Discuss The Difference Between European And Native American Culture
The differences between European and Native American culture plays an important role in how two interact. European’s whole society is built on the idea of “private ownership”, the more land someone had was equated with that person’s status and wealth. (Lecture 1, slide 20) They have a very distinct division on what is sacred and secular, they even believed that the secular world was there to serve them. (Lecture 1 slide 21) Native Americans had a completely different perspective. Not only does the idea of private ownership not exist, there is no division between the secular word and the sacred. (Lecture 1 Slide 20) Everything is sacred and they coexist with nature rather than the idea that it is there to serve them. (Lecture 1 Slide 21 )
…show more content…
They knew that not only were they out numbered but their very survival was because of the American Indians. The Dutch were not farmers so economically they relied heavily on the fur trade with the Amer-Indians. How ever, as expected, conflicts still arose. Like I mentioned before, The Native American’s do not have the concept of private property, so when the Dutch bought land from the Natives, the Natives thought they were paying to share the land. The Dutch, of course, were angry when the Natives would not leave. Another issue that came up was that Dutch demanded unequal representation of their authority. The already shaky relationship came to a head when, In 1642, a group of Hackensacks murdered two Dutch farmers. The Hackensacks refused to turn over those responsible so The Dutch responded viciously. In 1643, The Dutch attacked and wiped out two neighboring tribes. They demanded the tribes pay tribute, to recognize their authority and accept Dutch trading terms.(Lecture 1, slide 54) The unstable relationship came to an end, The Dutch no longer tried to negotiate but forced the natives to follow their …show more content…
The French’s approach to the Natives was to bring the American Indians under their control through assimilation not conquest. The Indians were vital to the survival of the French, and to their trade. The French colonists were mostly males, so not only did they accept french-Indian relationships, in the 1660’s Minister Colbert called for a full fledged integration. (Lecture 1, slide 56) Jesuites studied American-Indian culture and argued for conversion. However, France’s struggle to control the Beaver trade and the desperate for survival, Iroquois nations, complicated the relationship. The Iroquois were eager for furs and captives to replace those lost to diseases invaded and burned villages, secured captives and tortured priests. They disrupted the fur trade and scared the french inhabitants. By the end of it, New France was beat down, weak and poorly supplied. ( Jones,
They knew that not only were they out numbered but their very survival was because of the American Indians. The Dutch were not farmers so economically they relied heavily on the fur trade with the Amer-Indians. How ever, as expected, conflicts still arose. Like I mentioned before, The Native American’s do not have the concept of private property, so when the Dutch bought land from the Natives, the Natives thought they were paying to share the land. The Dutch, of course, were angry when the Natives would not leave. Another issue that came up was that Dutch demanded unequal representation of their authority. The already shaky relationship came to a head when, In 1642, a group of Hackensacks murdered two Dutch farmers. The Hackensacks refused to turn over those responsible so The Dutch responded viciously. In 1643, The Dutch attacked and wiped out two neighboring tribes. They demanded the tribes pay tribute, to recognize their authority and accept Dutch trading terms.(Lecture 1, slide 54) The unstable relationship came to an end, The Dutch no longer tried to negotiate but forced the natives to follow their …show more content…
The French’s approach to the Natives was to bring the American Indians under their control through assimilation not conquest. The Indians were vital to the survival of the French, and to their trade. The French colonists were mostly males, so not only did they accept french-Indian relationships, in the 1660’s Minister Colbert called for a full fledged integration. (Lecture 1, slide 56) Jesuites studied American-Indian culture and argued for conversion. However, France’s struggle to control the Beaver trade and the desperate for survival, Iroquois nations, complicated the relationship. The Iroquois were eager for furs and captives to replace those lost to diseases invaded and burned villages, secured captives and tortured priests. They disrupted the fur trade and scared the french inhabitants. By the end of it, New France was beat down, weak and poorly supplied. ( Jones,