Indo-european relations

An interesting part of the discussion this week i thought was the details about all of the different conflicts between not only whites and indians, but also between indians and other tribes. I especially liked discussing the mini wars that were fought during the 18th century. King Phillips war was very interesting. It showed to me just how much influence some indian leaders had. I think this influence came from the fact that whether colonists liked it or not, they were pretty much in a foriegn land and they had to develop some sort of relations with the Indians in order to ensure thier survival. A good example of this can be in the article that i read about french settlers in the lower mississippi valley. Since they found themselves for the most part isolated from thier country, they had to cooperate with the indians to ensure thier survival. This proves that though conflicts were numerous, sometimes indians and europeans had a mutually helpful relationship. For a little while at least.

A womens world..

The Gender roles that Tai brought up were interesting. Men and women were pretty much separated through out the days' chores. I did not really know that the Women were the ones doing most of the trading. There was a few things that I might have commented about. The term "squaw", in my tribe, the Winnebago's to this day do not like this term. Reasoning is because it means ...the private part of a womens body (genatial). I would use caution when using this word. Another word that we can add to the "list".
Also about a "menstruation" of a women. Another reason why they had to be separated from the tribe at the time is because, like Tai was saying that if the women came in contact with anything that she could take the object or person's power away. Especially a medicine man power and his instruments.

Woody Holton's "Forced Founders"

I would like to add a bit to the discussion that we had concerning the Proclamation of 1763 and land speculation. For another history class here at KU, I read an excellent book about Virginians and the causes of the American Revolution written by Woody Holton and entitled "Forced Founders". Holton points out that the that Great War for Empire nearly doubled Great Britain’s debt, and as a result Great Britain was fearful of an Indian uprising that could potentially lead to another costly war if the colonists continued to move further west. Many times, land speculators put land grants down as collateral and also used land grants as a form of payment. Needless to say, these land speculators were greatly upset with the Proclamation of 1763 that nullified these land grants.
From this, I would argue that the colonists were intent on moving farther west because a lot of wealthy men (George Washington for one) were deeply involved in these lands. And as we have seen, the British and the Natives had a shaky history including fraud and war. Instead of carrying out another war against the Natives, Virginia colonists turned against the British with land speculation being a major reason.
And as I (actually Holton) mentioned early, the British were in major debt after the Great War for Empire, and combined with the violent history between Natives and the British, it is my belief that the Proclamation of 1763 was not a treaty with the Natives but rather it was created for financial reasons.

Frontier Exchange

Cooper's presentation this Thursday over the French settlements developed in the lower Mississippi Valley has made me rethink my definition of a successful colony. As discussed in class, the French never really established their own subsistence farming infrastructure until late in the eighteenth century, forcing trade and cooperation with the local community for basic survival items. It strikes me as ironic that English colonies such as Jamestown and the Puritan settlements in New England are considered successes mearly because they discovered the best way to dominate and marginalize the native peoples and exploit the natural resources of their surroundings. Why should we consider the French unsuccessful because they discovered specialization a hundred years before the industrial revolution? If the natives are good at farming, let them farm and let the French trade and hunt pelts. Jamestown almost didn't make it because their residents couldn't figure out how to survive off the land. If the Mississippi Valley colonies understood their own weaknesses and specialized in what they were better at, I say good for them. And as we learned Thursday, it turned out better for everyone; natives, runaway slaves and colonists.

Greedy Colonists

When I have read stories concerning how tribes such as the Choctaws were constantly giving up huge sections of land for peace, trade, etc. and that the colonists were still unable to stay off their land, it is rather infuriating. These people come over here and just start taking what does not belong to them and wonder why Native Americans are attacking settlements and becoming angry. They are being pushed off of their land for the benefit of land speculators and colonists that were given boundaries and chose to ignore them for their own selfish desires. This brings up a good question I began to think about.
Some claim that the study of history is extremely important because it is through the study of where we have been and what others have done that we can learn from past mistakes. This statement has not held true in the light of recent examples of genocide but what have we learned from studying what has happened to Native Americans and would we do it all over again if given the chance? For example, if a ground-breaking discovery in the future were to uncover people living in an as-yet-unknown but inhabitable environment, would we start sending people there and begin claiming parts of it for ourselves, most likely in the name of science and expansion? I have to say that I think we would and that makes me sad to think that we may not have learned anything from the mistakes of the past. Anything that we are willing to implement, anyway.

French Panzies

I loved how the French are shown to be complete wusses again. It seems to be a constant thing, minus the whole Napoleon era, he must be the exception that proves the rule. Good ol' George Washington, the Father of the greatest nation in the world, definitly took up the challenge and defeated the French. Jumonville definitly got it handed to him. The blockade definitly helped the redcoats defeat the French by cutting off supply lines and reenforcements. Braddock did not seem to be much help either. Somehow being a 35 year war veteran really does not help you in the new world. Anyways, it adds to Washington's credit. Well I am going to go eat my Freedom Fries, see you all on Monday.

Negatives

This class has been particularly difficult for me because I tend against dwelling upon all that is negative. For this reason, I have been trying to develop a list of positive contributions on behalf of the Europeans to Native Societies, but the task is daunting to say the least. It is more than just a shame that Europeans inflicted violence, disease, theft, and many other negatives upon Natives, these facts are impossible to look past. Perhaps trading could have been a positive contribution of the Europeans, but even in trade, the English particularly shortchanged the Natives, as we learned this week.

It is interesting to think about what could have been, that is, if the violence, disease, and theft had not been perpetrated. Perhaps the Europeans could have resided peacefully with the Natives, in a setting that could have enriched peoples from each group both culturally and financially.

Pelt Trading

I found it very cool how much trade was going on between the Europeans and the Native Americans. I had no idea that the trade relations with the French were so superior than the English trade and relations with the Indians. I firmly believe if the British were not so interested in gaining land, and taking over North America we would all be speaking French.
The presentation about the French and the Natives in Louisiana was very interesting in that it was considered a failure, yet it was very successful in terms of people living together and surviving thorugh interaction. It is also interesting to see that when the fur trade started to fall apart, that is when the domination of the foreign powers started to take place.

Gender!

I thought Monday's lecture on native gender roles was really interesting. I think gender is really important in that roles differ not only across cultures, but within them- especially in terms of women and homosexuality or cross gender. I especially found myself trying to imagine a strong group of women who are used to hard labor, raising children, and having extreme sexual freedom react to the patriarchal (dare I say archaic) Europeans and their thoughts on the role of women.

I just imagine how I would react if a group of smelly, infested men came up to me and tried to tell me what I could and could not do. Especially if they told me I was basically worthless without a male figure in my life. This is probably coming across as extremely feminist, which is not my meaning, but the more lectures I hear, the more disgusted I become about how our "free" nation was "founded".

G Dub

When thinking back to this past week, the one thing that I thought was most intriguing was when we talked about George Washington. Growing up I had tons of books on the Presidents of the United States (not very informative but lots of pictures!) and George Washington has always been my favorite President since we studied all of the Presidents in 1st grade. The only things that I remember about him from any previous history course, both in high school and college, was when we talked about him crossing the Delaware River to fight in the Battle of Trenton. I knew of his success in the Revolutionary War, but I had not heard about anything in regard to how he built his rank up to General. To find out that he was not successful in his conflict with the French was depressing to hear, especially his attack on Fort Pitt.
Something else that I found interesting was the conflict between the French and British on what would soon be the United States soil. To be honest, I have no recollection of these conflicts that would eventually lead to the French and Indian war. The conflicts, which typically involved the British and allied Native Americans attempting to take over French Forts while other Indians allied with the French in resistance, was something that I found quite interesting. The Native Americans who would join forces with either the British, French, or both depending on what Battle, was something that I had not heard of before either. I was surprised with how smart the Indians were and how they played both sides.

British Colonists=Cheapskates

I thought it was hilarious yesterday(or the day before, maybe???) when we discussed why many Native Americans chose to trade with the French instead of the English. When Tai said that many tribes chose the French because the English had crappy goods, I almost lost it. The best part was that the British would water down their liquor before selling it to the Indians. That is pathetic as hell! I can imagine the English sitting around waiting for their trade partners to show up, deciding to have one drink and ending up completely slammed, telling dirty jokes and singing lullabies before realizing that the bottle is 3/4 empty. Those crazy Brits...

Europeans were big meanies

It is somewhat amazing to me that the British were able to come out of the French and Indian War victorious after what I learned in class this week. They definitely did not start out with much in their favor, especially after losing the native allies they had at first. With knowledge of the natives in that region and the trading relations they had with the French, surely the British would think that the key to success was gaining more native allies for their side. Instead, they decided they didn't need native allies?!? Another aspect that I obviously knew little about was how far back indian removal really dates. When I think of indian removal, I think of the Trail of Tears and other events going on in the 1800's. Sure, europeans had been invading native territory for years before that, but they were also already taking land away. It seems to me, the europeans were a bunch of selfish, greedy, land hungry people out to better their ownings and wealth. When I though the sole purpose of the Revolutionary War was for the colonists to gain independence from their British leaders, they were already using that time to move over the boundaries and into territory that was supposed to belong only to the Natives. Looking past treaties and boundaries was something that was going on from pretty much when the first treaty between europeans and natives was every made.

Seven Year's War

I though it was interesting to hear about the Seven Year's War that we also call the French-Indian War this week. I found the contrasting styles used by the French and British to be of particular interest. It seems that when the war began the French were more willing to employ the use of Indian allies in fighting the British, and were successful even though they had less troops than the British, because of their Indian allies. When the British first sent troops under the command of Braddock, they refused to work with the Indians and were slaughtered by the French and their Indian allies. Once the British finally switched stragies and formed relationships with some of the Indians they were able to defeat the French.
I wonder how different post-Seven Year's War and even post-Revolutionary War America would have looked had the British continued to build relationships with the Indians instead of abandoning the practice after the Seven Year's War concluded.

King Philip's War

The most interesting topic of the week for me was King Philip's War. I had never heard of this conflict before this class and its ap retty big deal as the bloodiest conflict in American History. I was surprised to read and hear about the violent reactions of the Wampanoags, rather than defending the area they were living in it seems they moved to where the Europeans were already settled and attacked them there. It seems that it would have been a better idea to use force against the people who were coming into their territory rather than burning towns and homes. Of course they did attack militia first and probably were left with no choice since the settlements continued to pop up on the land that used to be their homes.
Another thing I was surprised by was the brutality of the Europeans. Imprisoning and killing people for "trespassing" is extreme. Not to mention turning against the Christian Indians in the praying towns (who ended up being attacked by both warring parties). In the book where it describes the end of the war it talks about how Captain Turner attacked an encampment where native families were gathered and killed hundreds of people. Then Captain Church took Metacomet's family captive and sold them as slaves. Attacking women and children is never justified to me and I'm sure "King Philip's" 9 year old son didn't pose a large threat to the European military at this time. Then they caught up with Metacomet, as he was running away he was shot, decapitated, then his corpse was quartered. This death is extremely brutal and it didn't even end the fighting. It seems odd that the Europeans labeled the Natives as savage when the brutality seemed to be two-sided.

French Trade

My big question for this week has to do with the French and their Frontier trading. One of the presentations yesterday talked about how the French used this type of trading down in Louisiana and how overall it was pretty successful. What I am wondering is how the form of trade the French were doing up in Canada was different-- or if it was different-- than down south? It sounds like it was the same thing. The majority of the French trade with the Indians in Canada was for supplies like beaver pelts. Down south they were trading for deer skins and food. I guess there was more trade for profit in Canada, but it did not sound like the French were doing much farming either. So I would appreciate if someone could clear all this up for me.
Also, I would like to know if this Frontier trading the same or similar to what European explorers, and later the mountain men, were doing with the Indians in the Plains and the Rockies. I know that there were a lot of trappers, mainly French, that went west along the rivers into Nebraska, Montana, Colorado trading for pelts and hides. Does this fall into the same category and in Louisiana?

Different Outcome?

Jake Thibodeau

As we were talking about the wars, I couldn’t help but feel that it was somewhat of a miracle that the Europeans (England and France) were able to defeat the Native Populations. It seems they underestimated the Natives ability to fight and overestimated their ability to wipe out the Indians. The examples that Tai gave of the fort that the natives took over during a ball game because the French came out to watch and how General Braddock bumbled his way through the country without Indian allies, illustrates how inept they were at fighting the natives. I feel that if the Native people would have been more unified they would have easily defeated the Europeans. They had the knowledge of the land and they did not fight in the manner that the Europeans did. The Europeans fought in a very ritualistic manner where each side lined up and faced each other, which caused large amount of casualties. In contrast, the Natives used what were considered guerilla tactics. These were by far more effective. However, the Europeans were able to win because they had more people and resources and they were fighting smaller tribes of Indians, instead of a large unified force. By the time the Indians realized that they needed to be unified, it was too late. Their numbers were reduced through years of war and disease and even worse, there were now many more colonists that were willing to fight against them. I guess for me, I think if the Indians had had the foresight to unify early on in the war, they might have been able to thwart the colonists, but that might be a little unrealistic for anyone to see that far ahead.

Captivity

Like our other classmates, I also found the idea of captives quite interesting. Initially I assumed that if Indians or colonists took captives it was for political or trading purposes. Sort of as blackmail. I was shocked to learn that Indians often used European captives as either replacements of family members or friends who died, or to sacrifice them in mourning of those they lost.
I wish the book had expanded on this, because I think it's a facsinating concept. How did the natives decide which captives would be the "replacements" and which would be killed? The book explained that women and children were often saved and the men and elderly captives would be tortured and eventually killed. Once again, the natives' spirituality comes into play, because killing captives or keeping them to replace loved ones was a way for the natives to come to peace with their losses.
My biggest question regarding the idea of captives is how much was this a result of European colonization? Did natives take captives before Europeans came? In class we've talked about tension and dislike that has always existed among tribes, but I wonder if the number of captives taken by natives increased when Europeans arrived and brought disease and violence.

Gender Roles

I thought the lecture about gender roles in Native society was very insightful. The European idea of "squaw drudges" was completely discounted. Women played an incredibly important role in Native society, from work to the raising of children. Men had little knowledge about what went on in the realm of women, whether it was the tanning of hides, creating of homes, cooking, gathering or any other type of work. I thought it was interesting how the Cherokee secluded women into menstrual huts because of the blood and supernatural power that comes from it. 

Europeans had misconceptions about the role of women because the practices viewed as most important, protecting and providing were the role of men. I also think they had misconceptions about the role of women is because they were all men. I know I have no idea about what women are doing and I like to think our society is more enlightened that the European explorers and the Natives. It is impossible to know anything about Native women without accounts from the women because the Native men were clueless and the Europeans viewed women in a manner similar to how they viewed women in Europe. 

Puritans

I was very amazed at the way the Puritans treated the Indians. I had no previous knowledge of this and if I were asked whether I thought some missionaries or people of God were violent to natives I would have surely disagreed. I found it ironic that the Puritans wouldn't participate in kinship activities with their native neighbors. I mean they are trying to convert these people into "civilized" human beings and they are just being so damn stubborn. In fact, they only start participating in these activities when they find that their food supplies are down because they aren't used top the farming agriculture or the climate in North America.
King Phillips War was also another topic of interest this week for me. I was amazed how much destruction the Native peoples did to Engligh colonists. I mean the English were some greedy bastards, constantly expanding from Massachusetts to Rhode Island. I mean the English didn't do to many things correct. The natives responded by killing and burning english settlements and the English respond by killing their own allies in the process. Resulting in incredible destruction to English colonies. However, they were able to outlast the natives .

Historical Research

I was originally going to write a post on the Middle Ground since I'm pretty sure we're going to have a write a midterm essay on it. As I thought about it though, I realized I didn't have much insightful information to add. The goal here is to join the ranks of the elite bloggers who attain 6 or 7 even 9 comments, right? So instead I'm going to digress from the current events we are talking about in class and question certain methods of historical research.
I once had a teacher who was teaching me about the Civil War. He told us that if we ever wanted to do research on the Civil War that it didn't matter how old a book was because history had been set at a certain moment in time. And any book written after the event is going to be just as accurate as any other. Which, at the time, made perfect sense. But lately I've been hearing that history books can be outdated. In fact, it seems that any book written before 1983 is officially outdated. It makes sense in the fact that new information can come to light, but it also confuses me because (especially with the Indians) some of this stuff happened over 400 years ago. Can history really just change like this? Can one tiny little piece of evidence change our entire view of how things happened or how people lived? Maybe all it takes is a historian thinking outside of the box. "Whoa, wait a second. What if, stay with me here, what if the grievances on King George weren't the only reason for the Revolution?" Dude, I think you might be on to something. I find it interesting, and slightly humorous, that history can become outdated.
My second question is about artifacts. It seems that in historical research that everything is taken at face value. And things are taken quite literally. For example, most everything I write is complete BS. I'm usually just trying to be funny. I may convey information in an email or something, but I usually add a humorous spin on it. And a lot of the times I just make things up. Or me and my friends think on the same level. So I could quote Family Guy or tell people that I pulled a Nick, and they'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Now this may have already be considered, but in historical evidence, specifically letters, I wonder if it's considered that someone may be using their own brand of humor that we are currently unfamiliar with and therefore, some things are taken to be fact when they are actually lost in updatification. I have the same problem when I watch CSI. I also have this nightmare that some time in the future after the humans are extinct, that the apes that rule the planet will watch a movie like Gremlins and think that this is a documentary about how the humans died off.

Captives!

One of the factors of Indian-European relations that I found quite interesting, and also quite revealing of the differences that existed on each side, was how each treated captives. The section on the book described typical fates of captives on both sides. Indian who were taken as captive were immediately regarded as slaves and used for labor on southern plantations or those in the Caribbeans. While it would be incorrect to state that Indian's treated all captives as kin, a women who could not keep up because of a recent child birth was tomahawked on the trek back after being taken captive, it is accurate to state that on the whole Indian's did treat their captives with much more respect. Many of the captives were adopted into the Indian tribes to replace deceased tribe members, and were therefore considered kin. Additionally, upon liberation, many captives displayed reluctance or outright refusal to leave the tribe. Obviously, Native American's had a differing idea of what being a captive meant than the Europeans. Indians often raided other tribes for slaves to sell to the Europeans. This makes me curious if the captors understood the fate of these slaves, and the treatment they would be subjected to.
While I didn't have any specific questions from this chapter, I did observe that this chapter made much heavier use of quotations from Native American leaders of the time. This is a stark change from previous chapters, which were dominated by Europeans. I was unsure why Native Americans would become more well documented during this time, but I suppose it could be due to an increase in their proximity to Europeans, and the fact that some Indians are attending western schools. I just found this interesting.

I always knew there many different tribes and groups of Native Americans in North America when the Europeans arrived. I was only taught about the ones who "impacted" exploration of North America, and the Plains Indians. But I am still amazed when Tai shows us a map where the different Indian tribes were located, and it seems there are so many. Then we hear about how tribes were forced to move westward due to European colonization, and many of the tribes seemed to adapt to their new homes. The Indians were a smart and industrious people who were viewed as ignorant by the Europeans because they were different.
And then Tai told us about the cross gender and the tribes seemed to embrace this person who was different and accepted them for who they were. Women were also viewed to have power by some tribes because of childbirth. Men and women all had functions within the tribe and if one function didn't do it's job, then everyone suffered. It was a group effort.
Maybe if the Europeans would have looked at the tribes and their treatment of each other and learned from it, then perhaps we would have greatly different views of society today, and be more accepting of each other and our differences.

War and Culture

From gender roles to military alliances, there were many topics in class this week that I had no idea about. First off it was exciting to learn that Native women had a substantial amount of power within their communities. I didn't know much about Native women's lifestyle even less that they were the center for their families by controlling agriculture, building shelters, and taking care of kids. I think that this really shows how advanced and complex Native culture was because of the fact that most other cultures of the time showed less respect and gave less responsibilities to women which really hurt their image among these western cultures. Learning about the different aspects of that went into the lives of men and women was also another interesting note. Both genders had different roles to fill but when completed worked out to benefit the whole which was quite fascinating.
The relations that came about during times of war between Natives and Europeans was almost new information. I had my ideas and a little knowledge about the Seven Years War, but nothing more than who was involved and where it happened. I found it really interesting that alliances switched often between the British and the French and that the only real important thing for the ideals was to isolate themselves in the middle ground. I was surprised by the amount of wars that took place mostly because its the kind of information that seems to be left out of most accounts of early American history.

Cherokee Women

One of the things that I found relieving in this week of class was that women were actually seen as something more important. In the western world, women have always been seen as a lesser thing and as something unclean. I do not know why it is that the women are seen this way. But underneath Cherokee religious views, women are given power. The Cherokee gave women, because of the monthly cycle, power. They also understood that when a woman does start her period, it meant that she could give birth and could continue the tribe.
Also equally important, Native Americans allowed for cross gendering. This is something that i find interesting because some guys are just meant to some womanly things. I find nothing wrong with this and to find a society that embraced it and did not have an unclean stigma around it is very revealing about how much their religion and their society is somewhat more advanced than their counterparts in Europe.