This chapter is about rivers and treason. The chapter starts out by talking about the difficulties that Europeans faced when navigating rivers in the Americas and in Africa. During this, they also go into detail about how these rivers provided the opportunity for exploration and for trade. The chapter then goes on to discussing treason laws, where they came from, and how they were used by various European groups.
During the course of this reading, there is mention of the Europeans making use of native peoples as navigators when journeying upriver. To me, the passages that dealt with this were quite fascinating. The reason is that while the Europeans placed their lives in the hands of these navigators they were very quick to turn on them (Pg. 51-52). I thought it very odd that you would trust somebody with your life but at the same time not trust them at all. It is mentioned by the author that at least part of the reason that the Europeans do not trust the natives is the fact that they are not Christians (Pg. 53). This relates, at least in part, to the concept of imperialism. The Europeans were able to take advantage of the native peoples because they did not trust them and thought of them as being inferior. This thought of natives being inferior is also brought up in the previous readings in regards to culture and technology. Shelby Moore mentions how the Europeans saw themselves as advanced and, looked down upon the natives as being bystanders. She also brings up the point that native peoples were well versed in navigating which by extension can be seen in this chapter when the Europeans call on natives to be navigators.
Overall I found the first half of the chapter to be interesting, but the second half of it did not hold my attention as much.
Lauren Benton wrote about the importance rivers played in the eyes of European explorers as well as how empires claimed the land they visited. Benton wrote that Roman law played a key role in how land was claimed, although the concept was a little vague (Benton, 55). Maps and towns were also ways that Europeans claimed land for themselves (Benton, 56). The idea that rivers in Africa would be similar to rivers in the Americas was interesting. Derek Taylor wrote last week that Native Americans had to know the “ins” and “outs” of the inland waterways during the different seasons. It goes with what Benson wrote about the Spanish in South America. Benton wrote that the Spanish did not believe the local Indians when they explained that the area (present-day Buenos Aires) had changed due to flooding and thus, the Spanish decided to move inland by river (Benton, 71). It shows that Europeans were not yet aware of how different the Americas were from Africa and Europe and that the local Indians had a better idea of the land they lived on. While the rivers provided Europeans a chance to explore different areas, it also gave them a chance to claim land. An interesting part of the chapter explained that rivers played a major role because Europeans would place markers where two rivers met to show others that the area had already been claimed (Benton, 57). Benton wrote that due to the Roman law that was known throughout Europe, claimed land was respected by other empires (Benton, 55).
Another part of the chapter explained how flexible the idea of treason was. The idea of treason had changed to different meanings in Europe but throughout Europe, actions against the royal family and their property was huge (Benton, 61). Treason was often brought up in places far from Europe, and debated due to the flexible interpretations (Benton, 68). It brings up an interesting point that the further Europeans traveled, the higher chance that treason would be interpreted differently between explorers and the king back in Europe. It gives us a glimpse of how men perhaps started to become less dependent on the crown the further away they were and started making decisions themselves.
The chapter this week dealt largely with rivers and treason and how they both related to trade. While this was an interesting aspect the article I found myself more interested in an idea the chapter seemed to suggest about Europeans. I think it is interesting that Europeans in this time seemed to find an idea they like and stick with it regardless of how it works in a new area. This is first shown when the article talks about the Europeans using waterways in Africa to develop trade routes and areas of wealth. They get an idea that this is the best way to go about things and immediately try this in the Americas. They continue to live around and explore rivers even after it is not as fruitful in the Americas because this is the way things have been done. They use rivers as a symbol of land ownership and a way to show that they plan to explore more areas. This is not the only example of Europeans being set in their ways. This also comes about with the topic of Roman Law and ideals. First when the chapter discuses how Europeans still used Roman Law in regards to defining property rights and then again when it talks about Europeans still using Roman Law when it comes to ideas about treason. I think this fascination particularly with aspects of Roman Law maybe links back to a desire to keep things as they were in the “Old World” instead of entirely embracing the “New World”.
As Alec Correa pointed out in his post last week often times Europeans thought of themselves as more sophisticated and advanced than the Native Americans even though sometimes they had to admit the Natives ways might be better for certain circumstances. This ties into the idea of the Old World versus the New World. The Europeans had a hard time accepting that the Natives could maybe have a better way of doing certain things because this conflicted with a desire to just have an extension of Europe and European ideals.
Lauren Benton’s article focuses on the role of treason in the Atlantic and explains how many Europeans had committed treason and has been punished for their actions in the Atlantic. Lauren Brenton illustrates the creation of treason coming from Roman Law that created the rule of treason because they look into European powers trying increasing their power and authority with illegal tactics relating to trade or partnerships through the Atlantic. For example, Roman ideas of treason can be best described political violence and treason which could be committed at times by officials like Governors or Military Officials who have more of an opportunity to become a traitor than an honest citizen or foot soldier. (Brenton, Page 60). In my opinion, the amount of treason was committed in England and France because of increased power and more dealings were made through the Atlantic in later years. Lauren Brenton explains how both France and England had serious offenses relating to treason due to other’s people aiding the King’s enemies and gaining an advantage towards an act of war or trying to take advantage of power from the King. (Brenton, Page 61). The increase of power started to become significant in British North America through port merchants and geographic imaginary featuring upriver regions as colonial factors shaped the politics of treason during the late 17th century. For example, The English occupied and disrupted the Dutch-Indian network in the Hudson Valley River which led to the removal of Swedish settlements near Delaware. As a result, two Indians groups offset the increased power of the colonies insisting that loyal subject of English sovereign drew a direct relationship to the crown that may bypass colonial authorities. (Brenton, 90-91). The amount of treason increased and now European power in later years could no longer get away what they’re doing involving power.
This reminds me of Matt Everett’s response relating to Europeans felt that they needed more power even though the Europeans and Native Indians had agreed to a working relationship, European superiority over the Native Indians which might led to an act of war in Andrew Lipman’s reading.
Andrew C. Lipman’s article regarding the constantly shifting nature of early coastal interactions between native Americans and European colonists reveals an interesting insight into duel discovery. Lipman’s discussion focuses on the murder of Englishman John Oldham, his accused assassins, and the mystery of the incident itself. I found the article to be very informative on the early relations between the colonists and the native tribes, even as Lipman uses the term “indian” to describe the indigenous tribes throughout his article. The focus of John Gallop, an English skipper, and his vived description of Oldham’s gruesome remains also caught may attention as Lipman later elaborates on Gallop’s dislike for indigenous people due to the death of his son during King Philips war. The actual story of how and why Oldham was murdered may be lost, but the incident would become another motive for the Pequot War between English colonists and their native allies against the Pequot tribe. Though I found it fascinating that it was later discovered that the Pequot had nothing to do with Oldham’s murder. Conspiracies and racial tensions surround the bloody encounter, as Lipman further elaborates in his article. Through the incident we learn that European colonist underestimated native nautical knowledge which would prove troublesome during the Pequot war, such as when the Mohegens would use their canowes (for their warriors, captives, and refuges) and out maneuver the English ships on the River of Connecticut. Europeans hiring natives on their ships for navigation and translations was also an interesting aspect to the article as it shed some light on to how some natives could have commandeered Oldhams vessel after his death, though not for a long period of time.
Overall, I found Lipman’s article to be an engaging look into early interactions between to vastly different groups of people and how any disagreement could instantly result in bloodshed and war. Even though there was no clear answer to the case of john Oldham’s murder, the story surrounding the incident was even more informative on early colonial life in the Americas.
This week’s writing assignment starts off with a gruesome tail of a violent exchange between the English and natives. The purpose of this demonstration and the reading in general is to show the underlying factors that contributed to poor relations between them. One key factor is the idea of mutual misunderstanding, where relations turn sour between two parties as a result of both misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting the other’s actions, intentions, etc. Many of the locations of native populations were desirous of the Europeans for prospective colonies, trade, and military advantage. While this did not provide justification for some of the Europeans actions and attitudes toward the natives, it did provide some motivation. Leading up to the Pequot War, natives were found to be particularly helpful to the Europeans, proving themselves better navigators in many ways. Their canoes maneuvered easier and faster than those of the English, which proved advantageous when fighting the English. At the same time, the larger sailing vessels of the Europeans had advantages of their own. Classmate Tram Hua points out that one of the main points is to highlight competition between the Natives and English. While this was certainly a key point in this reading, I think it is a smaller piece of a larger picture, being the Europeans’ much more urgent competition with each other. The reading reinforces this idea, explaining that “War with the Pequots would help the English extinguish the Dutch West India Company’s easterly claims in a way that war with the Narragansetts would not” (page 290). Relations and interactions between natives and Europeans often result from mutual misunderstanding. More often than not, Europeans would then capitalize on these situations not only establishing themselves as the dominant party with the natives, but also gaining advantage over their European rivals.
In Murder on the Saltwater Frontier, Andrew C. Lipman explains how the the murder of John Oldham directly impacted the relationship between European settlers and Native Americans. While relationships between the two groups were originally intended as cultural exchange (Lipman, 282), tensions increased and violence escalated as Europeans and Native Americans took prisoners and destroyed ships. Oldham’s 1636 death and John Stone’s 1634 murder eventually led to the Pequot War (Lipman, 270). The stories and interpretations of these killings eventually changed over time, contributing to the rising animosity between the two groups. Viktoriya Shalunova stated in her post that from Oldham’s murder, “colonist’s started a two year war with the Indians that included the killing, dismembering, and enslaving of Indians.” I found this argument interesting and detailed, as the rising tension between Native Americans and Europeans are graphic and stem from small incidents that grew over time.
Shalunova’s point reminds me of Lipman’s concluding paragraph that states that Oldham’s murder was advantageous in allowing Puritan settlements to gain economic, military, and commercial dominance (Lipman, 294). When Lipman discusses the territory of the Puritans as a “landless borderland that was far too fluid and shifting for their liking” (Lipman, 294), this reminds me of John Gillis’ Islands of the Mind. A land without borders contributes to the perceived exoticism of the New World, and as a result of this mysticism, European psychology about settlement and normalization was amplified with the murder of John Oldham. What was originally an open-and-shut case, the killing of John Oldham and its tellings represent the convolution of truth over time that leads to the vague yet powerful hatred between Europeans and Native Americans.