I thought the presentation on the small pox was great!I thought it was very interesting to see how the English and other western nations were able to take control of the Americas because of disease. I firmly believe if they did not have this advantage the country would net be where it is today.
I did not know the Indians quarantined people either. That is something I would have never known if not for this presentation. If the english would have used this method centuries ago many of the problems they encountered with disease would not have happened.
I find it interesting too, that the Indians had much better medicine than the western powers. Obviously bleeding was not an effective way of treating serious illness and disease.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
Cortes and the Aztecs
Hey guys, I noticed a couple of posts concerning the Aztecs and Cortes so maybe I can add a bit to our class discussion, blog posts, and the article I presented in class entitled “Human Sacrifice at Tenochtitlan”.
In our textbook (pages 84-85), Calloway writes about how Cortes landed near Vera Cruz in 1519 with only 508 men. There was little doubt about the Spanish intent of staying in
As I mentioned in my presentation,
When Cortes reached the city, he was initially welcomed as a guest. The textbook doesn’t mention whether or not he was welcomed as a god-like figure, but according to a
Needless to say, the Spaniards quickly wore out their welcome and were kicked out of
As someone else mentioned in their blog, the Spaniards were very impressed when they fist entered the marvelous city of
King Philip's War
I found the section in the book over King Philip's War to quite intriguing from many perspectives, primarily because it caused a schism in the Indian Nations. By this point in colonial history, the English and native peoples had been living in close proximity for a generation. Many of the indigenous peoples had grown up with the English as an accepted fact of life and did not know life any other way. The fact that some natives had been raised attending English churches, trading with English colonists, and occasionally enjoying English protection is essential to understanding why some tribes snubbed Metacomet's call to arms and either declared neutrality or outright sided with the English. Religious lines also seemed to be toed in this new dichotomy of indigenous loyalties. A native Christian informant to the English was found frozen, dead under the ice on a pond, killed by his own kind who recognized his betrayal.
I found this so interesting simply because it clearly displays the complications that European colonialism imposed on native life. The perspective of the native peoples has often been oversimplified. There are many stereotypes and even caricatures that portray Indians as all feebly uniting against their 'far superior' imperialists. This shows that life for native people during this time was actually significantly more complicated than that, and that the concept of how to deal with Europeans was actually a quite controversial issue.
Pocahontas a true Anglo Myth
I personally read the Pochonatas story myself by Helen Roundtree. As we were discussing the story on Thursday, I felt that a important fact was left out. I must admit, yes i did watch, "The NewWorld" and watching Disneys' pochontas made me think that she was a grown woman. But in this article she is only 10 years old. I was blown away, what would make people think a 10 year old and grown man could have a romantic relationship? But anyways,this article put that impression to rest.
Also hearing about the "one drop rule" was news to me also. Virginians made Pochonatas a "princess" so that they could call themselves official "royalty" and thats only why Anglo's could accepts Natives as being apart of Royalty?
Heres a video about the "true story" of Pochontas. Whats really true?
Also hearing about the "one drop rule" was news to me also. Virginians made Pochonatas a "princess" so that they could call themselves official "royalty" and thats only why Anglo's could accepts Natives as being apart of Royalty?
Heres a video about the "true story" of Pochontas. Whats really true?
The cure
During Thursday's presentation on the article, "Avoiding smallpox spirits: colonial epidemics and southeastern indian survival," I throughly enjoyed hearing about the four nations used their spirituality to explain and cope with the disease that, in some cases, ravaged their societies. I also really liked how the presenter mentioned that while many of their strategies were of "high powers, " they still were based in logic.
But I started feeling that there was something missing. Unless I wasn't paying attention, I never heard the presenter discuss what methods native peoples used to cure diseases, particularly smallpox. We've briefly discussed in class that Western medicine at the time was rather ineffective, but why? And how was native medicine useful? What techniques did they incorporate? Are those techniques still prevalent today?
But I started feeling that there was something missing. Unless I wasn't paying attention, I never heard the presenter discuss what methods native peoples used to cure diseases, particularly smallpox. We've briefly discussed in class that Western medicine at the time was rather ineffective, but why? And how was native medicine useful? What techniques did they incorporate? Are those techniques still prevalent today?
Spaniards
This week, I found several aspects of class interesting and some parts very disturbing. Most of my prior education in this matter was concerning the British so it was interesting to get some background information on the Spaniards. As a Cuban-American, though, I found it very disturbing that these people were so greedy that they would kill anyone and everyone in their path for just the hope of finding gold and other riches. In some areas, they found nothing but people were still being killed. I found that disturbing on both sides, actually, the indiscriminate killing of women and children without very much thought. Also, who were these families that were willing to pack it up and move themselves and their children to a strange land with no real knowledge of how they were going to survive when they got there? Maybe it was attractive to them to say that they were among "the first" and to get first choice on the land selection.
I have also heard of my churches and others sending people to do missionary work and this seems like a very kind thing to do. However, do the people in these countries want religious education or do they just want relief from starvation and such? I had never thought about that prior to now but it is interesting to think that people willing to go to third-world countries as missionaries could be going on their own agenda instead of to help others.
I have also heard of my churches and others sending people to do missionary work and this seems like a very kind thing to do. However, do the people in these countries want religious education or do they just want relief from starvation and such? I had never thought about that prior to now but it is interesting to think that people willing to go to third-world countries as missionaries could be going on their own agenda instead of to help others.
Colonization
When I think of the first American Colonies, usually the British come to mind. However, as we have learned through our class lectures and readings, the British were not the first to colonize the Americas. I think that most people are not aware of the impact the Spanish had upon the native peoples of America.
In the textbook there is a section about the Requerimiento, a document that was read by the Spanish conquistadors to the natives. This document basically called for the native people to submit to Spanish Religious practices and authorities. The punishment for not adhering was a forcible takeover by the Spanish. The purpose of the document was to justify Spanish Colonization, knowing the natives would not submit because most could not understand Spanish. Prior to reading about the Requerimiento in the textbook, I had not heard of it before.
In the textbook there is a section about the Requerimiento, a document that was read by the Spanish conquistadors to the natives. This document basically called for the native people to submit to Spanish Religious practices and authorities. The punishment for not adhering was a forcible takeover by the Spanish. The purpose of the document was to justify Spanish Colonization, knowing the natives would not submit because most could not understand Spanish. Prior to reading about the Requerimiento in the textbook, I had not heard of it before.
Environmental Impacts
Man, it took me about two hours just to figure out how to this again. Computers are not my niche. I have always thought that the Indians were great with the land because they worshipped it so much. That may still be the case for a majority of the Indians as far as I know. However, Denevan's article points out that certain things they did, such as the irigation systems, could of led to their downfall without any "help" from the Europeans. Also, we all know that there is a tribe in Brazil that has just been discovered and they have had no previous experience with the modern world. They are a group of people untouched by time. I am curious as to what these people do in cultivating their land. It seems their dwellings are elongated huts. The biggest of these must be for certain ceremonies or rituals because it is the only one that could hold the whole tribe. I think that if we really want to learn more about the natives of the past, we should observe these people because of their centuries of experience doing everything primitive with a high rate of success.
Who does it belong to?
Besides this class, I am also taking "History of the Peoples of Kansas." While we are covering somewhat different issues, some have crossed eachother so far this summer. We also talked briefly about the explorations of the europeans and then went into the Louisiana Purchase and indian removal. We had the issue of whether or not the environment can be possessed this week. I think that this kind of goes along with what we have been studying for this class, with europeans coming in and settling in different parts of American, driving the natives out of their lands and homes. I don't think it is possible to actually own the land. While we have settled and built on much of the land in America, no matter what we do, we cannot control nature and its affects on the environment. For instance, a major climate change caused even successful tribes with extensive irrigation systems to disperse elsewhere. So, while we can buy pieces of land and built what we want on that land, we can never control the changes that can and will come along with the land its environment. I think that this is an interesting and complicated issue because there are so many different ways to look at it. Was it right for the europeans to just come and settle wherever they please and push the native out of their lands? Or were the europeans gaining land that they felt was theirs, just as the natives had centuries earlier?
Pueblo Revolt
I had a chance in a previous class to read several journals of European explorers(including Christopher Columbus) during their first trips to the Americas. One thing that was prevalent with all these first hand accounts was a healthy dose of BS. Keep in mind, these explorers were all funded by kings, and were expected to come back with serious riches. So it was in all their best interests to exaggerate the wonders of the New World, if only for the purpose of getting another expedition banked.
This is why I especially loved the first hand accounts I read about the Pueblo Revolt. For this skirmish I was able to read accounts from both the Spanish and Pueblo points of view. Having both sides of the argument allowed me to gain some perspective over the situation, and it makes the ideas of the Europeans seem all the more naive and frankly, laughable. The Spanish were completely caught off guard by the Pueblo insurrection, wondering how the "savages" could kill "innocent" Spanish colonists. Well, this sounds all right and good until one sees the the Pueblo perspective. The Pueblos told of the Spanish forcing Christianity upon them, by literally making them build churches. They also told of the Spanish raping Pueblo women while then men were away for days on menial missions.
So when both accounts are considered, it is no surprise that Pueblos were legitimately pissed off at their treatment by the Spanish. It's hard to believe the Spanish governor (who wrote the account I read) was so taken aback by what happened, considering the brutality they enforced over the Pueblos. From this perspective, the Spanish look like grade A idiots.
This is why I especially loved the first hand accounts I read about the Pueblo Revolt. For this skirmish I was able to read accounts from both the Spanish and Pueblo points of view. Having both sides of the argument allowed me to gain some perspective over the situation, and it makes the ideas of the Europeans seem all the more naive and frankly, laughable. The Spanish were completely caught off guard by the Pueblo insurrection, wondering how the "savages" could kill "innocent" Spanish colonists. Well, this sounds all right and good until one sees the the Pueblo perspective. The Pueblos told of the Spanish forcing Christianity upon them, by literally making them build churches. They also told of the Spanish raping Pueblo women while then men were away for days on menial missions.
So when both accounts are considered, it is no surprise that Pueblos were legitimately pissed off at their treatment by the Spanish. It's hard to believe the Spanish governor (who wrote the account I read) was so taken aback by what happened, considering the brutality they enforced over the Pueblos. From this perspective, the Spanish look like grade A idiots.
Week 2
I really enjoyed our discussion about the failure of Spanish expeditions. I think that when we study history we see the successes and have a tendency to overlook how long it took them to succeed or the people who didn't succeed at all. With the Spanish invasion into America Ponce de Leon opens contact with the Natives in Florida in 1513, then in 1528 Panfilo de Narvaez and his troops marched through Florida only to be chased back to the coast. Cabeza de Vaca and other survivors lived as slaves with local indians off the shore of Texas. You'd think with no success to this point they would figure out that they'd done something wrong. What was most interesting to me was that ten years later, during DeSoto's expedition, the Spanish still caused problems with the Indians and when DeSoto died he was not buried in the normal fashion, his followers tied him to a log and sank it in the Mississippi so that the Indians wouldn't find it. That to me is almost a stubborn attempt to hide the fact that they were defeated in their conquest without good relations with the natives. It still took another 20 years for the Spanish to found St. Augustine which is really their only success story in expedition in Florida until much later.
I personally would like to learn more about the Cortes and what he was thinking when he saw the vast fields of organized agriculture and the huge pyramid shaped temples. the quote by the foot soldier in the book shows that the soldiers were obviously impressed and even in awe of the Aztec communities and culture. Rose gardens, orchards, causeways, and roadways are some of the things he describes and yet Cortes sees this impressive city of 200,000 people and this advanced civilization he walks up to the guy in charge and says "you are now my hostage." thinking that he was just gonna take charge with his 508 soldiers. I cannot even imagine what would've inflated Cortes' ego to this point. Anyway because the Aztec empire did collapse soon after this we attribute this success to Cortes when there was really more to it than just "super" European soldiers coming in and taking over.
I personally would like to learn more about the Cortes and what he was thinking when he saw the vast fields of organized agriculture and the huge pyramid shaped temples. the quote by the foot soldier in the book shows that the soldiers were obviously impressed and even in awe of the Aztec communities and culture. Rose gardens, orchards, causeways, and roadways are some of the things he describes and yet Cortes sees this impressive city of 200,000 people and this advanced civilization he walks up to the guy in charge and says "you are now my hostage." thinking that he was just gonna take charge with his 508 soldiers. I cannot even imagine what would've inflated Cortes' ego to this point. Anyway because the Aztec empire did collapse soon after this we attribute this success to Cortes when there was really more to it than just "super" European soldiers coming in and taking over.
European struggle
Jacob Thibodeau
As we were talking about the colonization of North America by the Europeans I was a little surprised to find out how much they struggled and how persistent they were in trying to colonize the New World. I guess I always knew that it wasn’t easy for them to some extent, but I thought that they came and pretty much that signified the end of the Native Peoples. It seems like they were determined to colonize even if it was to the detriment to their own specific countries from which they came. In addition, I guess I learned that they were trying to colonize in an attempt to gain control of the land before their rivals had a chance to do so. This is probably what led them to continue to attempt colonization even though it was a losing venture at first. This makes me wonder how things would have turned out had they not been so persistent. I think this would have discouraged people from coming later that were seeking an escape from religious oppression in Europe. However, I think this is out of the question, because the country’s that were colonizing had to continue to make it work in order to try and stop their rivals from gaining an advantage. Finally, I think that their determination shows the lengths they would go to make sure that this didn’t happen, including spending large amounts of money that had no chance of being recouped.
As we were talking about the colonization of North America by the Europeans I was a little surprised to find out how much they struggled and how persistent they were in trying to colonize the New World. I guess I always knew that it wasn’t easy for them to some extent, but I thought that they came and pretty much that signified the end of the Native Peoples. It seems like they were determined to colonize even if it was to the detriment to their own specific countries from which they came. In addition, I guess I learned that they were trying to colonize in an attempt to gain control of the land before their rivals had a chance to do so. This is probably what led them to continue to attempt colonization even though it was a losing venture at first. This makes me wonder how things would have turned out had they not been so persistent. I think this would have discouraged people from coming later that were seeking an escape from religious oppression in Europe. However, I think this is out of the question, because the country’s that were colonizing had to continue to make it work in order to try and stop their rivals from gaining an advantage. Finally, I think that their determination shows the lengths they would go to make sure that this didn’t happen, including spending large amounts of money that had no chance of being recouped.
They're not.......all bad, right?
At what point does Religon become weapon?
There's a book out by Richard Dawkins called "The God Delusion". In this book he seeks to justify that God is not only a myth, but is such a strong myth that it actually hurts people and thus graduates to being a delusion. I'm not saying I necessarily justify anything in this book (Richard Dawkins is known to be the new Charles Darwin), but he does make one point that I do find particularly interesting. He thinks that children being forced to go to church is a form of child abuse or cruelty.
My parents made me go to church every sunday until I graduated high school. It provided some good, it connected me with people in the community, it helped me to respect my elders more, I established a relationship with God. The only problem was it was so boring! Good Lord, I hated going to church. I had no friends in my sunday school class, and being forced to sit through a sermon was worse than having my heart ripped out by that guy in Indiana Jones. As you can imagine, since I was 18, I've only gone back to church a handful of times. I can tolerate it a little more now since I'm older. The worse part was that during my sophomore year of college I went through a very trying and very painful search into what my spiritual beliefs are. I'm still going through it so unfortunately I have no conclusion, but I can tell you that Jesus Christ is not part of it. But I can tell you that I definately believe there is a difference between church and religion, big time.
So, why then, did the Europeans feel this need to Christianize the indians. During this time period in Europe, many of the governments were sanctioned around the church. And I can only assume that for one to go to heaven, one must accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. So I take it that Europeans wanted to save the Indians so that they would go to heaven. Well, that's good! Isn't it? Isn't it!?
As we know, this wound up being unsuccessful. Missionaries failed, Indians reverted back to their old religions. I think that what I find most intriguing is that even though Europeans saw these people as savages and saw fit to enslave them, rape them, or cut off their nose; there were others who saw the potential in "saving" them. I wonder if Richard Dawkins would see this as cruel. I'm guessing he probably would.
There's a book out by Richard Dawkins called "The God Delusion". In this book he seeks to justify that God is not only a myth, but is such a strong myth that it actually hurts people and thus graduates to being a delusion. I'm not saying I necessarily justify anything in this book (Richard Dawkins is known to be the new Charles Darwin), but he does make one point that I do find particularly interesting. He thinks that children being forced to go to church is a form of child abuse or cruelty.
My parents made me go to church every sunday until I graduated high school. It provided some good, it connected me with people in the community, it helped me to respect my elders more, I established a relationship with God. The only problem was it was so boring! Good Lord, I hated going to church. I had no friends in my sunday school class, and being forced to sit through a sermon was worse than having my heart ripped out by that guy in Indiana Jones. As you can imagine, since I was 18, I've only gone back to church a handful of times. I can tolerate it a little more now since I'm older. The worse part was that during my sophomore year of college I went through a very trying and very painful search into what my spiritual beliefs are. I'm still going through it so unfortunately I have no conclusion, but I can tell you that Jesus Christ is not part of it. But I can tell you that I definately believe there is a difference between church and religion, big time.
So, why then, did the Europeans feel this need to Christianize the indians. During this time period in Europe, many of the governments were sanctioned around the church. And I can only assume that for one to go to heaven, one must accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. So I take it that Europeans wanted to save the Indians so that they would go to heaven. Well, that's good! Isn't it? Isn't it!?
As we know, this wound up being unsuccessful. Missionaries failed, Indians reverted back to their old religions. I think that what I find most intriguing is that even though Europeans saw these people as savages and saw fit to enslave them, rape them, or cut off their nose; there were others who saw the potential in "saving" them. I wonder if Richard Dawkins would see this as cruel. I'm guessing he probably would.
article reviews
I enjoyed the article reviews that we did in class on thursday. I found them to be very informative and stimulating. I especially liked the one about human sacrifice within the Aztec civilization. Up until now, the only real exposure i have had to this was through a mel gibson movie (Apocolypto). I then realized that mel gibson is wacko and i probably should not try too hard to gain historical knowledge from his films, as he often times exhibits a strong bias. In this case, he seemed to depict the Aztecs as savages who could not stop killing each other. But the sacrifice scenes were pretty cool. If thier is one thing that Mel Gibson knows how to do it is gratuitous violence, and also embarass himself too.
Europeans are crazy
The fun fact that I learned this week was that apparently the European explorers that came over to the Americas must have had some major deficiencies in people skills. In every case, the Spanish, French, and English, these explorers were going deep into Indian territory and for some reason thought I would be ok to capture, kill, rape and enslave some of the Natives that they met. Seriously, what were they thinking?! How in the world did they think that by doing this they would be forming good relations with the groups they encountered? It seems that most of these tribes had no problems trading with the Europeans. If that was the case, why didn’t the explorers trade for labor instead of enslaving Indians?
The other interesting thing was that from the very beginning the different European nations were trying to gain an advantage over the others through the Natives. For example, the French trying to blame smallpox on the English in an attempt to increase their own trade. I knew that later on these both sides would use the different Indian groups as allies in the French and Indian War, but it appears that they got the conflict started much earlier.
The other interesting thing was that from the very beginning the different European nations were trying to gain an advantage over the others through the Natives. For example, the French trying to blame smallpox on the English in an attempt to increase their own trade. I knew that later on these both sides would use the different Indian groups as allies in the French and Indian War, but it appears that they got the conflict started much earlier.
Environmental Impacts
Being an environmental studies major, this week seemed to be the most influential in providing details about the early environment and how it was impacted by native peoples. William M. Denevan's article about early environmental impacts had many facts which I had previously not known. I couldn't believe that some fifty-three million people had been situated across the Americas and even more to my surprise was the fact that nearly all tribes lost over ninety percent of their populations amongst the European arrival. Mass extinctions of this magnitude are hard to believe and it must say something about how diseases will always find ways to complicate situations. Prior to taking this class I had a very narrow viewpoint on how the natives could have changed the land, mainly because I didn't know just exactly how many people there were but also because the natives were extremely well informed on agricultural techniques and were quite effective at clearing the land. This brought up the point in Denevan's article where upon exploration of Panama, Ferdinand recorded heavily populated coastlines in 1502 and when the same coastlines where seen again later in 1681, a significant changed had occurred in the vegetation around the area. I found this most interesting and really points out the environmental aspect of secondary succession which probably took place after the outbreaks of disease and decline in native populations. For only having a small amount of knowledge over the environmental impacts of natives, this week has shown me that like our current day problems with the environment, natives most likely knew and went through very similar problems.
Small Pox
I thought Paul Kelton's article about the small pox epidemic and the Native response to it was fascinating. The 4 Nations did not stop the disease however they decreased its extent using quarantine and natural medicine. The methods not only slowed population decline but in a 45 year period between 1745 and 1790 population increased by 10,000. Native American disease prevention methods slowed the spread of disease better than any European methods, which demonstrates Native Americans were not "savages" who needed to be civilized. If anything the Europeans could have learned from Native Americans about preventing spread of disease instead of using their dangerous medical practices.
Previously, I believed that the small pox epidemic spread through the Americas and Natives had no means to prevent the spread. After the first two weeks of class I've realized how skewed my view of Native American history is and the Kelton article is just another example of my views being aligned with the "European story" of Native American history.
"Conquer"
Since this class really focuses on the meaning of words, I've been thinking about the word conquer and how the Natives would have felt about the use of that word. According to Webster, the definition of conquer is: 1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms 2 : to overcome by force of arms 3 : to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition 4 : to overcome by mental or moral power. In terms of the Europeans "conquering" Natives; I think that the first definition is the only some-what accurate because the Europeans did gain certain things through force of arms. Mostly they gained land, trading power, and some slaves.
Some may disagree, but I think that the other definitions are inaccurate. The Europeans never "mastered" the Natives, even when they were successful in converting them. One could argue that they "overcame them by mental or moral power" through conversion, but I think that implies the Natives had no choice in the matter, when we know that some Natives thought that perhaps these new people were religiously superior since they weren't dying off from disease as quickly. This goes back to the discussion about "conquer" and disease being dependent upon each other- it really would have been impossible to conquer (in any definition of the word) without the presence of deadly diseases.
Some may disagree, but I think that the other definitions are inaccurate. The Europeans never "mastered" the Natives, even when they were successful in converting them. One could argue that they "overcame them by mental or moral power" through conversion, but I think that implies the Natives had no choice in the matter, when we know that some Natives thought that perhaps these new people were religiously superior since they weren't dying off from disease as quickly. This goes back to the discussion about "conquer" and disease being dependent upon each other- it really would have been impossible to conquer (in any definition of the word) without the presence of deadly diseases.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Spanish
The thoughts about the Spanish and the fact that they never did get a good foothold in Florida or that it took them a while to get this foothold is never really thought about is really amazing. I was talking to a friend of mine after we discussed this and he said that he was pretty sure that the Spanish easily set up a colony in Florida. Once I got to talking to him more though he just did not realize that there was more to the story.
Another really impressive thing to me is that the Aztecs, while they fell to the Spanish, did so with the help of their long standing enemies that the Spanish got to help them. The story is usually told that the Spanish show up and just kill off everyone around the Aztecs. The fact that the Spanish had to get the help of native people to go and conquer them is never talked about nor is it even really considered in normal history classes.
Another really impressive thing to me is that the Aztecs, while they fell to the Spanish, did so with the help of their long standing enemies that the Spanish got to help them. The story is usually told that the Spanish show up and just kill off everyone around the Aztecs. The fact that the Spanish had to get the help of native people to go and conquer them is never talked about nor is it even really considered in normal history classes.
Random Questions...
When discussing the Aztecs and how Cortez was able to conquer them with the help of other Mesoamerican tribes that were the Aztecs enemies, I was thinking to myself that I thought I remembered learning that Cortez conquered them using the previously mentioned tactic, but also using others. I took a class on Latin American History and I was taught that Cortez was able to infiltrate the Aztecs because they thought he was a God. Once taken to the Aztec King, Cortez ended up taking him hostage. I forgot what happened after that but I remembered that was emphasized as a huge factor in his success of taking over the Aztecs. I was wondering if anyone has any clue what I am talking about because I am not sure if I am even talking about the same civilization.
Another question I have due to my poor memory is in regard to the "fountain or youth." Wasn't this something that the Spanish was looking for when they came to the America's. It seemed to me that this was quite important and it wasn't mentioned in class so once again I was wondering if I am losing it or if the "fountain of youth" was something that attracted the Spanish, or anyone for that matter, to the America's.
One other quick question I had was over kinship economy. I know that this was a collaboration between Europeans and Native American's but how is that related to kinship? My impression of kinship is the blood ties between two or more people or groups. Is this wrong? Is the economical aspect the trading that was done between the two sides? Very confused, so any help would be great.
Another question I have due to my poor memory is in regard to the "fountain or youth." Wasn't this something that the Spanish was looking for when they came to the America's. It seemed to me that this was quite important and it wasn't mentioned in class so once again I was wondering if I am losing it or if the "fountain of youth" was something that attracted the Spanish, or anyone for that matter, to the America's.
One other quick question I had was over kinship economy. I know that this was a collaboration between Europeans and Native American's but how is that related to kinship? My impression of kinship is the blood ties between two or more people or groups. Is this wrong? Is the economical aspect the trading that was done between the two sides? Very confused, so any help would be great.
European explorers
Even though it has been a while since I was in grades k-12, I don't remember hearing the word "failure" describe Spanish and other European explorers. But it seems that's basically what happened. But the Europeans wanted gold, territory and superiority over another country and peoples so badly, that they didn't recognize it as such. Explorers and their party would die from starvation, conditions and disease, and the countries would just send someone else. If the first explorer didn't accomplish anything, and the natives would refuse to help them, I would call it a failure. But the Europeans would just send someone else.
I also thought about the Spanish and their attempt at converting the native peoples to Christianity, by having them agree to a form, and if they didn't, then they would be considered enemies. I thought it was pompous of the Europeans to think that everyone spoke their language or understood religion and God. And it never occurred to them that the native peoples thought the same thing. But things haven't changed much, since some countries and parties think they know more than others, and think they should be in control because they are superior.
I also thought it was interesting about the "one drop rule" and Pocahontas. Her descendants had to make her an "Indian Princess" to make it okay to have Indian blood. And eventually, some of them probably wanted to be related to her, with the stories which circulated since the 1620's.
I also thought about the Spanish and their attempt at converting the native peoples to Christianity, by having them agree to a form, and if they didn't, then they would be considered enemies. I thought it was pompous of the Europeans to think that everyone spoke their language or understood religion and God. And it never occurred to them that the native peoples thought the same thing. But things haven't changed much, since some countries and parties think they know more than others, and think they should be in control because they are superior.
I also thought it was interesting about the "one drop rule" and Pocahontas. Her descendants had to make her an "Indian Princess" to make it okay to have Indian blood. And eventually, some of them probably wanted to be related to her, with the stories which circulated since the 1620's.
Cartier's Expedition
This week was full of important infomation that I was not previously exposed to. I noticed most of the Indian names of their tribes and what not but never knew any great detail about them individualy. Upon hearing of Cartier's expedition and the many outbreaks of disease that ravaged the native populations. An important point I thought brought up was the fact that natives would use the Europeans, just like the Europeans would use the natives, telling them that gold and other treasures that couldn't be found where they are could be found where their enemies lived. I also found it interesting that the French had such a difficult time there in establishing a community and a colony. Due to disease and overall failure to christianize the native populations. In fact, the natives who did christianize was mostly out of respect for these foreign travelers who had brought with them great technological advancements with them such as metal objects and most importantly guns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)