The Delaware had trusted William Penn’s son and they had been tricked by him just as earlier the Dutch had tricked them into turning over a large section of land rather than the garden they had agreed to give the settlers. William Penn’s promise to always treat the Indians with fairness had been
Throughout the seventeenth century, conflict between Europeans and Native Americans was rampant and constant. As more and more Europeans migrated to America, violence became increasingly consistent. This seemingly institutionalized pattern of conflict begs a question: Was conflict between Europeans and Native Americans inevitable? Kevin Kenny and Cynthia J. Van Zandt take opposing sides on the issue. Kevin Kenny asserts that William Penn’s vision for cordial relations with local Native Americans was destined for failure due to European colonists’ demands for privately owned land.
In the article by Anthony F. C. Wallace, “The Hunger for Indian Land in Andrew Jackson’s America,” the reasons for America's need for Indian land is discussed. The purpose of this article is to explain the Indian removal that occurred under Andrew Jackson’s presidency. The thesis of this essay states that Americans kicked the Natives off of their land to fulfill a selfish desire to expand the cotton industry. The first point Wallace uses to support his thesis is how Jackson’s financial interest in the land affected the removal of Natives.
Signed on August 25th 1737 was one of history 's most disreputable treaties in the records of native-white relations. The agreement involving the Founder of Pennsylvania 's sons and the Delaware or Lenape was determined by “as far as a man could walk in a day and a half”. Unlike their father, William Penn, who had earned his reputation for being fair and respectful towards the natives, Richard, John and Thomas Penn had a different mindset. After his death, his sons faced problems with their father’s debt. In order to pay off the loans, the Penn brothers and their agent James Logan made an agreement with Lenape leaders known as The Walking Purchase.
John Winthrop acknowledged the land of the Native Americans to be possessed by the English Puritans. Through his beliefs, he justifies that the land was meant to be used by the puritans because of his interpretation of “God’s word”, which proceeded them to capture the land from the Native Americans. Winthrop’s consideration of God’s word was to use the land for natural and civil rights to benefit their neighbors with the good of their Christian intent. He believed that the natives had no existing system or bringing forth anything good for the land, which gave him a clear thought that he can make the land better. Furthermore, he also uses an example of biblical references to justify his reasoning for taking the land of the Natives because there
In 1742 the chief of Onondaga of the Iroquois Confederacy knew that his land that the people shared would become more valuable than it has ever been. (Doc B)The reason for this was because the “white people” also known as the Americans wanted the land of the chief. The feelings of the Chief result in complaining to the representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia,
The Great Land Rush and the making of the Modern world, 1690-1900, written by John C. Weaver, discusses the distribution of land, its changing process, and the introduction of property rights in a market economy throughout various parts of the world – North America, South Africa New Zealand, and Australia among others. This essay will discuss the definition of property right, how it was implemented by the settlers onto new territories and the development there after. Through the analysis of Weavers dissertations, the essay will also draw similarities and difference of the way various colonial government treated indigenous people and other settlers; along with how settlers treated aboriginals and one another. The book takes into consideration how the Neo-Europeans gained and distributed land that they discovered.5 The process of how a land comes into ownership and the legislation around it is called property rights.5 Property rights where developed after it was realized that Neo-Europeans where excessively violent with natives over their land.5 Europeans would discover new lands and would use their native beliefs, and legislation as a tactic to gain control of the niche.5 this would harm the native people of that land as these practices of land taking where violent between settlers and natives.5 The settlers used property rights within their own people but had aggressive beliefs with the natives that resulted in gruesome wars between the two parties for the land.
(pg. 686) As America expanded westward to pursue a “special ‘destiny’ to settle, develop, and dominate the entire continent,” they invaded the territory promised to Native Americans. (pg. 680, pg. 686) Promises made to Indians that they would keep and own their land in the West without worrying about trespassers were consistently broken by “buffalo hunters, miners, ranchers, farmers, railroad surveyors, and horse soldiers.”
Throughout Mary Rowlandson’s “A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration,” Rowlandson repeatedly makes mention to the idea of Puritan dominance over Native Americans. Rowlandson exemplifies this through the use of harsh diction, imagery, and biblical allusions. Rowlandson employs these methods in order to create a chasm between her people, the Puritans, and her captors, the Native Americans. Throughout the text, Rowlandson paints the Puritan community as “God’s chosen people,” justifying their forceful taking of Native land that lead to the onset of King Philip’s war. Ironically, many of Rowlandson’s techniques unintentionally portray her as more savage and immoral than her Native captors.
“Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress”, chapter one of “A People’s History of the United States”, written by professor and historian Howard Zinn, concentrates on a different perspective of major events in American history. It begins with the native Bahamian tribe of Arawaks welcoming the Spanish to their shores with gifts and kindness, only then for the reader to be disturbed by a log from Columbus himself – “They willingly traded everything they owned… They would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” (Zinn pg.1) In the work, Zinn continues explaining the unnecessary evils Columbus and his men committed unto the unsuspecting natives.
Rather than forced Native American to leave their land, The president Jackson and the congress could develop some activities to share the outcome of gold with them. They could find and arrangement which could result to leave them on their land and share the outcomes of the exploitations of the gold and others natural resources.
The English also made a number of bad choices, one of which was how they chose to treat the Indians. The English didn’t try to make a truce even when they encountered the peaceful Indians, a small action that would have saved many of the colonists’ lives. Not only would this help their relations, but it
Prior to the English landing on the Eastern shores in 1607 of what is now known as the United States of America, Native Americans dominated areas from coast to coast [of the future nation]. Many of these tribes had built their own form of society, influenced by maternal dominance, agriculture, fishing, hunting, trade, and religion (Foner, Chapter 1).Unfortunately, their way of life was altered as soon as Europeans began emigrating and landing on the Americas, and began taking over the land Native Americans had possessed for centuries. Although weakened by a wave of disease, many tribes showed acts of resistance against their invaders, in disputes like the Pueblo Revolt, King Philip 's’ War, and Worcester v. Georgia. These acts of resistance
Merrell’s article proves the point that the lives of the Native Americans drastically changed just as the Europeans had. In order to survive, the Native Americans and Europeans had to work for the greater good. Throughout the article, these ideas are explained in more detail and uncover that the Indians were put into a new world just as the Europeans were, whether they wanted change or
Thesis: The English were a prideful group, entangled in ethnocentrism, that caused a condescending and harsh treatment of the Native Americans, while the Native Americans were actually a dynamic and superior society, which led to the resentment and strife between the groups. P1: English view of Native Americans in VA Even though the English were subordinates of the Powhatan, they disrespected him and his chiefdom due to their preconceived beliefs that they were inferior. “Although the Country people are very barbarous, yet have they amongst them such government...that would be counted very civil… [by having] a Monarchical government” (Smith 22). John Smith acknowledges the “very civil” government of the Natives but still disrespected them by calling them “very barbarous,” which