybody had at least some different view on the Indians. Therefore they had to differentiate among different countries with different biases and facts to decipher what was the true picture. Also historians do not have the opposing side of the story: the Indians. The Indians may never get a chance to tell their side of the story and how their lives actually were led. The writers and explorers of the time may only have got to observe only a few days of the Indian's activity and therefore may have had to guess alot of their customs.

6. I would first separate the documents into different countries and list them into chronological order within the countries. I would keep in mind that each country had a different viewpoint; there may even be different viewpoints within a country. From there I would assess the country's depiction of the native americans and keep in mind that as time went on, the relationship between Europeans and Americans grew more hostile, so detecting bias would be necessary.

7.These drawings let us extrapolate what the attitude of the Colonizers was at the time. It shows us the general atmosphere and excitement towards the Americas. Despite the inaccuracies, the drawings are a window into the views of the settlers.

1. The following documents tell us that the Spanish conquest was indeed a cruel one; without empathy and driven solely for the desire for power and wealth. With that being said, a few people began stepping up to say that the Spanish exploitation was inhumane and even a sin. Many years later, more people began realizing that what they had done was terribly wrong and the treatment that the Indians and Africans had to suffer under Spanish rule was unjust and cruel. They realized that the Indians and Africans were as much of a human as they were.Yet, some articles, like those Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, went against those thoughts and proclaimed the Indians as savages and unhuman. The only reason for this proclamation was because the Indians differed in customs versus the "status quo". Therefore Juan was not only unaccepting of different viewpoints, but also racist for criticizing different practices. 


2. The spanish were very cruel, as stated in several articles. Antonio de Montesinos, Bartolomé de las Casas, and Fray Tomas Mercado all agreed upon the facts that the Spanish overworked their slaves, underfed them, and treated them as "property" and not as a man. We should understand their conduct in the sense that at the time the atmosphere in Europe was cultivated around desires for wealth, land, and power. Europe was running out of space, there were less opportunities to get wealthy, and the constant wars for land tired our countries. Therefore, the New World seemed like the perfect place; there was land, people, and hopefully gold. Yet, the settlers did not want to work their share for the wealth so they forced others to do it for them. They easily were able to do this by importing slaves cheaply from Africa. Not only did they not know the land, but they had agricultural experience in their homelands, making them a good choice for slaves.


3. The critics are correct. They were probably the most insightful throughout the ordeal. They realized that to invade upon one's culture and completely disrupt and destroy their way of life was inhumane and unfair. The Indians were every bit as human as they were; just because they had a different culture didn't make them any less human. It was the same as the cultural differences in Europe. As Antonio de Montesinos put it, "...by what right or justice do you hold these Indians in such cruel and horrible slavery... do you wage such detestable wars on these people who lived mildly and peacefully in their own lands..."