This week explores the foundational conflicts that would ultimately lead to the formation of the United States of America from the perspective of Indian country. We will particularly investigate pan-Indian confederacies like Pontiac's and Tecumseh's Rebellions.
Points of Entry
Pontiac's War:
Tecumseh's Wars:
Thoughts/Questions for blog discussion:
List and analyze 2 quotes from the reading.
What are some of the arguments?
How are they related to the larger themes of the week discussed in class?
“That may be true, but Britain and France were both being pulled into a war by a tangle web of connections, alliances, rivalries, and loyalties that defied official efforts to establish, maintain and clarify imperial boundaries.” (Calloway 336) This quote explains the reasons for what caused the seven years war. France and England were both competing for trade among Indians, mostly for slaves and furs. However, Indians were involved in the war over trade as well, but also because they wanted the European empires out of their territory. Some tribes thought that if they sided with the winning European power their land would remain untouched by future settlers.
ReplyDelete“But now they were rebuilding on quicksand, for the new America had no for Indians and their world.” (Hurtado 181) This quote shows how the American war for independence and freedom actually ended up destroying the free and independent native tribes. The new American settlers wanted to keep moving west and in order for this to become a reality needed to displace the Indians. The lack of independence can also be seen in how the state of Rhode Island handled the Narragansett People by legally declaring them extinct.
"James Duane, chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Continental Congress and mayor of New York City from 1784 to 1789, urged the United States not to continue the British practice of cultivating relations with the Indians as if they were nations of equal standing. The Six Nations should be treated as dependents of the State of New York." (Hurtado 176). Indians could no longer play off Europeans since by and large only Americans remained. European factionalism had helped Indians avoid dependence, but now States began to demand dependence. I also wonder if the sentiment of James Duane launched the Federal policy of dependence that would come to dominate American-Indian relations for the following centuries.
ReplyDelete"Funs and horses became keys to power, and human slaves became the currency with which to purchase them." (Calloway 317). In keeping with the theme of factionalism, guns and horses accelerated conflict between native peoples and Europeans. Indians were giving up land in order to wield the power of a musket. The Comanches famously used guns and horses in order to carve out a new life style for themselves. The main conflict point became the acquiring of other Indians in order to produce slaves for Europeans. It seems that factionalism ultimately lead to the downfall of Indian, because of it and the lack of it.
"Indian peoples in the trans-Appalachian west resisted the British Empire and compelled the British to think seriously about the place of Indians in that society."(Calloway 350)
ReplyDelete"For all the devastation the American Revolution brought to Indian country, Indian's remained a force to be reckoned with at the war's end."(Hurtado 171)]
These two quotes demonstrate the ongoing Indian resistance to domination of foreign powers and the refusal to accommodate the British, French and the Americans. Pontiac's and Tecumseh's war were some major revolts against foreign powers just like the Pueblo Revolt in the West.
Traders and “explorers” from competing European nations showed up in Indian villages, eager to establish exchange with Indian people and alert for the news of “other men like us” on occasion, Indians knew before Europeans that Europeans nations were at war. [OVWC pg. 315]
ReplyDeleteMostly I just found this passage to be really interesting, in many ways it depicts how intertwined the natives had become with the Europeans, as if they had become one with them. Despite the obvious from trading and the intercultural marriages, yet this passage also shows the difficulty in communication and how long it might have taken for news to travel.
As happen elsewhere in North America when Europeans were abducted by Indians, some captives preferred to remain with their Indian captors, and some of those who returned faced from other Indians and turned a sizable profit by ransoming the in San Antonio for horses, mules or merchandise. [pg 319]
This passage gives readers a glimpse into the many diverse outcomes from Indians that abducted Europeans. Needless to say, I also found this to be interesting because of the many outcomes that transpire depending on not only the natives but also how the European themselves would have reacted to the experience. One might feel as if the majority reaction to being abducted would be negative, this passage shows that some had become fascinated with their culture that they decided to stay and perhaps become follow native culture.
"Delaware war chief Buckongahelas declared that his warriors had been making blood "fly" on the American frontier for five years" (Hurtado, 171)
ReplyDeleteI interpreted this that the Americans and Indians had been in fierce battle for these years not being able to resolve their differences that they had with one another.
" we are now ,asters of this island, and can dispose of the lands as we think porper and most convinient to ourselves ( Hurttado 173)." I find this quote really interesting because it is suggesting th the victorious American colonists were ready to take away the autonomy of the Natieve American after the treaty of Paris was signed. All this quote foreshadows that fate of many Native American groups by which they will be striped from their ancestral lands by land hungry colonists who desired for opportunity that was west of them
ReplyDelete"Further, and just as hurtful to native people in the long run, town officials stopped idenitfying native people as indian in the written work and began designating them as "Negro" or "black". thus commiting a form of documenatry genocide against them (Hurtado 184)".This quote is really important because it displays the ignorance and arrogance of the Americans that they started to classify native americans as a different ethnic group. Also it shows the the attempt to make the assumptions that the Narrangasetts were an extinct group of people rather than a margunalized group, which served as a justificatin for settlers to move to their ancestral landss. Most importantly it shows the fear that the Americans had towards the Narangasetts dut to theie potentiality to unite and revolt against the new settlers to reclaim their ancestral land.By not documenting their existence in legal papers would only make the the settlers less fearful of this native group.
"I shall see my father shacking hands with the long knives."
ReplyDeleteThis was showing that not all natvies were blind to the betrayal of the British. Although it took most by surprise some leaders were ready for it. With the sudden shift of power natvies began to realize that their land was now in jeapardy.
"The Indians had done nothing to permit the king to give asay their lands"
This statement could not hold more true. The Indians fought along side the British in good faith they would be taken care off. At this point Native tribes still outnumbered the British and if they could have forseen with sufficiant time they could have banded against the British and saved their communities possibly.
Empire Building sometimes depended on negotiation and coexistence rather than force and coercion.(319)
ReplyDeleteBrute force does not always the solution to obtaining good or land. The french built there empires based on networking with the Indians rather than taking over them. Having good relation with the Indians led to more successful empires in the west.
France and Britain competed for the lucrative Choctaw deerskin trade; Choctaw deerskin were shipped by the thousands to France and England and European goods flowed into Choctaw country.321
The competition between these two great power benefited the Indians more than anyone. they were able to capitalize on them by being neutral and siding with those that had more and better goods to offer.
"In the seventeenth century, Indians in the west encountered Frenchmen who arrived by water searching for furs, souls, passages to China, a New World empire, or some kind of freedom. But the French lacked real power in Indian country." pg 263
ReplyDeleteDuring this time in the history, the world's powers were scrambling to establish their claims into North America. Every nation sent explorers and colonists to set up communities for the sovereign country. However, as much as these European settlers strived to conquer and settle the lands they arrived on, the recognized that the real power power belonged to the natives who already inhabited the country and they could accomplish little without their compliance and assistance.
"Women's status seems to have declined in the individualistic, male dominated herding and equestrian hunting culture that developed, especially as it became linked to the European hide trade." pg 273
It is very interesting to observe that with Europeans widespread introduction of horses to Indians, they not only changed their food harvesting tactics, but their social structure as well. Previously, the hunt for food was a communal act that required and encouraged the participation of women. Now with the use of horses for hunting, men were the only ones responsible for the hunting and killing of animals, while the women were relegated to only skinning the animals. This clearly represents a change in the social hierarchy of Indians as the adopted a more European view of women as being less critical to the community.
"The Choctaws played off French and English rivals and preserved their political independence even as they grew economically dependent on European goods."
ReplyDeleteThis quote is revealing of the ways in the Choctaws were able to maintain power in the Arkansas Valley. By playing off of real rivalries between the colonial entities the Choctaws were able to keep the Europeans in check. This also reveals how important the Choctaws were as allies for the Europeans. In borderlands regions like the Arkansas Valley, it is interesting to see how the various groups interacted. It is clear that the Choctaws played an especially powerful role in the region, especially because of their ability to use alliances and threats to their advantage.
"Pontiac's War hastened British plans to implement a boundary line between Indian lands and colonial settlements so peace could be preserved once the Indians had been 'reduced to due Submission'."
This quote is revealing of the way the British attempted to dictate the way both colonists and natives interacted the land. These borders that the British hoped to establish do not fit with the way various native groups had divided the lands themselves. Also because British colonists themselves did not respect these boundaries, it shows that these borders established by the British were arbitrary. Borders were implemented to control both poor westward moving colonists as well as the various native groups of the borderlands. I also perceived this as an attempt to assert British views of land and ownership onto Native Americans.
In class we talked about how the Indians would rather have the French around than the British because of their cultural understanding.
ReplyDelete-”Shawnees delivered captives to Bouquet as promised. ‘Father,’ they said, ‘here is your Flesh and Blood.’ It was the first time Shawnees had addressed the British as ‘fathers.’ a term they previously reserved for the French.” (Calloway,354) This form of addressing the British beckoned a new relationship between the Shawnees and the British.
-The Peace of Paris recognized the independence of the thirteen colonies.
“Wyandot chiefs, who had heard rumors of peace, told Major De Peyster ‘we hope your children (i.e., the Indians) will be remembered in the Treaty,’ but the peace terms made no mention of the Indian people who had fought and died in the Revolution and who inhabited the territory to be transferred.” (Hurtado and Iverson,171)
Instead the Peace of Pairs brought no peace to Indian country and left to defend themselves against the Americans who were out to claim their land.
"British activities in the area alarmed the French. British manufactures generally beat French in quality and price...The Indian people often gravitated towards British traders." (334)
ReplyDelete"Further French bribes and threats proved ineffective, and French officials feared that their western Indian alliance might collapse under the weights of British trade goods." (334)
The conflict of trade and Indian alliance proved to be important ones in the late 1700's, into the early years of the war.European's were fighting over land and alliances and trade. While the Native Americans were "unwilling to recognize any foreigner as their master, just as they have none among themselves.' For Indians this war, like so many others, was a war over Indian lands and who would claim them. Indians wanted to see neither European power victorious if the victors intended to stay." (338)
This gives some insight to how Native Americans viewed the war and their alliances with the Europeans. But this did not matter to the Europeans fighting the war.
The proclamation of 1763 established a boundary between white settlements and Indian country beyond the crest of the Appalachian Mountains. Colonists regarded the Proclamation Line as an unwarranted intrusion, and it became one of the many grievances against the British government that led to the Revolution - 163 Iverson
ReplyDeleteThis quote is interesting to me because it shows that the settlers came in with a conquerers mindset right out of the gate. They literally took the Native Americans land right from them.
At the begininng of the eighteenth century most people living in the American West had never laid eyes on a European. The West was Indian country, and Europeans were a rarity. But the tentacles of European empires began to reach deep into the Indian West. - 313 Calloway
This quote is interesting because it tells how unknown the settlers were to most of the indian cultures. The fact that they had never seen a European really in the west is interesting. It also shows how fragile that really is and how invetiable it was that the Europeans were goign into Indian Country.