What do you think . . . was conflict between the English colonists and the Native Americans inevitable? If so, why? If not, why not? Use specific factual examples in your response! "Specific" means names, dates, actual events, quotes, etc.!!!
Follow these directions for full credit (10 points):
a. Go to the comment section for this post.
b. Write your first name, last initial (only!), and your class period.
c. Write your response.
d. Use proper grammar, spelling, school-appropriate language, etc.
e. Make sure you go through the whole word verification process.
f. Complete this by 9/2/2010 at 11:59pm!
5 comments:
I think conflict between the English colonists and the Native Americans was inevitable. I think this because one of the goals of the English in coming to the Americas was to acquire land. The Native Americans were already on the land but the way their culture was structured nobody was ever granted ownership to the land. As English forced treaties upon the Native Americans they did not know what they were getting into. Thus when the Native Americans were forced off the land they had been occupying instead of sharing it with the English conflict was sure to follow.
Natalie C. p. 8
I believe that the conflict between the English settlers and the Native Americans was inevitable. Despite having the difficulties of living off the land, there were few similarities that they shared. The culture shock on both ends would have lead to all sorts of uncomfortable situations. Even if both parties were more accepting of one another, the need for land and expansion with new immigrants would have turned them on each other in the end.
I believe that the conflict between the Natives and the English was totally avoidable for many different reasons. As soon as the English people "intruded" on the natives in Virginia, the natives thought that the English would only help them prosper. Eventually, tension built and greed took its course. The main reason for the conflicts was that the English and Natives were both very greedy peoples who would do whatever it took to gain as much gold and power as they could. Therefore, if the English and Natives worked out the disagreements in a reasonable manner and split the wealth evenly, then there would not be as many disputes, arguments, wars, as well as competition between the two groups. Even if the arguments could have been avoided, these fights have a main part in our history and our country would have never been the same without these controversies.
I believe that the conflicts between the Native Americans and the English was inevitable. Although the Natives and English were able to produce a few peace settlements (like the one after the First Anglo-Powhatan War), neither side wanted less power than the other. Eventually one side was bound to wipe the other out because of the greediness for land and control. Even if the treaties had been able to last longer than they actually did, no peace treaty is forever. With the pressure for England to get rich fast, they were bound to do whatever it would take to get land and make money. The Indians also had a passion to keep control over their land and food supply. Though they believed in being friendly and peaceful, at some point I believe they would have attacked the English if too much land was being taken away.
I believe that the conflict between the Natives and the English was inevitable because the goals of the British completely clashed with the Indian life. The Indians liked to be nomadic and roam large areas, while the English wanted to settle land. Eventually the English were going to try and conquer more land than the Indians were willing to give up. The English seemed to think they had the right to any land that wasn't immediately occupied, and although it may not have been occupied, that doesn't mean it isn't being used. To me it seems like the English cheated the Indians out of land because they had organized government and immunity to diseases.
Post a Comment