Below please find this week’s discussion questions written by your classmate, James Phinex. Please respond to at least one of these questions using the “Leave a Comment” function on this page by Wednesday night. Your comment should follow the guidelines here.
Map of Jamestown and its surroundings in 1612 by Captain John Smith
- Why did the promoters of the Jamestown stick with their enterprise even though the initial years were so hard? Why not move to another region with more fertile soil for agricultural prosperity and a lesser degree of native contact to reduce hostilities?
- When the Puritans settled in New England, how was their attitude toward religious practice similar to that of the King of England, from whom they had fled? Do you see any hypocrisy here?
- How did the Europeans’ belief that they were superior to the natives reflect in their interactions with the natives? Why didn’t the natives initially band together and put a stop toward a European presence in North America? Did their culture or their hunger for European goods, such as weaponry, lead to their downfall?
- I found interesting the increasing problem with natives as European settlement expanded. I am just wondering: Why did these companies that chartered these expeditions not send more soldiers or maybe mercenaries to protect both people and goods?
- The issue of slavery has been a controversial topic since the beginning of the American story. As early as 1619 Africans were brought to Jamestown. Many historians agree that these particular Africans were brought as indentured servants rather than slaves. I am just curious to know, how did indentured servitude transform into the brutal and harsh institution of slavery? What does this say about the development of racial stereotypes and the effects these stereotypes have on the relations of whites and Africans?
AMERICA TO 1877 
The Europeans’ belief that they were superior to the natives made them take advantage of the Natives’ hospitality. I think the Natives didn’t try to put a stop to the European presence because, as Professor O’Malley stated, they didn’t think it was normal for people to take over land. They were used to sharing and it seems to me that they saw themselves only as a creation of the earth. They didn’t believe they were superior than anyone else so these thoughts were foreign to them. As a child is a stranger to the ego, so were these people. I also believe that when the Natives did realize that something wasn’t right, they accepted it as a part of evolution or nature. The weapons and advanced technology also played a big part. I don’t think the Natives were hungry for European goods. I think they were just astonished and wanted to know more. Their ignorance (not in a bad sense) to other forms of thinking, like that of the Europeans’ desire for power, was the main cause of their downfall. If they would have had the same goal as the Europeans, it would have been a war similar to our modern day wars.
I agree with Desiree Perez in the fact that the Natives ignorance played a part in their initial bad contact with the Europeans. However i feel that even thought the Natives were originally at a disadvantage they adopted the European attitudes fairly quickly and became a increasingly large thorn in the settlers sides and i think that it became a matter of a technological advantage. The natives were able when they had access to the European technology were able to cause a big problem and put the early colonies in a lot of danger.There are whole coloines that a presumed to be lost to the Natives. If the Natives had guns in the same quanties i do not think we would have been able to coloinses as easily as we did.
The Europeans believed that they were superior simply because they felt they were at an advantage when it comes to technology and the way of living when compared to the Indians. Thinking that way caused tension between the Natives and the Europeans because they didn’t show them much respect and just wanted more land to expand, even though some Europeans did treat the Natives nicely that was shortly turned into hatred towards each others. I believe the Natives didn’t initially put a stop to the Europeans mainly because they liked the idea of exchanging products with each others and the products were so foreign to the Natives that it caught there attention to want to have it. Also the Natives initially didn’t know the Europeans would later on want to expand and take on more land since that is something the Natives never thought or never had. At the reading you will notice the Natives actually teaching Europeans the essentials to farming and hunting but what they didn’t know was that it last would turn bad when the Europeans start to want to expand and take more land and that is when the problems start to stir between the Natives and Europeans. I believe if the Natives knew the actual intentions of the Europeans about wanting to take more land they would have had a different reaction and would have banned together and put a stop to the Europeans.
Adding to the mindset of Europeans and their supposedly “superior” stature vs native americans; how native americans lived was a huge culture shock to them because they were accustomed to seeing civilizations that valued materialistic objects, land, money, clothing, etc. This to them was worst than the “Barbarians” who they thought were already appalling. Europeans were ignorant in that they assumed because some people were not doing what they were doing then they were not valued as humans. Hence, how slavery became justified since slaves were unable to read, write, etc. Looking at things differently, Europeans took advantage of the Native American’s cultural differences and exploited them to their advantage. I do agree that if the natives knew they would have fought against this part of history happening, but there are a ton of different variables that would play into that equation.
4. I’m not surprised that hostilities between the colonists and the natives continued to grow since in the text it said the colonists continued to break the original treaties that they themselves had wrote out. They continued to change the agreements of how much land they held to meet the shareholder’s demands and to generate more money, supplies, people, etc. As for sending soldiers to Jamestown, it was not the King’s personal investment. The charter was granted by the King to a group of investors so whatever those guys can afford, then that is what the colony gets. Since they lost a ton of money before the discovery of tobacco, I doubt they could afford mercenaries. Militia is as cheap as it gets, every man or boy who could fire a rifle straight was good enough for them.
5. While this is outside of the book’s readings, my answer for you is greed. They hired white laborers, white indentured servants and black indentured servants but what would you consider to be cheaper? None of those, but a slave. Laborers were just that, paid to do labor while indentured servants lived their lives and worked for the land owners but after their contract was over they were free(despite many dying before that time came). By having African slaves:
– Owned for life.
– Any family born owned for life.
– Only provide food and shelter.
– They could withstand the working conditions better than their white counterparts.
– They were easier to retrieve if they ran off.
This is really hard to answer all in one post since there are so many things that led up to the institution of African slavery, but I would say that the development of racial stereotypes and its effects would fall under the same categories of how they treated every native they met.
#5. From my past history classes we were taught that the Africans weren’t used as indentured servants but as actual property (meaning slaves.) An indentured servant was primarily a peasant or of the lower class that had the ability to move up in rank by owning land (after serving their 7 years of labor). When the Europeans were trading goods in Africa one of the many goods that were brought up were the use of slaves. African tribes enslaved others that were war captives, towns they colonized[in this sense I mean took over]. In the start of the slave trade, Europeans “purchased” the slaves. As a purchased slave, it implies that you are no longer a person with rights but a property. Being a property indicates that you are disposable and belong to the owner for life. Not only were the slaves a belonging to their master but the kins of the slaves as well. It’s sort of like preownership for a lifetime. Using slaves over the indentured servants was beneficial for the settlers because they had worker that was theirs for a lifetime where the servants only served for a short period time. It was cheap labor for the Europeans which soon became free labor.
2.
It is peculiar that a group of people who have faced severe oppression, would flee only to create an equally intolerant society. It would be expected that, being well acquainted with the hardships and injustices that concomitantly accompany oppression, more tolerance would be practiced. The Puritans who settled Massachusetts, however, fell victim to the trap of power; setting up a government that was oppressive in the same way that England had been. Perhaps they were afraid that if they did not maintain a stringently religious society, they would eventually be overthrown by less religious individuals, and possibly even face oppression once they returned to being the minority.
It is interesting to note that when faced with the same problem, the Calverts of Maryland set up the “Act Concerning Relgion,” which favored freedom of religion. Where the Puritans maintained a strict society, the Catholics allowed the observation of any religion. This act was set up as a preemptive effort to maintain their own religious freedom, which they were afraid could be lost when they became the minority once again.
The similarities between the way the Puritans and early settlers created their society and the way in which the King of England governed was quite similar. They fled to break from the Church of England which allowed for no freedom of religion outside of the Church. What is interesting to note is that after the Charles I became King after the death of his father , he granted a charter to a group of Puritan Merchants to create the Massachusetts Bay Company where they could seek refuge. The newly elected governor of the colony , James Winthrop , and his followers in turn did exactly what they were trying to flee from. They created a “city upon a hill” , which in essence was a commonwealth where the church and civic structure were one and the same ,which is hypocritical because that they established a society that was modeled in a similar fashion to the one they demanded that seek refuge from.
The issue of slavery has been a controversial topic since the beginning of the American story. As early as 1619 Africans were brought to Jamestown. Many historians agree that these particular Africans were brought as indentured servants rather than slaves. I am just curious to know, how did indentured servitude transform into the brutal and harsh institution of slavery? What does this say about the development of racial stereotypes and the effects these stereotypes have on the relations of whites and Africans?
African indentured servants and white indentured servants almost had similar statuses in society in the 1600s of Jamestown. And after their contracts ended, they would be able to own land. There was even an African who owned land in Virginia, his name was Anthony. But I think he fled after the law of slavery had been legalized. Indentured servitude had transformed into the horrible institution of slavery because having slaves was more beneficial and cheaper for the colonists. The indentured servant contract was 5-7 years and it was obliged for these indentured servants to receive land, money, weapons, food, etc after their contract ended. This resulted losses for these elite colonists and sort of brought social mobility to these indentured servants, which most colonists did not like. It was a big threat for these colonists. Slavery was more economically beneficial for them. I feel like these stereo types were not supposed to be created because I believe was religion was more of a factor than ethnicity in the 1600s of Jamestown. It was only when the institution of slavery had started, the harsh treatment of Africans had started.
The promoters of Jamestown stuck to it out of sheer stubbornness. And also, if you read through enough landings of the Europeans on American soil, the Natives, who they denigrated, gave them corn, which was much easier to produce than the English crops. They also gave them canoes, which were better at navigating the waters. And in the end, it’s sad to read because the Indians die either way. The Indians fight you and they get called savages. If they help, they die of small pox. That’s assuming that they don’t pull a Virginia, where they intimidated them into having a small plot of land, and then grew so much in 20 years that they had 3 counties in that same plot of land.
The Puritans fled England so that they could practice religious freedom. But those that lived near them weren’t allow to. They were so pious on one hand, and in the same breathe, so intolerant. But it’s a staple of rigidity. The same rigidity that allowed them to practice faithfully every morning, noon, and night, is the same rigidity that can’t stand watching your neighbor do a variation of the same thing.
They tricked them into giving over land, they preyed on them, they tricked them, killed them, and they could do it by following the mindset of every person that rules over another: They’re sub human. They’re savages.
The Natives didn’t initially band together because they were busy fighting each other. As I said before, they were doomed either way. When you hear about the trail of tears, you realize that this was coming either way. They treated the Indians like a blight that had to be removed from the land. The same land that they lived in harmony with.
I agree with you on the fact that the puritans did not see the Indians as humans they sought out the new world because they thought that the world was corrupted and they looked at the new world as the a chance to create a new gods paradise on earth and that the natives were an obstacle to test them and that they needed to be cleared from the land eventually so that the land can be completed . I think that they accepted there assistance because no matter what your religious beliefs when faced with a matter of life and death most people will chose life and deal with the religious matters later.
As mentioned previously, the lands of the New World were already occupied thousands of years earlier by the Natives prior to the arrival of the English colonists. The first English settlement was in Jamestown, Virginia and the land chosen was poor which made it very difficult to live on as well as survive. It was nearly impossible to expand their territory, for the area the colonists lived on were surrounded by Natives. The colonists moved into a land that originanlly belonged to the Natives and if they tried to obtain more land, the Natives would revolt and attack the Englishmen on a land they were more familar with. Given the advantage, the Natives were accustomed to the environment therefore to begin establishing a town was unmanagable for the colonists. Unexperienced, the colonists could not make use of the resources and being exposed to diseases such as malaria declined the population even further. This did not stop the Englishmen from trying though. It will take years of hardships and even undergo “The Starving Time” when the Natives kill off all livestock, making it nearly impossible to survive. Although sufferings were taking place in Virginia, the population still expanded with new settlements. Jamestown had finally began to plant its feet on the ground with a governor leading the colony by fighting off Indian tribes as well as discovering tobacco as their new market crop leading the colony to flourishment.
Colonists were not prepared to come to the new world. They did not bring enough food or supplies to farm. If they did, their food ran out. “The Starving Time” was a horrible time for them because of malaria, a very cold winter, and food shortages. Cannibalism had started, which demonstrates how bad it had gotten. There was also resentment between the Powhattan Confederacy (Native Americans) and the colonists. There was even a time where John Smith was captured but Pocahontas saved him, which brought the fake Disney Story of Pocahontas. The true story was that Pocahontas fell in love with John Rolfe, who planted the first tobacco in Jamestown, which Tania said brought flourishment.
Although the Europeans believed that they were superior the interactions between the Native Americans and the Europeans were initally positive. The European mindset was one of a bargining nature. They hoped to have trade agreements , and also spread their christian doctrine. However as we know the Native americans had already had a long history of practicing a traditional way of life, and knowlege of superior agricultural technology which they were willing to teach the settlers. Unfortunately as more Europeans arrived tentions began to arise, and the Native Americans banded together to resist the rapid influence of the settlers. For instance the Indian massacre of 1622 in which the Powhatan Confederacy made up of 30 Native Nmerican tribes retaliated against the disproportionate amount of Europeans who began to beome violet and billigerant toward the indiginous peoples, and for over twenty years they fought the Europeans. Finally there many reasons that contributed to the downfall of the Native Americans for example the spred of disease, and acceptance of christianity by many native tribes. The fact that they began to utilize weapons and European goods they aquired through numerous battles was simply a consequence and condition of war.
Indentured servitude was a system established even before the settlement in the Americas. It was a system that qualified the lower estate to serve time in order to be provided with shelter, basic needs and at a possible extent, obtain some land after their period of service expires. Even though not all these “luxuries” were obtained after their service, it provided for some, the opportunity to come to America. As for why the system of slavery replaced this indentured servitude system, the south demand labor that required intensive efforts. Even though the south was a prosperous agricultural society, they replaced indentured servitude with slavery to obtain a cheaper form of labor. Indentured servants were freed after their contract expired and thus they could not reproduce another form of servants, unlike slavery. To a certain extent those who fulfilled their contract were women who married men of upper status or men who continued prospering in America. Slavery was a system that not only reproduced other slaves but gave no chance of social mobility. Even though the system of indentured servitude was originated in Africa, it was African themselves who were subjected to the system of Slavery in America. Most of the African brought to slavery were placed in the Caribbean as a result of Taino revolt, but were given a chance to be racially mixed with Spaniards and Tainos themselves, and that was a result of an already racially mixed society in Spain(between the north and the south of Spain). As for the colonies the prenotion of a racial mix between Africans and other “superior” races was already considered absurd. Therefore, the English mentality towards slavery was different from other European nations.
2.
While the Puritans purpose for Fleeing England was fueled by King James I hard and Intolerable actions towards them. It’s surprising that the same group of people would follow this same auctions as the King. The same ignorance about the beliefs of others was a part of them as much as the King. The Puritan belief of establishing a “god favored” city that others could model says it all. One could say they removed themselves from one area where they had no power; in order to gain superiority elsewhere to reiterate the injustices they faced onto others. It may have been their drive to spread their own religion that caused these auctions. It blinded them from seeing what was right and wrong. It may also have been a fear of any other religion becoming dominant in that area, thus placing them in the same position they were in back in England.
I agree with the comment above, when the puritans fled from England and settled in New England, they were coming from a land where they were being penalized for their belief. Practicing the protestant religion was looked down upon, and the puritans were restricted with what they were able to believe in. The puritans came to New England in search of religious freedom, in which they had, but now they acted upon the natives of the land in the same manner that they were experiencing in the home land. This was nothing short of hypocrisy because the puritans wanted religious freedom, but were not willing to respect the beliefs of the natives.
3. Early colonists depended on and were at mercy of Native Americans. I think their fear of unknown land added to fear of numerical superiority of Natives held their ambitions at bay. As soon as the number of colonists grew to substancial, their fears more or less disappeared. They no longer had to conform with Natives. European value system based on ownership of land drove the settlers to claim new territories. Quite often these said territories already had inhabitans, Native Americans. Even though Europeans bought these lands, their purchases can often be compared to scam. They were probably very aware of the value Natives placed on land. As it was said in class, Indians moved to different places every now and then and had no understanding of private ownership of the land. Therefore, I think its safe to say that many Europeans banked on this. They were also not shy of using their advanced weaponry to “remove” Indians from their land when a considerable population of white colonists settled there without any permission. This brings out a notion that Europeans did not honor treaties concerning the settlement of land. Europeans considered their culture better and more advanced, not to mention religion. To them, Indians were not equals in these terms. Hence it was acceptable not to abide agreements made with Indians. As for Indians not joining forces together to fight colonists, they did not have a sence of belonging together as Natives of America. In other words they didn’t have “Pan-Native American” identity. Native Americans associated themselves with smaller social units such as tribes. At times leaders such as cheiftain Metacomet of Wampanoag, also known as King Philip by white settlers, united several tribes to fight against expansionist ambitions of Europeans. However, death of such leaders brought an effective end of coalitions they commanded. Death of Metacomet and collapse of his alliance is the example such case.
While Native American tribes needed a capable leader to form a coalition, Europeans did not. They were already organized into nations and had formed Pan-European identity. I think they felt that it was them, Europeans, versus the rest of peoples of America. In other words, they already had a sense of unity and had no difficulty organizing together to protect their interests. In the end, Native Americans were defeated and driven off their land because of their beliefs and culture. They did not understand what was private ownership of the land and what risk it posed to them. Although they had some alliances and coalitions, these were mostly formed after Europeans gained a solid foothold. Often these alliances depended on certain leaders whose death would eventually cause them to collapse. In conclusion, Native Americans did not have expansionist views of Europeans and preferred to trade and co-exist than take other peoples land as their own.
The Europeans’ belief that they were superior to the Natives reflected in their interactions with the Natives by the gradual but persistent removal of the people during colonization.
I don’t believe the Natives banded together to put an end to European presence because of a genuinely naïve mentality as well as tribal conflicts. Many history texts retell the story of the Natives as spiritual and peaceful beings. I believe that they were naïve in their thinking that helping the Europeans essentially meant they were doing a justice to the Earth community. I’m sure that if the Natives were aware of European intentions they would not have offered their knowledge of the land.
Also, tribal conflicts. Perfection does not exist where life is present and for that reason I believe that relationships between tribes were strained long before European presence. Tribal pride and territories may have played an integral role in hesitation to communicate help from one to another regardless of the cause.
I sincerely believe that had the Europeans adopted the Spanish belief of “enlisting,” as worded by the text, the Natives into their growing societies, the tensions between the nations would not have been as intense. Considering the culture and spirituality of the Natives, should there arise conflict living in an integrated society heightens the possibility of compromise. My interpretation of the reading was not that the Natives particularly “hungered” for European goods but were more curious, as stated by a fellow classmate. Curious to become familiar with materials that were not necessarily essential to their daily lives but could contribute. I do not agree that Native actions “lead to their downfall.” I believe that the Natives were faced by unfortunate circumstances and they were not prepared for what came.
# 5 . What I understood from my previous course; Atlantic World 1492-1713, indentured servant existed in Africa before Europeans bought and transported Africans to America, only it wasn’t tainted and transformed into such cruel and penal realities for the Africans until it had reached America. in Africa the slaves that were lived amongst each other as indentured servants was run on a different system compared to the English trade of Slaves. The Africans were provided with housing, food, and either were working towards their debts, punishments or to gain more social status, and not all slaves were permanently slaves, where as the main purpose for the European slave trade to America was with the intent to use the slaves for harsh and intense labor requiring exhausting duties, and the system used among these African slaves was proven to be more harsh and punitive compared to those who were brought to the Caribbean islands, which reflected more of the roots of the Africans traditions of slavery. Whereas the Europeans configuration of indentured servants was represented and remembered by techniques, I feel, were more harshly inflicted because of the straining work that was demanded to be done and the best way they saw suitable and reliable to keep so many of the slaves in check was through harsh through punishment.
The correlation between racial stereotypes today and the transformation of the indentured servant to a slave is actually a good point, to see how through the change of the meaning and purpose of the indentured servant who is in particular this case black and how it affected the views of the Africans during the time is interesting because it subconsciously seems to have tainted the minds of the whites to have a natural superior outlook amongst the slaves, I Don’t really have an answer for that but I think it is also a curious topic, if I’m understanding his question correctly.
#3 I do not necessarily agree with the statement that Europeans always believed they were superior to the natives. The French and some British colonists in the interior serve as an example of the cooperation involved between these two groups. Although the Europeans did have the advantage of weaponry and technology, Native tribes also had certain advantages such as an understanding of the land and farming techniques. The French also participated in trade with the natives as well as respected the traditions and elders of the tribes. It was not until further settlement of the European colonists in the mid 18th Century that the hostility grew among the Natives as the settlers grew impatient of negotiations. For this reason, I believe, many tribes felt a some certainly in their relationship with the Europeans.
The Europeans technology and general ignorance to the Native American culture lead them to feel supreme towards the Native Americans. As state previously laws regarding the ownership of land did not exist in Native American culture like it did in European society. This led obviously to the land being taken from the Native people. It seems that the difference in the culture had a larger impact on the downfall of the Native Americans than the trading between both groups.
The orginal plan of the English was to expand yheir country through colonization, which already gives off the impression that they were there to dominate. Once therr colonies started to progress moe easily, they sent women over to start families. Intrrgration with the Indians was never part of their plan. So when they found that the Indians were agriculturally
More ad advanced, the very thing needed for their advancement it produced a fear in the Europeans that would be lessened through the suppressing of the Indians.
I didn’t realize that I made so many mistakes. The original plan of the English was to expand their country through colonization, which already gives off the impression that they were there to dominate. Once their colonies started to progress more easily, they sent women over to start families. Integration was never part of colonist’s plan so when they found that Indians were agriculturally more advanced, it produced a fear in the Europeans which led to their false feelings of superiority towards the Native Americans.