Both groups experienced violence against their culture, against themselves, and they were also disrespected. They were often thought of as less than the white people, and were not treated kindly or humanely. For example, in 1903, Congress was allowed to “dispose of” the Indian’s land without their permission (Native Americans and the Federal Government). This action was very disrespectful towards the Indians, and it resulted in violence. Another example of this is that some Europeans did not think that the Indians had “souls worthy of redemption”, which means that they viewed themselves as better than the Indians (The Story of Chilocco Indian School). So, they did not think that the Indians were as good, or deserving, as themselves. Also,…
British imperialism improved the lives of the colonized Indians to no extent due to the unreasonable economic policies that lead to famine, the extreme poverty caused by the heavy taxation of Indians, and the unjust and one-sided British government that gave the colonized no say. The lives of the Indians were not improved from the British imperialism because of the implementation of cash crops and mercantilism that lead to starvation. Cash crops are crops produced for their commercial value rather than for the use of the grower. The British forced Indians to only grow cash crops to strengthen the British economy.…
The English took their land and disrupted their traditional systems of trade and agriculture. As a result, the power of native religious leaders was corrupted. The Indians were understandably angered by the colonists' insensitive actions, especially since they had treated the English kindly when they first arrived on the Eastern shores.…
The English preferred the trick the Indians into thinking they had peaceful motives and then massacring the unarmed Indians.…
Would people from different cultures have similar ways of living? While Canada is considered to be a recent civilization, India is an ancient one. Therefore, both countries have different cultures and ways of living. Some major cultural differences people tend to contrast between cultures are their food, clothing and life styles.…
Greene opens up the video stating that the relationship between the Indians and the Englishmen was one of the worst relationships in the U.S history. In the beginning, the relationship with the Indians went so well that colonial leader John Smith ordered his men to stop stealing from the Indians. Greene articulates that both parties were willing to trade items they had in surplus with ones they did not. The Indians traded woven cloths and foods with guns and iron utensils provided by the Europeans. The first problem occurred when the Indian men started to rely more heavily on hunting and spending less time on agriculture which upset gender balances. Soon Indians began fighting with one another over hunting grounds. When John Smith left Virginia…
Hello, and welcome to “Learn More, Teach More.” It has been more than five centuries since Christopher Columbus reached the Americas. We know a great deal about Columbus, of course, and about the Europeans and Africans who crossed the Atlantic after him. We know much less about the “Indians,” as Columbus mistakenly called them—the people already living in America. But we are learning more all the time, so I want to talk about early contacts between Native Americans and newcomers.…
The French and Indian war took a large toll on the American Indians lives. The British took revenge against Native American nations that fought on the side of the French by completely off their supplies and forced these native tribes to follow their rules. Native Americans that had fought on the side of the British with the understanding that their cooperation would lead to an end to European invasion on their land were unpleasantly surprised when many new settlers began to move in. Furthermore, with the French presence gone, there was little to distract the British government from focusing its attention on whatever Native American…
places and the grocery stores are located in a different place from the houses. We need to…
There was a world of difference between the two cultures , Europeans and Native American.…
The differences between French and British colonization lie primarily in their regional diplomatic strategies. New France's strategy for diplomacy with Indians was to form alliances and establish trade relations. This was an absolute necessity, as the French were very weak due to their lack of colonists (only 25,000 in 1720). The British, however, were not near as concerned about creating alliances with the Natives as they had such a large population in colonial North America (almost 400,000 in 1720). Also, unlike the French, the British colonial economy was more agriculture-based and less trade-based, making them less dependent on Indian relations. The larger numbers of British colonists can be attributed to the fact that most of them were…
According to a small selection of biographies and autobiographies of British and Indian WWII veterans, there were important commonalities in the backgrounds of the soldiers and commonalities along with some differences for motivations to enlist. There were commonalities in their background in the selections because both British and Indians had many different classes in their society enlist. The commonalties in motivations to enlist stem from the less wealthy British and Indian soldiers mostly joining for a steady job and money. Unlike the British upper class, however, the Indian upper class did not join for the sake of their country, but for similar reasons to the lower class Indians.…
The struggle for Indian independence was more than just an effort to break free of British colonial rule. It was part of a broader conflict that took place, and is in many ways ongoing, within Indian society. In order to organize resistance, upper-caste Indian activists needed to frame Indian identity as united against British colonialism. This was not in of itself difficult, but they wanted to maintain an upper-caste dominance over Indian society. This required upholding "classical" structures of caste identity for all Indians in their vision of what post-colonial India would look like and how it would function politically and socially. These structures of caste provided upper-caste Hindus with a privileged social and political position backed by religious dogma. The presence of the British, under the British East India Company from 1600-1857 , and the British Crown from 1858 until 1947, had been a major influence in defining India's political and social structures. This British influence shaped Indian caste based politics by strengthening caste identity, playing different caste groups off of each other, and governing in such a way that encouraged groups to embrace caste identity to seek political gain. It is not a question of the British "creating" Indian identity; rather it is a process by which they emphasized certain institutions, namely Brahmanism and ancient Hindu texts like the Manu Dharma Sastras, in order to organize and better control India for generating resources and keeping order. Centuries of British rule helped to create a distorted Indian society based on a romanticized version of ancient Brahman order, superior to any political developments that had arisen after it. This Orientalist view was utilized by Hindu activists who sought to maintain Hindu primacy and privilege. The British race-based view of "Aryan" Brahmans as the natural rulers for India, under their watch, was informed by the body of literature that made up the…
The executive is not independent of Parliament - the HoCs can overthrow the gov't by a vote of no…
Education of Indians had become a topic of interest among East India Company officials from the outset of the Company's rule in Bengal.[65] In the last two decades of the 18th century and the first decade of the nineteenth, Company officials pursued a policy of conciliation towards the native culture of its new dominion, especially in relation to education policy.[65] . During the 19th century, the Indian literacy rates were rumoured to be less than half of post independence levels which were 18.33% in 1951. The policy was pursued in the aid of three goals: "to sponsor Indians in their own culture, to advance knowledge of India, and to employ that knowledge in government."[65]…
