natives – U.S. to 1877

November 4, 2013

You Can’t Take It With You

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

I found Wolfe’s article intriguing but not entirely convincing. I did not necessarily agree with his assessment of native lands as their lives. While an integral part of where a person comes from is where they are from, this does not die with removal. Rather, when a person or group of people leaves their home, they take that with them. The Native Americans that were removed from their land were not stripped of their heritage. They were robbed of the land that they grew up on, the land that raised them, but not of the heritage that was their tribe. The natives, at this point in history, would not grow up, go off to college, and then go get a job. However, that is the twenty first century lens with which I glance at this. We, in today’s culture, move around a lot. From college to jobs to traveling, we are constantly on the move. While this was not the case for them, my perspective says that you are how you were raised and you take that with you no matter where you go.

NAKINDIG mentions in his blog post that Wolfe “explains how the views of the Europeans towards the American Indians included a nomadic, landless view of the native peoples.” My belief may stem from that belief. While it is true that some natives were nomadic, the vast majority was not and settled in specific locations based on their needs. While I do not agree with the Indian removals of years past, I do not see the argument for a cultural loss. Slaves were brought in from Africa, and while they did not necessarily flaunt their African culture to their owners, it was definitely present. Eastman Johnson’s painting, My Old Kentucky Home or Negro Life at the South, shows this African culture hidden behind the walls of the slave quarters. To that same end, the natives had a culture that whether enslaved or moved or not, should have been able to continue on.

While I disagree with Wolfe on movement, I appreciate his distinction between genocide and a disruption and thieving of lands. While a vast number of natives were killed as a direct product of Europeans weapons, diseases, etc. A good number were indirectly killed by a forced relocation of sorts. This was not an intentional annihilation, but rather an opening up of the frontier will consequences that went south. I am in no way defending the Indian removal, but I do see in a difference in genocide and an indirect annihilation.

October 2, 2013

Short end of the stick

A reoccurring theme in American history is the poor treatment of the natives. I found this last chapter of American Colonies to be really interesting because I had never known of the Russian involvement in the continent or the Spanish taking of California. However, the Indians were cruelly treated and forced out of the land that was rightfully theirs, just as the Spanish and English had done on the east coast.

To begin Taylor goes into the Russians and their takeover in Siberia and Alaska. The Russians may have been the most ruthless of all ethnic groups as they forced the natives to provide them with furs in order to make a profit. The Russians didn’t use trade as they easily could have. Instead they chose the route of holding woman and children at gunpoint and coercing the Aleut men to bring furs back as ransom (451). Obviously, this aggravated the Aleuts and they rebelled, and the Russians quickly countered by burning villages and murdering the natives by the hundreds (452)

The Spanish were very similar with their treatment of the Indians in California. The Spanish showed no equality to the natives as they came in and just took land that they wanted with no remorse. Their move caused Russians to prepare defense in case of a Spanish attack on their new claimed lands, but Taylor states that the Spanish was “preoccupied with trying to control the immense native population” and they did so through “plundering, beating, and raping Indians.” (458) I noticed that my classmate Jake Newton spoke on how the Spanish was going to colonize in the west because of the other countries involvement in the west (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/spanish-brutality-in-the-west/). I definitely agree with that reason, but I also feel that a big influence on the Spanish colonization in California was the need to protect their settlements in Mexico (454).

One thing I disagree with from Taylors writings is the way he makes the levels or harshness vary from ethnic groups. Although there does have to be some group that it the worst in their actions towards the natives, Taylor makes it seem like the French were good guys, English were bad at times and good at times, and the Spanish and Russians just ran over natives at all times. In reality all of these groups used natives to their own advantage and none are innocent when the history is actually analyzed.

October 1, 2013

Blog Post #5- Spanish Brutality In the West

The Spanish conquest of Alta California in the 1760‘s- 1780‘s was the most interesting aspect of Chapter 19 in American Colonies. What first struck me was that the Spanish had explored the region both in the 1540’s and early in the 17th century. They had decided that the land was not bountiful enough to be considered worthy of conquest and missions (p. 456-457). In fact, they were only motivated to claim the land as theirs after hearing reports that the Russians and British were looking to make their own colonies there. This is important because it shows Spain’s true motivation in claiming the land. It was less about conversion of natives and spreading Catholicism, and more about competition with other foreign powers and protecting their land in Mexico. Their complete lack of knowledge about the land they were attempting to colonize is also noteworthy. According to Taylor, the Spanish thought of Alta California as undeveloped wilderness and they thought of the natives who lived there as “gente sin razon (people without reason” (p. 460). In reality, the natives had positively “reshaped and enhanced” (p.455) the environment and the Spaniard’s conquest and assimilation of natives proved to negatively affect hunting and plant and tree growth.

In the grand scheme, it could be argued that a lot of these smaller details Taylor provides about Spanish conquest in Alta California aren’t that important. It seems as if Taylor goes out of his way to provide extra evidence of Spanish ignorance and arrogance when they conquered new lands. He also shares examples of shocking brutality from Spanish soldiers and commanders towards the Natives. This section of the chapter, which to me seemed like a scathing criticism of Spanish conquest tactics, is consistent with how Taylor describes them throughout this book.

In this blogpost (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming-and-the-spanish-missionaries-too/), the author writes in more detail about how unfavorable life was for Natives after they were colonized and how they were essentially turned into slaves, even though the primary goal of colonization, according to the Spaniards, was conversion. While most, if not all European Nations who colonized in the New World were oppressive and nasty towards native people who already lived there when they arrived, it seems as thought the Spanish were far more blatantly uncivil and indecent in how they did things. I think Taylor and @jelaws would echo this point.

September 18, 2013

The Users AKA Carolinians

The Carolinas were granted to eight politicians who had been favorites of the King of England. The colony quickly became a plantation colony, but they chose to leave the declining profits of tobacco and look at other crops to grow. They looked into raising livestock, which was relatively different from the past colonies, and they cultivated rice at “over 60% of the total exports from Carolina as measured by value.” They also took a major part in the slave trade as they took in so many slaves that the colonist felt threatened by the chance of a slave revolt. This was helpful as they looked to stay away from the Chesapeake’s problem of too much work for few people.

The Carolina colonists were also smart about how they took care of any types of attacks on their people. They had a regular pattern of using other bodies before taking the risks of hurting themselves. The chapter speaks of how slaves were used to kill the Spanish when the colony had problems with attackers from Florida and slaves were rewarded if they killed some of the adversaries. They also used the Indians with the “gun trade.” In this trade the Carolina colonists used the Indian’s numbers and knowledge of the land to find other natives and bring them to back as slaves. Taylor even adds that “colonists paid far more for a slave than for deerskins” which influenced the natives to take the weapons they were provided with and bring back their own kind in order to please the colonists.

The chapter also briefly goes into Georgia and how the Carolinas used that area to their advantage also. As stated in a classmates post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-carolinas-and-the-purpose-of-georgia/) Georgia was mainly a border state to keep distance from the Spanish. Georgia also made it less likely for runaway slaves to make it to the Spaniards, who took runaway slaves in, before being caught by the colonists. Georgia denied the slave system itself but took no part in keeping others from slavery.

September 11, 2013

Week Three Readings

Taylor’s main focus in chapters nine and twelve is the development of the New England and Middle colonies, especially how their development determined the treatment of the Indians. The Puritans came to America for religious reasons, to create a “city on a hill,” so the marked differences between their culture and the culture of the Indians led the Puritans to cultivate a deep dislike and distrust for them. On the other hand the Dutch founded New Netherland purely as a trade outpost which depended on the Indians for furs. Because of this the Dutch couldn’t afford to mistreat the Indians. This type of relationship is also seen later, in Pennsylvania as the weakened peoples of the area didn’t present much of a threat or competition for land. I agree with Sylvia’s point as well, that in describing the different interactions between Indians and colonists in different areas, Taylor tends to show bias and favoritism. However, I also think that the focus on motive and primary support which acknowledges, at least to some extent, the perceived positive and negative aspect of Indian relations in both regions, acts to negate some of the bias presented in his writing. For example, Taylor demonstrates that not everyone in New England completely overlooked the merits of Indian culture by including a quotation by colonist, Roger Williams, saying “It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, than amongst thousands that call themselves Christians” (Taylor 191). While this quotation does not, by any stretch of the mind, demonstrate a wholehearted love or even acceptance of the Indians, it does show that the colonists of New England weren’t driven by a mindless animosity toward them. Taylor also makes it very clear that William Penn’s Indian policy was not simply formed out of good will. It was also a strategic move which created a “security screen” of displaced Indians to act as a buffer between the Pennsylvanian colonists and the French and it’s allies (Taylor 269). While some bias clearly does exist, inclusion of these details prevents Taylor prom painting either region as completely good or completely bad and provides readers with the information they need to form their own conclusions.

September 3, 2013

Reading-Second Week Chapter 3 and 5

In Chapter 3, Taylor writes not only of the initial conquest of the land known as New Spain, but also of the development and regulation of the new empire. I had previously not known about how far the drastic decrease in population spread into North America due to the Spanish. To find slaves, Spanish went from Venezuela to Florida to South Carolina (Taylor, p. 52). This, coupled with disease, devastated the surrounding areas. Another topic I found interesting in this chapter was the thought and actions associated with consolidation and the Mexican natives’ attitude toward the Spanish. The conquistadores were good at conquering, but not at ruling a long lasting colony. The monarchs wanted to control, tax, and establish Spanish institutes in New Spain (Taylor, p. 59). Trying to manage the colonies from across the Atlantic proved extremely difficult. The priests wanted to convert the natives through peaceful relations, unlike the the conquistadores (Taylor, p. 59). Some Mexican Natives thought they could “outlast their Spanish masters” just as they had done with previous invasions, but the Spanish were far too technologically advanced (Taylor, p. 60). The bullion influenced the Spanish economy and the rest of Europe. The influx of gold and silver caused inflation, which was exacerbated by the weakened manufacturing industry. (Taylor, p. 63).

In Chapter 5, Taylor mainly focuses on the French involvement in Canada and their relationship with the Natives. The French and the Natives were both dependent on the fur trade. The Natives were dependent on the modern materials the French produced and traded. The French were dependent on the fur for profit, but the trade also provided protection from the Natives. Taylor portrays the French as being taken of advantage of by the Natives. The Natives “negotiated from a position of strength (Taylor, p. 93). The Natives took advantage of different fur traders and would travel to find the best price. As Sylvia pointed out, the Natives expected the French to be their allies in intertribal wars. The fur traders kept their posts small, to discourage more traders in the area.

August 30, 2013

Introduction-Chapter 1 Post (#1)

Author Alan Taylor has a very interesting line on the first page of the Introduction that, in my opinion, gives early insight into what this book will discuss. After shortly describing white Europeans’ motivation for immigrating to what is the present day United States, Taylor opens his fourth paragraph with a captivating person opinion- “But the traditional story of American uplift excludes too many people” (Taylor, Introduction) To me, this line immediately informs the reader that the purpose of this book is to give a more complete description of American History, one that fills in the holes and gives credit to those often forgotten in less “detailed” accounts of American History. The first chapter in the book immediately shows that Taylor does indeed intend to fill in those blanks. In it he gives brief overviews of the history of a number of Native American tribes who called the lands home way before Christopher Columbus or any other Europeans set foot in the “new world”.

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the first chapter as it informed me about much I had never even heard regarding early life in the Americas. I had known that Christopher Columbus did not in fact “discover” these lands but I was unaware of the deep history that so many different native tribes had on the land. Taylor also gives a description of the natives that does not mesh with the way they are often portrayed today. Modern day filmmakers have painted an image of these early natives in moves (which is admittedly the extent of my previous study on this topic) as a supremely spiritual and peaceful people who were unjustifiably taken advantage of by the Europeans. While Taylor does not defend the Europeans, he makes sure to inform the reader that the Natives were not completely innocent, peaceful tribes who wished only to be left alone. They were just as violent and war-prone as the people they fought, they simply did not have the technology and weaponry to seriously compete. I appreciated Taylor giving this perspective here. It assures me that he did his best to stay completely objective. I can only assume that the rest of the book is written in the same manor.