The relationships between the Europeans and Native Americans became very complicated in this reading. At first the French were “friends” with them, but then the Native American support just kind of fell apart. But the British didn’t use Native Americans from the beginning, even when they probably should have because when the French were allied with Native Americans, they slaughtered the British but when the “friendship” fell apart they ended up losing the war. Another interesting relationship described in this reading was the one between the Americans and Native Americans. The last paragraph of the reading summarized it perfectly. The British and the French imagined the New World with Native Americans in it, but Americans “looked forward to a future without Indians”.
This reading showed us a new view on the history we have been taught since kindergarten. In elementary school, George Washington was one of the most important people in the history of the United States but we never hear about he completely distrusted and dislike the Native Americans. Page has a unique perspective on George Washington and the Founding Father’s because he knows and has witnessed what their beliefs have done to an entire race of people. Everyone learns about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution but our teachers always leave out the parts where the whites take away Native American land or just how they would affect the people already living on the land that they claim to own. Why do you think school systems do this?
Something I thought that was really interesting was when on page 224, Jake Page talks about how Pontiac and the Great Lakes tribes wanted to get rid of the British so that the French could come back to their lands. I thought this was interesting because as I read this, I wondered why the Native Americans wanted the French back when they got the British off their lands, instead of getting rid of the British in order to have no one on their lands. In the past I think the Native American’s would have tried to keep their lands free of all Europeans, but at this point I think the Native American’s had become so integrated with Europeans, in terms of trading and the economy, that they were ok with interacting with the French.
I’m wondering if anyone understood what Jake Page meant when he was talking about “republican Indian villages” on page 218? And if so, explain?
It was nice doing this reading right after having read and heard about specific tribes because I already knew some of the back story for things- so yay us for prepping each other well for the reading =]
This was another one of those readings where I felt kind of silly after finishing it. Of COURSE the Native Americans were involved with the Revolution, but before this I thought of things as totally separate- the 'Americans" fighting against the British for freedom. In reality though, the Indians were totally involved during the whole time of the Constitution and Louisiana Purchase and all that good stuff.
I wish Page had gone more into how the "main roles the Indians would play in the Revolution was that of propaganda pawns, with each side rallying its energies and forces by accusing the other side of colluding with merciless savages." I understand that it might be insulting to be associated with 'savages,' but how would that actually be an effective strategy in warfare? I didn't really understand his point here, and since he said it was one of the most important things I wish I did. Oh well.
It was interesting to hear about Europeans and Americans taking on the war tactics of the Native people. Don't really have much to say besides that it was neat-o.
Anywho, on page 223 Page writes "Indians were becoming less and less willing to fight Indians aligned with the opposite side." Why do you think this is?
Hi everyone.
So maybe I'm the only one but for me this reading was pretty difficult; it was jam packed with information and although it was not boring it was hard to get through. Because of this sort of epic confusion/ overwhelmed feeling I'm going to post a little differently than usual, with some comments and quite a few questions that I will take from all the question marks in my reading notes.
- I thought it was really interesting that some tribes fought for their land, others gave up, and the Mohawks just up and left and went to Canada. Although they left their land I thought this seemed like a good strategy to claim new land because less of their people were in danger and they still have the land they claimed today.
- I thought it was interesting that on page 223 Page talks about how all the Europeans really needed to do was cut back on gifts to show the Natives that they no longer wanted civil relations.
-On page 224 I didn't really understand what was going on. Did the Natives who had been converted to Christianity want their tribes to stop depending on Europeans and go back to their old way of life because if they did not they would go to hell? This seems like an unusual interpretation of what the Europeans were trying to teach them through Christianity.
- Finally I would like to know more about the English Indian propaganda. From what I understood the English were using propaganda about the Indians to intimidate the US but I really didn't understand well if someone wants to explain that more.
Thanks, Ill be coming and checking if anyone answers my questions
This reading, like Maggie pointed out, made us look at history in a entirely new perspective. The beginning of the chapter sets a good tone when Jake Page shows the reader by giving us events that the Stamp Act (which is considered a trigger for The American Revolution) was influenced by Native Americans. This sounds cliche but History is relative.
Sort of on the same train of thought throughouth this chapter I thought of the underlying theme....Americaness. We see that the American ways began right after the Revolution with the displacement of Indians, slavery, etc... Do you think Americaness is different now-a-days? at least towards Native Americans? _________________ Melipe Fatho
So, I think I am just going to start my post by answering Maggie's and Rachel's questions.
Maggie's question: So what I have come to believe about school systems and the way they teach history, or actually everything really, is to teach simple, sometimes not completely accurate things in younger grades, and then have to re-teach the things correctly when students are older. While this always sounds really stupid, it kind of makes sense. When you first learn, for example, about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you are generally at too young an age to learn all the truths around it, including taking away Native American lands and all that. Then, as you get older, you learn all the truths because you can both handle and understand them more, but you still have the foundation knowledge from the earlier teachings. That was probably unhelpful.
Rachel's question: This also might be unhelpful, but I believe that Page might have been referring to a tribe of American Indians who had like, a second name that was Republican, because they were located on the Republican River or something like that. So he may just have been using that name for a tribe, but I think that the locations might not match up. Otherwise, I have no idea what he could have been talking about. Anyone else have ideas?
So, getting to my response, I guess. I thought it was very interesting to read about the Native Indians' involvement in the Revolution, and then about the sort of decline in willingness for Indians to fight other Indians on the other side. I kind of wish that Page had gone into more detail on these subjects, because I can only kind of guess at some of the reasons behind these topics. I can kind of guess that the Indians were fine with fighting on their own sides against the Europeans on whichever other side, but when it came to the confrontations between their own "ethnicities" it became much more difficult to deal with the opposition and fighting. That probably made very little sense.
I am curious to see if anyone drew connections between their project on their tribes and tonight's reading. I know that I couldn't really, because my tribe was up in the Arctic and not involved in any of this. I think from some of the connections we saw between our projects, we can make a lot more sense of this reading. (that is kind of my question)
So, to answer Alex's question I think I will comment on the propaganda first. The reason that Indians were involved in the Europeans propaganda was because the Europeans basically wanted to point fingers at each other for having relations with such people as Native Americans. Page states "...the main roles that Indians would play in the Revolution was that of propaganda pawns, with each side rallying its energies and forces by accusing the other side of colluding with merciless savages". He then goes on to give his example of the story of Jane McCrae supposedly being murdered by her two Native American tour guides (which may, or may not have been true).
After that passage, Page goes on to say something else that I found to be interesting. He makes the point that this type of propaganda caused Americans to have a sexual and racial fear of Indians. I found this interesting for a few reasons. The first reason being that the impressions of Indians left by this propaganda lasted for a very long period of time. The second reason being that the Native Americans are not the only group of people who have been affected by these types of stereotypes and propaganda. For example, there are so many stereotypes about black people based on propaganda that have lasted for hundreds of years. I can think of a few examples myself and I am sure that there are more. People of oppressed groups are generally feared in some sort of sexual and racial way, as well as other ways influenced by stereotypes, propaganda, lies, whatever you want to call it. What are some examples of this that you can think of? I happen to be thinking of a few myself, but I am interested in hearing what everyone else has to say about this because I think it's REALLY interesting and it relates to other oppressed groups as well as current issues we have with stereotypes.
The tribe I researched, the Oneida native Americans, were forced off their lands by Americans. They were originally part of the Iroquois Nation, but after the Mohawks and several other tribes in the group left many Oneida’s decided that it was a lost cause and moved to the land they were promised in Wisconsin. They were not pressured off by military force, but went through several long years of court battles to try to get the right to their ancestral land. Although many of them had been converted to Christianity, the ones who had avoided the European way’s of life fought for what they believed in and what was theirs.
The propaganda used by the British and the Colonist is cruelly brilliant. The idea of an Indian, clearly a person of a different race, harming a white European is bound to strike more anger in other Europeans eyes than if on European harming another. Something about the person being different makes the attack seem more personal, and more like an attack on one’s own group, rather than a specific individual. I’m sure this is not true in all cases, many people were looking for any excuse to start something between the groups.
The Natives couldn't understand the concept of owning land. They thought that land was what it was and people should be able to make use of it, as a municipal ground. So, when Bradock exclaimed “No Savage Should Inherit the Land” it is no wonder that the Natives were infuriated. When the French "ceded Canada and other French lands in North America to Great Britain" the Natives, having little understanding of the idea of land ownership, ought to have been confused of the whole land exchange by the French and the British, since they didn’t think land should be “owned” in the first place. It isn’t a surprise that they were torn over who to support.
Why do you think the Natives initially sided with the French?
So like Alex I found this reading difficult.
I found it interesting the different ways Natives would react when people would try to take over their land. I mean you always hear about Native Americans and the Europeans going into great battles over land, but not all Native Americans did that.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
