Help Please!!!

[benficafan3]

Anyone think they can help me with these two questions???

1. How did Indian societies of south and north america differ from European societies at the time the two came into contact? In what ways did Indians retain a "world view" different from that of the Europeans?

2. Assess the motives of England and the English settlers In regard to colonization.

PLEASE GUYS IM DESPERATE!!!

[nicephoras]

The Westerners hadn't yet started worshipping Friedel.

[GringoTex]

2. Assess the motives of England and the English settlers In regard to colonization.


Gold, God, and Red **********.

[Dr. Wankler]

Anyone think they can help me with these two questions???

1. How did Indian societies of south and north america differ from European societies at the time the two came into contact? In what ways did Indians retain a "world view" different from that of the Europeans?

2. Assess the motives of England and the English settlers In regard to colonization.

PLEASE GUYS IM DESPERATE!!!

http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/covers_450/9781400040063.jpg

[YankHibee]

That is a good book.

[Mountainia]

Term paper due soon, huh?

I've read '500 Nations' an extremely interesting, well researched book about native societies in the Americas that challanges many popular, but probably incorrect, views of these societies.

I've not yet read '1491', but I would like to.

I hope you at least understand that the topic you've been given is so broad that the best you can hope for is some general statements that are true for some of the groups involved.

Native American societies were as different from each other as European societies were from each other. Maybe even moreso.

[art]

Native American societies were as different from each other as European societies were from each other. Maybe even moreso.

Far moreso...different cultures, languages, religions, everything.

As for what were England's motives in America? In a really, really general sense, at first, they didnt really have any, the French and Spanish were around long before the English, though they didnt really come to "colonize", but more to fish and trap in the case of the French in the North and to seek mythical Gold in the case of the Spanish in the Southwest.The English that came to the northeast later on after the Spanish lost their naval superiority did so at first for religious freedom, and later for natural resources and "Empire". You have to remember that England was a third rate country of pirates before 1600 or so, the American Colonies began their "Empire".

[DoctorD]

Anyone think they can help me with these two questions???

1. How did Indian societies of south and north america differ from European societies at the time the two came into contact? In what ways did Indians retain a "world view" different from that of the Europeans?Unlike the barbaric Europeans, the native societies of North and South America were entirely peace loving. War and conquest were unknown to this hemisphere pre-contact. Any differences of opinion were settled by peaceful negotiation.

2. Assess the motives of England and the English settlers In regard to colonization.From reports of the Portuguese cod-fishermen (exploring the North American coast well before Columbus you understand), the English realized that they could improve their sex lives by colonization.

Hope this helps with your report.

[Smiley321]

1. How did Indian societies of south and north america differ from European societies at the time the two came into contact? In what ways did Indians retain a "world view" different from that of the Europeans?


European societies were desperate for economic activity, being capitalist and controlled by the religious right. They were hobbled by a huge gap between rich and poor and had to export their poor to the new world.

By contrast, the indians were communists and practiced human sacrifice, the wisdom of which wasn't realized by europeans until the 20th century. Indians also invented the casino, gambling, smoking and liquor, which complement each other to form optimal recreation, as in Monte Carlo and Las Vegas. Face-painting and rhythmic dancing to pulsating drumbeats are other inventions of the indians, and this was the inspiration of those great french art forms, mimes and apache dancers.

[evanpemsocr]

Unlike the barbaric Europeans, the native societies of North and South America were entirely peace loving. War and conquest were unknown to this hemisphere pre-contact. Any differences of opinion were settled by peaceful negotiation.

Thats not entirely true. There was war and conquest before the White man came to America. Tribes waged war on one another, but death toles were a lot lower, especially in the plains. Where Indians counted coup on their enemies rather than kill them.

To try and help with your question... The Indians were in a sense communist. Everything was for the betterment of the tribe. The Individual was second to the tribe. They also had a great respect for nature and used as little as they could from the wildlife and forestry. This is in contrast to the Europeans who were greedy and the individual was the most important aspect in thier lives, they also had no respect for nature and destroyed many things.

[Dr. Wankler]

From reports of the Portuguese cod-fishermen (exploring the North American coast well before Columbus you understand), the English realized that they could improve their sex lives by colonization.

That's right. That's also why the English who couldn't afford cod wore something called a "codpiece" to create the illusion that they could.

[DoctorD]

Thats not entirely true. There was war and conquest before the White man came to America. Tribes waged war on one another, but death toles were a lot lower, especially in the plains. Where Indians counted coup on their enemies rather than kill them.

To try and help with your question... The Indians were in a sense communist. Everything was for the betterment of the tribe. The Individual was second to the tribe. They also had a great respect for nature and used as little as they could from the wildlife and forestry. This is in contrast to the Europeans who were greedy and the individual was the most important aspect in thier lives, they also had no respect for nature and destroyed many things.evan, my humor flew right by you. However, please read 1491 for a different perspective of pre-European America.

[evanpemsocr]

evan, my humor flew right by you. However, please read 1491 for a different perspective of pre-European America.


Doctor, I guess my sarcasim meter was off last night.:o

[Mountainia]

Thats not entirely true. There was war and conquest before the White man came to America. Tribes waged war on one another, but death toles were a lot lower, especially in the plains. Where Indians counted coup on their enemies rather than kill them.

To try and help with your question... The Indians were in a sense communist. Everything was for the betterment of the tribe. The Individual was second to the tribe. They also had a great respect for nature and used as little as they could from the wildlife and forestry. This is in contrast to the Europeans who were greedy and the individual was the most important aspect in thier lives, they also had no respect for nature and destroyed many things.

Native American societies may have included some groups fitting your description, but there were also large societies, such as the one along the Mississippi, that may have done themselves in ecologically speaking. And the societies in Mezo-America over-irrigated land that may have caused severe environmental damage there, also. All of this is still being discovered.

And early American communities were much more socialist than our movies show us, but not communist by any stretch. I'm not sure even the small tribes scattered around the US in the 1800's were that much different in this respect.

Also, there is much research that seems to indicate that disease severely de-populated the Americas just before the Europeans began to settle it. In effect, the Europeans may have brought in diseases during the discovery phase that cleared the land of inhabitants making colonization easier and more complete.

Before that happened, however, researchers believe that there were extensive trading networks (objects from the coast are found far inland, and vice versa.) That seems to indicate some bit of capitalism and private property. De-population seems to have ended this period of growth.

There is much uncertainty in these views, but they are gaining credence.

[DoctorD]

People. It's what's for dinner (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060823/sc_nm/life_mexico_aztecs_dc)

[needs]

Native American societies may have included some groups fitting your description, but there were also large societies, such as the one along the Mississippi, that may have done themselves in ecologically speaking. And the societies in Mezo-America over-irrigated land that may have caused severe environmental damage there, also. All of this is still being discovered.

And early American communities were much more socialist than our movies show us, but not communist by any stretch. I'm not sure even the small tribes scattered around the US in the 1800's were that much different in this respect.

Also, there is much research that seems to indicate that disease severely de-populated the Americas just before the Europeans began to settle it. In effect, the Europeans may have brought in diseases during the discovery phase that cleared the land of inhabitants making colonization easier and more complete.

Before that happened, however, researchers believe that there were extensive trading networks (objects from the coast are found far inland, and vice versa.) That seems to indicate some bit of capitalism and private property. De-population seems to have ended this period of growth.

There is much uncertainty in these views, but they are gaining credence.



I agree with the vast majority of this post and the trade networks are some of the most interesting issues in ethnohistory today, but I'm not familiar with any Indian historian writing today who would say these trading networks were capitalist. They mainly operated along lines of patronage and familial based disbursement rather than accumulation, for one thing. For another, material goods did not have fluctuating exchange value based on supply and demand, they had absolute value.

The goal of trade in Algonquian societies, to take one example, was to attain goods that one could immediately provide for your dependents, as a good father should. This caused all kinds of misunderstandings with the British and French as they tried to squeeze more profit out of their empires and were immediately accused by Indian allies of not acting like true Fathers should, of not providing for their allies. The same thing occurred as the supply of beaver skins went up and the French tried to change the price of a single skin.

[Mountainia]

I agree with the vast majority of this post and the trade networks are some of the most interesting issues in ethnohistory today, but I'm not familiar with any Indian historian writing today who would say these trading networks were capitalist. They mainly operated along lines of patronage and familial based disbursement rather than accumulation, for one thing. For another, material goods did not have fluctuating exchange value based on supply and demand, they had absolute value.

Well, thank you. I'm no expert. All I've done is read a few books, and I'm trying to make sense out of what I've read. I'm certainly open to hear other interpretations.

When I said 'a bit of capitalism' I certainly did not mean to imply an economy like current western economies. All I meant was that in a trading society, there is likely private ownership, economic activity, wealth creation, and the like. What form it took is unknown to me. Maybe it's too loaded a word to use.

As far as the Mississippians go, I didn't know how much was known about the details of their trading, especially since the majority of it happened before 1300ad, and no written language was used in the area.

Also, many of the objects found are non-essentials such as jewelry (shells from the coast found inland) and the like.



The goal of trade in Algonquian societies, to take one example, was to attain goods that one could immediately provide for your dependents, as a good father should. This caused all kinds of misunderstandings with the British and French as they tried to squeeze more profit out of their empires and were immediately accused by Indian allies of not acting like true Fathers should, of not providing for their allies. The same thing occurred as the supply of beaver skins went up and the French tried to change the price of a single skin.

I believe the laws of supply and depand apply to any trading society. Even in societies like the old USSR, it applied. Rationing and price fixing are just a way to effect the results, but they don't change the basic 'law'.

Your description of the Algonquians is interesting. I don't know much about them.