1. Considering
the video and the reading, what were some of the differences between Native
American and European peoples? How might those differences have led to a clash
between these peoples?
2. Would
you rather have been a colonist in Virginia Colony or Plymouth Colony? Why?
3. This
week’s history has been about immigration. Are there universals when people
immigrate to new lands? Are there probably some similarities between European
peoples populating the new world and those from around the world moving to the
United States?
I would rather have been a colonist in Plymouth Colony. To begin with, the Plymouth Colony in the north had better intentions than that of the Virginia Colony. For instance, the Virginia Colony attempted to go to the new land to make profit, find a trade route through Virginia to the Pacific, and to convert the natives of the land to the Christian religion. Their motives seemed to be entirely selfish and ignorant. They did not care to think if the natives were already making use of the land for their own profit. What right did they have to step in and use resources without the approval of the natives? They also did not care about the native peoples’ religion. They simply made up their minds to convert them because they felt and “knew” their religion was the right one. Had they been raised in another religion, they would be worshiping a different deity. I am sure that if another group of colonists would have tried to convert them and tell them their religion was wrong, they would not have liked it. On the other hand, the Plymouth Colony simply wanted to have the freedom to practice the religion they wanted. They did not want another religion to be forcefully imposed upon them. I would also rather have been a colonist in Plymouth Colony since it was characterized of families. The Virginia Colony consisted of only men. In order to be a successful colony, women needed to be present to help feed and expand the colony once they were settled. According to the reading, the Plymouth Colony appeared to get along more with the natives than the Virginia Colony. The presence of women and children in the Plymouth Colony might have suggested to the natives that they intended no harm.
ReplyDeleteKrystal, you had some great points about why it would be better to be a colonist in the Plymouth Colony. I definitely agree with you that the Virginia colonists were selfish and really only wanted to better themselves instead of joining together with the natives to produce even more. If I was a native I would not want to be forced to change my way of life or beliefs by some strangers who decided they were going to take over my homeland. One point you did mention that I had yet to cross my mind was the difference between families in the Plymouth Colony versus mainly men in the Virginia colony. Some people may not take that as much of a difference but in reality, it is a huge difference and I thought it was great that you pointed that out! Good job!
DeleteI also agree with Krystal and Tori on the point that the Virginia attempting to go to the new land to make profit and to only make themselves better instead of trying to join the other natives to produce more. I also agree with Krystal's comment that the Virginia Colony was selfish about finding a route on convincing the other natives to be Christians. Tori and Krystal had some great points on how the Virginia Colony wanted to pretty much force the other colonies to do as the Virginia Colony did.
DeleteI agree with Krystal on that the Virginia Colony was being selfish because they were trying to change the beliefs and customs of the new world people. They were being selfish in wanting more for themselves than actually creating some bond with the natives. Having said this, I believe if they would have gotten together with the Natives, the new land could have function alot more better than anyone could have imagined.
DeleteI hope this is a good response.
I definitely agree with you Krystal. With the Virginia Colony only being there for certain reasons, they are especially selfish. There was no way they could ever get along and keep a nice relationship with the natives. It was almost if they were only there to change everything the natives lived for. The way that the Virginia Colony wanted to convert the Natives was very rude. It was not right that they felt that their religion was the best for the Natives who have been there for most if not all of their lives. Also I liked how you also talked about the family atmosphere. It was nice to read your reply! :)
DeleteThis is along the same lines as what I was thinking. The motives of the two colonies were definitely different and those of the Plymouth Colony seemed slightly less greedy. Although there was tension in both colonies between the Europeans and the natives, it would indeed appear that the people of the Plymouth Colony were friendlier to the natives, even sharing a feast with them at one point. The point about the families was a good one as well, this was a mission to create a community and not just a place for pulling profits. Overall, good response!
DeleteGood start, Krystal!
ReplyDeleteREMEMBER, EVERYONE, THIS IS THE SPACE WHERE YOU WILL RESPOND TO CLASSMATES.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYES, this is the place. So each week you will see a question and you should answer it here AND THEN do your response to your classmates here too.
DeleteAlso, for future reference, email me any questions. I worry that if he question is on here I may not see it as soon.
Happy blogging, well historical blogging.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAfter watching the videos and reading about the exploration of the colonies, I can see that the Natives and Europeans may be similar in some ways but they are also very different in their way of life and their goals or motives. The Europeans seemed to be discontent with just their current land and life that they have been living, they want more. They seek to expand their territory and make a profit while they explore. They want to take over someone else’s home and make it their own while they convert or force the natives to change their beliefs to what is “right” in the Europeans mind. The explorers seem to have an heir to their thinking that they are better than whom they will encounter and that their way of life is the best as well. When you turn to look at the natives, they were content with living on their land the way they were living and were often a bit ignorant of what the Europeans were planning to do. Many of them didn’t think twice before welcoming in the people who would soon destroy their tribes. They were taken advantage of and fought back not to conquer but to save their lives and land. When you put selfish and greedy people on a boat to conquer new land and natives who wouldn’t think twice about the pain and suffering that could be caused by welcoming strangers to their shores, it will not end well. In fact, many of these clashes between the two peoples ended in death not only by disease but through fighting as well.
ReplyDeleteyou have some very good points and I agree, but my question is, if Montezuma knew what was going to happen why welcome Cortez to the land?
DeleteHello Tori, I completely agree with you. Both the Natives and Europeans did have many different methods for living and prospering as a whole, yet in the end they were kind of similar for wanting the same necessities such as resources for food, water, having appropriate clothing during the season change as well as shelter.It's unfortunate that the natives suffered so much due to their own lack of caution towards the Europeans.
DeleteHello Tori, I totally agree with what you are saying. You have really strong points in your argument. They started differently, but ended very similar. It is sad that both the Natives and the Europeans had to end their lives through fighting.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn addition to answer the second part on how the differences they had would led a clash between them is because as I mentioned before it would be hard for one of the groups to adjust to the other one because they each already have their way of life and it's really hard to all of sudden ask for change.
DeleteHi Tori, you have good points the settlers should have made better efforts to learn the culture of the natives instead of wiping them off the map. The integration of the settlers into the culture of the natives could have propelled a new age of sophistication because the native people had very complex governments and talented engineers. My only question though is how this relates to immigrants today and if you found any similarities?
DeleteI think some of the most obvious reasons why there was conflict between the native Americans and immigrating Europeans could have been their social differences, language, culture, pride,religion and territory. Both groups being very religious it would not be surprising that they would see each other as demons or as a demonic figures. As a result, they try to imposed their religion onto the other group, this is especially true for the Europeans, since Judeo-christian religions are known to have a urge to impose their religious views into others. Given this natives not only felt like their land was being invaded but also their religious beliefs. Although natives might have welcomed the Europeans immigrants in the beginning, the tribes soon realize that these individuals weren't here to better their lives. What ended up happening was that most of the native people ended up dying. Another factor that could have cause conflicts between the two was their different language and simply how they would look at each other. Although in the video and text it is mentioned that the English didn't see natives as inferior, I'm pretty confident to say that the English did not see the natives as equally valuable as their own people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJulio,
DeleteI agree with most of your points. Culture, religion, language, and geography probably played an important role in the conflict between the immigrating Europeans and the Native Americans. However, the fact that both groups were of different religions and how they probably saw each other as demons did not directly result in one group trying to impose their religion on the other. The immigrating Europeans already had in mind that they wanted to convert the Native Americans before they even got to the Americas. Sadly, the Native Americans were betrayed and realized that the Europeans were not as friendly as they had first appeared. The immigrating Europeans had selfish motives and simply wanted to take goods from the natives. The language of both groups was obviously determined by their geography. Different languages and different cultures usually find some forms of body language, gestures, and words offensive. The fact that the Europeans did not know how to communicate with the Native Americans and acted as if they were better than them might have made the situation intimidating for the natives. Their different religions also caused conflict between the two groups. Throughout history, many deaths, disagreements have been started because of opposing religions. Unfortunately, these events that likely took place in history still continue today. There are still some ethnic and religious groups, which consider their race and religion better than that of other groups. Although the majority of people tend not to be racist or intolerant to other religious groups, the extremists of both sides are the ones who cause unnecessary conflict with others who are not members of their group.
I agree with all of you as well. More over than what see on the surface there is a huge change underneath it all. Like you mentioned since they are both religious groups it would be hard to force a certain thought or belief on them, and also like you mentioned in today's society it totally relates with certain topics you can be raised with a certain belief or thought and it may be wrong but that's just how you were raised to believe. I think that back then and now it continues to be a touchy subject since people always want to be right about what they say. Sometimes things is not what it appears to be.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePaul, you have made some very great points and I completely agree with you. I believe the Plymouth Colony was very fortunate in being able to have a good relationship with the Natives in order for their survival. And then just knowing that they were able to set up their community living they way they had originally intended.
DeletePaul, you made some very interesting points. I would also choose the Plymouth colony because of their religious freedom,and great relationship with the Natives. If I was to personally choose a colony I would also want a leader like John Smith who was a tough and had an experienced military background. But overall, I would still choose the Plymouth colony.
DeleteHi Paul, very nice and detailed points! I would also choose the Plymouth colony because of their relationship with Natives and I personally would love to practice a religion without being criticized. I completely agree with you.
DeleteHiya Harmon! I have to say that I agree with Paul and Harmon because they both explain great details on why they would be in the Plymouth Colony. Honestly, the relationship of the Natives and the Plymouth Colony were more respectable within each other and I would love to learn more about the Natives because it's a whole new experience which will create a bigger imagination and bigger ideas.
DeleteI definitely agree with you Paul, according to the reading the Plymouth settlers also did a better job in developing an alliance with the Natives in the area(Wampanoag Confederacy). The treaties made with the Massasoit people helped the 51 remaining colonists in exchange for military aid against neighboring tribes. Within a few years with the arrival of cattle and the knowledge they obtained they became diversified, self sustaining and 3,050 strong. The only thing I dislike was the way the settlers repaid the Natives for their help. They wiped off the confederacy and jailed the chief that had helped them so much. In the end, people do what they think is instrumental for their survival even if it may not be the "right" thing to do.
DeletePaul, very well said. I would have to say both colonies had a fair share of ambition. The Virginia Colony, which consisted of only men, had a more selfish ambition with that of going to new land to make profit and the intent of trying to convert the Native's in to Christians, with the "thought" that they knew it was a better choice for the Natives. The Plymouth Colony, a group of families, with a good ambition of seeking for better land in which they could live in peace without the concern of being criticized on behalf of their religion. Plymouth would be a a better choice because of the family-oriented background and the relationship they built with the native, as you mention, which gave them a more stabled economy.
DeleteI also agree. The Plymouth Colony was more humane in their quests, They worked together for the common good unlike the Virginia Colony who were mainly about the business protion. The crew memebers did nothing to help during their trips. The Plytmouth Colony had a good side to them unlike the Virgina Colony who were only out for self interest.
DeleteI believe there were many differences among the Native American people and the European people. The Native Americans solely spent their time in agriculture in order to survive harsh seasons but also to increase their population that way there would be more people to help with working on the crops and setting up systems that would provide the native people with more nourishment. It was their own way of surviving, whereas the European people were set on finding new lands in order to find valuable products that they have never seen before in order to present it back to the King and queen and therefore being allowed more opportunities to bring back more of those supplies which in turn could be useful for the European people to trade for other valuable products needed or to sell them for money. Although the native people and the European people had their own methods for what would be suitable to their survival and increase in not only population but goods, they are similar in way because they want the same things. They want to increase their living by having the necessary tools in order to have more food and to have shelter, as well as having medicine to cure any illness. Yet, being so different caused both groups to clash due to their own ignorance. Mainly, from what I got on both the video and reading was that some of the native people were actually kind enough to trade items with them and help them gain back their energy when they were malnourished to do to the lack of food they had once they got to the “New Land”, but what caused problems among both groups was that the Europeans wanted more to take from the natives and try to convert them to their lifestyle. Which not all native people would comply to, and continuing to take over their by building more settlements. Causing wars among the native people and European people, leading to more deaths from the natives because of European’s having more advanced weapons that the natives weren’t familiar with.
ReplyDeleteMaria Hernandez, hello. I agree with you that both the Native Americans and the European people had differences that could not be resolved, and eventually led to the unfortunate events for the natives. It was also due to the fact that the European people failed to learn more about the Native American culture, and thus many were not able to form a bond of trust. Perhaps things would have been different if both sides had put in more effort to learn the culture and language of the opposite party.
DeleteMaria, you're right the advantage the Europeans had on the native Americans were the advanced weapons. Also the native Americans were kind to let the Europeans in their land, but they had no idea of the advantage the Europeans would take from them. It was obvious the Europeans would go back for more because they couldn't get enough of it.
DeleteYes that is all very true. The native Americans had to live with what they had cropped and they did everything for themselves in order to survive over the winter when the whether got extreme. while the Europeans just came and took advantage of what the Native people had already accomplished and taking credit. Although both sides had the beliefs and traditional there is always going to be a losing side, unless they can come up with a compromise.
DeleteI agree that the Europeans had a advantage with weapons. The natives had to rely on making theirs while the Europeans had better technology at the time. The natives were nice enough to let the Europeans into their land and did not realize that their gratitude would go unoticed.
DeleteIn regarding the second question my answer between choosing to be a colonist for the Virginia Colony or the Plymouth Colony I would decide on Plymouth. The reason I would pick Plymouth over Virginia is because firstly the colony managed to successfully forge a relationship with the Natives in order to benefit the colony. This way they were able to find food and gain learning experience from the Natives.Therefore,if i was a settler I would not have to worry about dying of starvation. It also seemed like Plymouth was more of a community for the reason that the people were driven by the same goal; to obtain religious freedom. I think that is why the people were able to functionally communicate, and being part of a colony where the workload is shared increases the welfare of the society. The reasons I would not choose the Virginia Colony to begin with is due to the fact that their intentions were different. The goals consisted of solely making profit, trading, and to convert the natives to Christianity. To add onto that the settlers from that group did not all consist of working men, rather it consisted of "gentlemen" who contributed not much help. These are my main reasons for picking Plymouth because based on the reading it seems like the most beneficial choice for someone migrating to a new environment.
ReplyDeleteI think you have very good reasons why you would decide to be part of the Plymouth colony, but I don't think living in the Plymouth colony was always peaceful and always improving. It would certainly not be a place were I would want to have my whole family exposed. I think this would be a critical factor which would make me choose to be part of the Virginia Colony but with slightly different intentions that this expedition had. Like building a good relationship with the natives,build a house ,and a way to sustain my self and family alive before bringing the rest of the family. In addition, it seems like it would be harder to start a colony from scratch when you have to worry about others besides yourself.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJulia, I 100% agree with you! It was insightful reading your entry. I agree that the Plymouth Colony was able to prosper because of the freedom of choice of religion. If a religion was imposed on the colonists there would be much more problems involving colonists who chose to defy the colony. I think that you choose the right colony to proceed. The Plymouth colony was able to play their cards right and forge the relationship with the Natives in order to benefit the colony. Progression was seen and the colony advanced and because of this the colony prospered. When people are given an opportunity to make a decision for themselves the outcome is usually beneficial.
DeleteYou all make good points and I agree that it was not always peaceful or happy at all. It's certain none of the accomplishments happened overnight, but Paul made a good point about Plymouth using the resources they could get to their advantage.
DeleteAfter reading and comparing the purposes of both of the colonies, I would have chosen the Plymouth colony. Even though some of the intentions were the same such as bluing a colony that will be self-sustaining; the Plymouth colony stated as a settled families. The Plymouth colony also cared about the way of living of the residents that’s why the built houses (not as many, but at least they were a secure shelter) not as the Virginia colony. The Virginia colony only had tents and the people were exposed to danger. On the other hand, the Plymouth colony got along with their native neighbors to trade food and good; the Virginia colony also did, but it was only at the beginning and after that the men got caught and killed, except the Capitan John Smith. Another good fact about the Plymouth colony was that they had freedom of religion, the people were free to worship and believe whatever they would like, and the Virginia colony was the opposite. Is like they wanted to force the people or the “naturals” to the Christian religion (not caring what they believed). Both of the colonies suffered from diseases and malnutrition and also were insecure, but in the Plymouth colony the Massasoit protected his tribe against enemies and in the Virginia colony most of the men died or were killed.
ReplyDeleteHello Olga, I found your term interesting "bullying". Although the Plymouth colony did in fact "fake" a relationship with the Natives it helped the colony succeed. As one might say "survival of the fittest". The colony was just trying to succeed during old times. The fact that this colony was conscious of its people demonstrates strength within its community. Strength and communication within a colony was vital in order to survive. In my personal opinion I would choose to follow this colony because of the concern for the colony’s survival and consideration for one another.
DeleteHi Olga, Your blog covered a lot of important information and really convinced me to believe that the Plymouth colony was superior to the Virginia colony. Allowing religious freedom made their colony stronger because the people in the community felt as if they belonged. I also liked the fact that their colony knew how to play their cards right and be associates of the natives. Every one needs food and trading is smart when you have things that people admire. You put the cap on the top and managed to cover key reasons of why the Plymouth colony deserves to be the best, therefore, i would say that you too are indeed smart for making such a decision.
DeleteGreat comments, people! Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteI would rather have been a colonist in the Plymouth colony because I believe that I earn what I want by working hard for myself and with the help of the family to the profit of all. The Virginia colonists were all men who expected to do nothing by not working and not worrying so much about how they were going to get food which led to starvation. The Plymouth colonist seemed to have thought well about where they chose to settle and therefore they were able to plant easier which made food less of an issue. Having a settled family might have been more of a motivation for the Plymouth colonists to trade with the Natives in order to survive. I like the goal of trying to find a place where the religion you choose can be practiced and is accepted by others because it is another opportunity to have freedom to express religious views. Both colonies started out by having health and starvation issues but by the reading I can see that the Plymouth colonists tried to achieve more from what they had by trading with the Natives and the Dutch colony rather than just trying to get the most out of what they had already invested in. Although they had no permanent or secure homes and starvation occurred in children, men and women, I believe that the survival of 51 colonists is more positive than the one of the Virginia colony, where they were all killed except for Smith.
ReplyDeleteMaricela, you have a great point on choosing the Plymouth Colony. Only because of the fact the Virginia's Colony were truly demeaning on the fact that they wanted to force people to do something they didn't want to do. And like you said I also like the fact that you mentioned what the Plymouth Colony wanted to do with their lives.
DeleteMaricela, I would have to agree with you about choosing the Plymouth Colony over the Virginia Colony. Not only was the Virginia colonists all men and very forceful on the natives, they weren’t prepared enough for what they were getting themselves into. You made a good point that the Plymouth colonists had sought out a plan about where to settle based on the food and shelter before they made any decisions, which in turn helped them out very much! Not only were they thinking more while they were settling on new land, many more of the colonists survived the disease and hardships than the other colony. Good job!
DeleteMaricela,I totally agree with you I also believe that each person should work for what they want. It is not fair that someone who has not worked as hard as you to just come and take everything from you. I would also choose the Plymouth Colony over the Virginia Colony. You guys all made very good comments very insightful!
DeleteHaving a family caused the Plymouth Colony to have a motivation to survive rather than finding wealth caused many to starve. They earned what they worked for, and being a "gentleman" would not have been earned through laziness.
DeleteEuropeans knew little of the existence of the New World whereas, the Native Americans knew plenty of agriculture that advances in the New World caught the attention of new cultures that villages were permanently established. Different groups changed the New World and formed earthworks. People began to get the idea of farming that it became less difficult to stay in one location. Relying on irrigation systems for agriculture made it easier for the land to prosper; which meant that food could be kept for longer. The planting techniques of the Native Americans allowed them to harvest three different crops. Many Native Americans respected their land and thanked god for giving them protection and harvest. But they did not count on changes from the Europeans that were coming their way. In the other hand the Europeans knew little of the New World. They were used to silk, drugs, perfume, and spices. Nothing related to the way Native Americans lived. Once Columbus continued his voyage to find land, he also took gold and natural resources. As Columbus repeated his journey several times, he did not like what he had seen. The New World was different than Europe or Asia. It was as if The Native Americans and Europe belonged to different social classes, the lower class and upper class. The differences that led to the clash between Native Americans and Europeans are the advantage the upper class had because of their military alliance and weapons that scared the Native Americans. Also the Native Americans did not have the disease of the heart as the Europeans did for gold. Europeans wanted more and more and took advantage of them. It was an attack after attack.
ReplyDeleteYessica, I also agree that the differences in military alliance and weapons led to the clash of the Native American and European people. If it wasn't for their weapons and threats towards the Native Americans, maybe there would have been among these people and would have led to a prosperous colony.
DeleteYessica, I would say that the differences between the Natives and the European people would be more along the lines of their goals. It seemed the Europeans just wanted money and the Natives just wanted to continue the way of life they had already established. Unfortunately the foreigners would do anything in their power to get what they came for and that could have caused a lot of turmoil if the Natives got on their way, which seemed to be the case.
DeleteIf I were alive during this time period and I was given the opportunity to decide between being a part of the Virginia colony or Plymouth colony without a doubt I would go with the second choice. The reason being is because the Plymouth colony knew what they had to do in order to survive and prosper with their people. Although one might say that the Plymouth colony betrayed another group of individuals they were just looking out for themselves. Charles Darwin theory of "survival of the fittest" played out accordingly amongst the Plymouth colony and the Natives. Even though a forged relationship was established amongst one another in doing so the Plymouth colony gained food resources. In the Plymouth colony colonists worked side by side to improve their community. In order to achieve a happy community freedom of religion was established. In this colony colonists were able to freely decide which religion they wished to pursue. Thus, giving a sense of relief to colonists of not being pressured into Christianity such as the Virginia colony did. Although the Company’s London treasurer set up offers of tracts of land to whosoever worked in Virginia I personally would not find this sufficient to change my mind. The fact that the Plymouth colony is offering freedom of religion and assists the people of this colony is enough for me to choose this colony. The Plymouth colony were sure of the reasons they choose to settle in the land and found a way to succeed; therefore, there is no other necessary arguments that this colony is the best choice for myself.
ReplyDeleteJanai,
DeleteI too would choose the Plymouth Colony for the same reasons you provided; especially for pursuing the freedom of religion. I agree with you in that not forcing the natives into Christianity probably helped keep the tension down between the two groups. Whereas, the Virginia Colony was intending to force their religion on the natives. I find it rather silly that neither the company in England nor the people that went on the journey took their own advice on the instructions to “not offend the naturals” seriously. Obviously attempting to convert people to another religion is pretty offensive. It is almost as if your saying your god and your religion aren’t good enough, come to ours because ours is better. In accordance to your statement on Charles Darwins’ theory of natural selection (survival of the fittest), I believe that both colonies were affected strongly by their environment, not just the Plymouth Colony. Both colonies were affected by disease, which was worsened by their malnutrition. The Plymouth Colony might have had a better shot at survival because they built a stronger relationship with the natives and the natives were familiar with naturally occurring plants that they used as remedies. Do you think the fact that the Plymouth Colony; which consisted of families, might have had more of an advantage than the Virginia Colony who only had men? I too agree with you that the intentions of the Plymouth Colony were more ethical than that of the Virginia Colony. In my opinion, the relationships they established with the natives made their journey more successful. Great job Janai!
Very good conclusions Janai. I also agree with you that the Plymouth Colony was a better lifestyle mainly because of the freedom of religion. Also, for the Virginia Colony, they were attacked by the natives because they had bad intentions. On the other hand, the Plymouth Colony just wanted to express freedom of religion and were not forcing the natives to join. I also agree with you that the Plymouth Colony worked together. Indeed, they worked side by side because in the long run, they became a self-sustaining colony.
DeleteGreat, I also agree with Janai because the Plymouth Colony had a better structure than the Virginia Colony. As you mention the Plymouth Colony worked side by side to improve and reinforce their community not only with themselves but with the Natives. I think this led to a better outcome for the Plymouth Colony than the method the Virginia Colony was using. Furthermore, the internal environment of the Plymouth was way better than the Virginia Colony because of the lifestyle and the freedom of religion.
DeleteAfter watching the video and reading the text I have established that the Virginia Colony proves to be a successor compared to the Plymouth Colony. The Virginia colony was both in business enterprise and attracted a steady flow of individuals searching for job opportunities. The reasoning for that is because the London Treasure offered parts of land to individuals who were looking to work in Virginia. Although, the colony had "gentlemen” that did not contribute, this colony was able to establish a secure foundation to achieve success though investors and government. The Virginia Colony was able to organize the colony and established rules within themselves. On the other hand, the Plymouth Colony allowed its colonists freedom of religion, in my opinion that will cause for dispute amongst their people. Since the Plymouth Colonist will create and follow their own religion Plymouth will begin to argue with one another saying that one religion is better than the other. Unlike the Plymouth colony, the Virginia Colony did not have to push the Natives to teach them forcibly how to grow crops. In my opinion the Virginia colony were more organized and knew what they wanted for their people. For reason being the Virginia Colonist knew what their expectations were to have a successful life within the colony. The government worked together with the Virginia Colonist to established rules thus proving that this colony wants to have the support of its people. This is why the Virginia Colony is a better living lifestyle than the Plymouth colony.
ReplyDeleteJisel, you have made interesting points about the Virginia Colony. Both colonies had different goals like leadership and survival strategies. Of course, diseases and such disasters had caused an impact for these two colonies and needed a strategy of survival or else they would not last long. My only concern is enforcing a religion. In my family tradition, the young shall decide their religion of choice if chosen and must also respect one’s faith. Because I was raised with this system, I believe that freedom of religion will create relationships and will prevent fewer problems. Enforcing a religion is disrespectful in my opinion. Yes, religious arguments will never end, even in today's society, which is unfortunate but I believe that forcing a religion will cause more conflicts and arguments since more will question about the "right" and "perfect" religion. Either way, its difficult for the Europeans of establishing relationships with the Natives. Culture, traditions, and their style of living are different. Respecting the differences will make things easier just like today's society. In my opinion, freedom of religion made it easier for the Plymouth Colony to create relationships with the Natives. Its like showing respect for the differences. Very nice and detailed analysis Jisel!
DeleteJisel, when you bring up that the Virginia Colony knew what they wanted for their people and were organized with this idea, I would have to disagree. The Virginia Colony seemed more focused on making profits by farming a cash crop rather then a food crop. This settlement was not focused on the good of the people they were more concerned with money which may have been a huge problem with the natives. The colonists weren't even concerned with defense so they did not seem prepared. The natives probably saw the foreigners as a threat which definitely explains why the Indian Massacre had taken place.
DeleteLiving in the time of the Virginia Colony and the Plymouth Colony, and were given the choice of living their lifestyles, I would have chosen to be included in the Plymouth colony. The Plymouth Colony gave freedom of religion and very diverse which for me, would be very significant. If it weren't freedom religion, I would think that some of the members in that colony would disagree with their beliefs and would want to start a new religion. And if it were forced upon them, they would disagree and rebel which would cause more disputes in the colony and will eventually collapsed. Also, in the Plymouth Colony, they allowed diversity to reign in their members. There weren't only men but women and children as well. This in my opinion, would be beneficial to have a successful colony. Other than that, they also had very good relations with the natives since they were benefiting from the trades with the natives. Then, they eventually became a self-sustaining colony. This only proves that the Plymouth Colony gave better lifestyle opportunities than the Virginia Colony.
ReplyDeleteTricia, I agree that it would have been better to also live in the Plymouth Colony because of freedom of religion because I think that no one should be forced upon them different beliefs of another. It would also be a peaceful colony to live in instead of always fighting with the Natives.
DeleteTricia your statement is so very true. I agree with you it will not be good to live in a place where you have no say so in what you will believe in .
DeleteI also concur with Tricia and Jamille. The Plymouth Colony would be ideal for me because of the freedom of religion. I wouldn’t want to live in a place where I’m forced to believe in a religion I don’t want to be a part of. I’m glad James Madison thought of the first amendment which gives us the right to exercise the freedom of religion. Yay James Madison. Well I guess technically he stole the idea from the Plymouth Colony.
DeleteI agree with you. Having the opportunity to practice your own religion is such a great benefit for anyone to have. That is one of the many reasons our country is so great!
DeleteTricia, I too would prefer the Plymouth Colony because they had pure intentions to move and settle to the new world. Plus, they were very successful in developing the colony because they cooperated amongst each other and their Natives neighbors unlike the Virginia colony, half of their men refused to help and refuse to do any work.
DeleteThe Native American and European peoples differed in many ways whether it was through religious beliefs, physical attributes, harvesting skill, and military armament that led to a tragic clash between these people. The Native Americans did not have a religion similar to the Europeans but believed more in the natural and spiritual practices. The Europeans believed in the Christian religion at this time and had wanted to convert the Native Americans to their own religion. Already through religious beliefs, it can cause a clash between the two sects. Another difference between the two was there physical attributes. The Native Americans wore clothes made of animals they found while the Europeans had more technological advances from their country that made the clothes they wore. Even in the hair color, eye shape, and skin color of these people many can say that one was “higher” than the other. When the Europeans arrived on Native American territory they had no clue how to create food for themselves and had little to no harvesting skills. Through the Native Americans, they learned different practices, one being called the “three-sister” farming technique wherein it helped harvest plentiful. Also, the Virginia and Plymouth colony had much trouble finding ways to survive and many of the Native Americans had helped them proving that the Natives there had better skills in farming. One thing the Europeans flourished at was through their military skills and the armament they had. They would use these weapons to sometimes scare the Native Americans to get what they want which led to the death of many Natives. These differences led to a great clash between these people.
ReplyDeleteJamille, I agree with you because you have brought very important points about what the main differences between the Natives Americans and the European. Also, you described how these differences led to a clash between these two groups of people.
DeleteWell after reading and watching the videos I believed that the main difference between the Native Americans and the Europeans was that they came from different worlds. For example, the Europeans came from a civilized society, in the other hand; the Native Americans were more uncivilized. Even though, this difference might see very obvious I believed is the main reason these two types of people, of ideas and cultures end up leading to a clash between this two groups. For example, one of the purposed of the Europeans was to transformed the “naturals” in to their religion, of course the Natives already had their own gods, such as, god for hunting, god for the weather, and fertilization. I believed that when the Europeans were trying to imposed their ideas to the natives, the natives saw this as a threat to their believes, to their ideas, and culture. As we all know most wars had been led by motives, such as, religion, culture, power and race. And that is exactly what happened between the Native Americans and the Europeans. Also, as I mention before they were from two different worlds, which meant that their views about life in general were different. For example, if we were to put two different predators together one of them would end up over powering the other and the other would end up losing or dead. Not every idea or culture can coexist forever at some point there will be a conflict between the two. Whether we like it or not differences exits and change and shape our world.
ReplyDeleteThe major difference between the Native American people and European people besides appearance and language were their beliefs. The Native Americans beliefs were much more mystical than the European peoples, this created a conflict when the Europeans began to impose their beliefs on the Native Americans. I also feel that the Europeans were mainly motivated by their wealth and receiving recognition of the new world than actually wanting to progress as a whole and wanting something better for their people. Whereas the Native Americans were worried regarding the survival of their people, they were generally more united as a community than the Europeans. Overall the Native Americans cared more for their people and their land. The Native American people accumulated food to create population growth, and creating a sophisticated planting system to decrease starvation, and increase their productivity. This also created a clash because the Native American people saw how selfish the European people were. The Europeans were more interested in receiving more funding to continue their exploration, and find treasure and other supplies that were not available in Europe. The European peoples did not seem satisfied with their land and were eager to find more, as opposed to how the Native Americans were satisfied with what they had and just aimed to make their situation better. Although the video and text mentioned that the Native Americans and Europeans saw each other as equals, I am sure that conflict was definitely inevitable due to authoritative figures and cultural etiquette as well.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, the Europeans were mainly driven in search of wealth. They were more self-interested than the Native Americans. The Natives were more willing to share crops and resources, while Europeans took advantage of that and ultimately caused their downfall. You brought up some really good points!
DeleteGreat stuff, everybody. Keep it up!
ReplyDeleteBy what I have learned this week and from what I know I would say yes there are defiantly many similarities between the European people and those who immigrate to the United States. The similarities might not be exactly the same because these two examples come from two very distinct time periods. The difference might be that Europeans were looking for new land to concur and empower their race and their king. The point and the similarity would be that they both looked for a better life for prosperity. For example many Mexican and other Hispanic places immigrate to the United States to find something different which is the same thing Europeans found when they arrived at North America. My reason for stating that North America was a different for the Europeans is because they found new things like corn, farming crops and other new things they have not yet seen. When it comes to the first question that asks if there are universals when people immigrate to new lands I do not really understand the question fully, but what can say is if the question is asking if there are differences or effects in which or when people immigrate to the new lands well there might be. Universals could be well the different types of diseases a group of immigrated people can transfer over when they have immigrated but other then that I would not know how to properly answer the universal question. From the video and the reading there has been many new things that not thought about until I started going over the questions and trying to answer them.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your definition and comparation you did in between the two colonies. Even though their intentions to began a colony were different their intentions to success and make a self sustaining colony were the same. Very good point where you compare their experience with the actual world where people from other countries immigrate the US. Great!
DeletePhysically you can tell the difference between the Europeans and the Native Americans based on their appearance and language. I believe what made them significantly different was their beliefs. The Europeans left home already with a plan to find new land and take whatever they can that was in it. Once arriving to new land, they quickly began trying to convert the “naturals” to their religion. The Europeans failed to realize that the Native American already had gods that they believed in. Instead of coming to the new land with an open mind and a humbling spirit to coexist with each other, they came over and bullied the Native Americans out of their homes and took the riches of the land. This was the beginning of a bad relationship. When someone comes to your homeland and start demanding and taking things, as a reaction, you take offense. I believe the Native Americans were offended by the Europeans because they took their kindness for a weakness. In the end, conflictions arose. The difference between society then and society now is that back then people had no knowledge of the meaning coexist. We don’t right off the back know how to coexist with each other, but it is actually taught to us when we’re young by parents, teachers, relatives, friends etc. Without incidents in history like this, we wouldn’t be able to learn and live in congruence of each other now. Don’t get me wrong, both the Europeans and the Native Americans weren’t equal back then, and society is far from being equal now, but all we can do is strive for perfection.
ReplyDeleteRamondo you described the issue between the Native Americans and the Europeans so well that I understand it more now. Although I think that even though the Europeans might have been more civilized, they had no respect for the Natives kindness and instead just tried to take advantage of what was being offered to them, making them seem less civilized.
DeleteI agree that the problems that eventually rose had more to do with the Europeans who came to the new land with every intention of enforcing their will and beliefs. It was a time when much of Europe had colonies throughout Africa and felt that the expansion of their nation and Christianity was God's will. Native Americans were at a heavy disadvantage in terms of resources and tactical strategy, however they were open enough to befriend and even help many of the first Europeans to arrive. The fact that two groups had previously established religious beliefs before meeting and those could not both be harmonious was a recipe for disaster.
DeleteDeciding between Plymouth Colony and Virginia Colony, the most tolerable choice would be living in Plymouth Colony. Even though both of these colonies endured hardships through their lack of preparation for the journeys; Plymouth Colony achieved the establishment of a community. They made relations with the Natives around their area, unlike Virginia Colony who went about attacking the natives. Most importantly, I would prefer living in the Plymouth Colony because of the motive behind their establishment. They left because they wanted freedom in practicing their beliefs. People should not be forced to believe in something they do not feel is right just so that they can stay in their homes. Those who settled in Plymouth had more reasonable motives than those who settled in Virginia. Virginia colonists’ main motive was for profit. Little did they know that earning a profit on unknown land to them would not be that easy. They poisoned their relationship with the Natives rather than working towards creating a trading system with them. The main worry for both colonies was survival. Plymouth Colony made a better attempt at surviving by establishing good relations with their surrounding neighbors. Overall, my decision still lies with Plymouth Colony due to the fact that they actually attempted establishing a healthy community for its population and the neighbors around.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely Lisandra. I too do not believe any one person should be forced to follow beliefs that conflict with their own. That is why I would too choose to be apart of the Plymouth Colony. The Virginia colony were constantly conflicting with their neighbors as where the Plymouth colony had a better relationship with the natives which increased their survivability.
DeleteLisandra, I agree with you and I would also choose the Plymouth colony. The Virginia colonists came on to the land as if they already owned it. They had no respect for the natives that were there before them and that ruined their chances for survival. The Plymouth colonists did a better job with connecting with their native neighbors. Without the alliance that the colonists made with the Massasoit's warriors, the Plymouth colonists wouldn't had survived.
DeleteHi Anna well I agree with you on that the European people wanted more and were not satisfied, but at the same time do you not think it was a good thing the Europeans selfish? This just made me think that if the Europeans did not discover North America then North America would not be as we see it and the United States would have not existed.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video and reading the passage I came to the decision that the Virginia Colony had much more success than the Plymouth Colony. The Virginia Colony emphasized enterprise, which gave opportunities for jobs and attracted people. The Plymouth Colony was based on the freedom of religion which really didn’t give any actual opportunity. When they were traveling the leaders kept the sailors organized which made it easier for them to get along. Just like kin today’s society a democracy would not work if we all argued with each other and if we all collapsed based on not cooperating. Everyone needs to cooperate in order for things to come out smoothly and perfect. In the Plymouth Colony you have people arguing of which religion is better than the other rather than basing themselves on what is actually going on. They are not cooperating and therefore they are not going to be very successful. The Natives in the Virginia Colony were open to learn. The Virginia Colony is much like a democracy leading to positive solutions and benefits. In today’s society we go about other people’s opinions and we have rules and regulations that we all as Americans must follow. The same is for the Virginia Colony they established rules which helped maintain order in the colony. The Plymouth Colony were not open to learn just like when they tried fishing a few times and saw that they were unsuccessful they stopped trying. This colony grew through investors and through the establishment of a government which gave it order. The conflict with freedom of religion is not the fact that your free to choose whatever religion you want it’s that fact that people start arguing on what is better, which creates a problem. I prefer to be in a colony where there are rules and where there are regulations, so you don’t have riots going on. I feel it’s more secure to have a government that enforces those rules such as the Virginia Colony.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Native Americans and Europeans had a considerable amount of differences between each other that would ultimately lead to conflict. This ranged from religion, culture, motives, government, etc. The Europeans came from civilized communities that were far more advanced from that of the Native Americans. Many Europeans were fleeing to the new world to escape persecution and begin a new life for themselves. They brought along foreign ideologies and customs that they would eventually attempt to enforce onto the Native Americans. What they failed to realize was the fact that the Natives, although not as advanced, had already established their own customs and beliefs. They had their own beliefs for phenomenon’s, such as why the sun rose, why it rained, and why they were placed on earth. It only makes sense to believe that many felt threatened when the Europeans came and attempted to convince them that their ideologies and customs were wrong. Also many Native Americans had very simple and humble motives in their communities. They focused on being able to yield enough food for the community and to take care of the land, as it was the one who gives them life. This conflicted with the Europeans motives once again. Along with many settlers imposing their religious beliefs, there were many settlers whose objectives were to become wealthy off the new discoveries and exploit the native’s resources. The Native Americans could have seen this as barbaric and selfish in which would cause even more conflict between the two groups.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on how the native Americans felt about the Europeans coming to their land. I'm sure anybody would feel the same if another country tried to change the culture and beliefs that a group created.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMichael these are some great points you make here. The most reasonable response from the Native Americans is to fill threatened by these Europeans who are taking their land and forcing these ideologies on them which seem absurd in their eyes. It's like if I went to your house said your room is now my room and your name is now Fredrick. I would be forcing all these things on you which I feel you or anyone would be to happy about. I believe this is what the Native Americans were feeling and they tried to defend what they stood for but where just greatly overpowered by the Europeans. It is just a situation of survival of the fittest.
DeleteIt's hard to say what happened back then as we were not there, but I think you have a good description of what may have happened.
DeleteI would have rather been a colonist in the Virginia colony because they had their own business enterprise that they created and some who invested themselves. the Virginia colony was a more successful than Plymouth when it came to business because they had jobs that can attract different people to join their colony. Plymouth was more free when it came to religion and other things which really didn't help the people succeed in other areas. I believe John Smith was a great leader for Virginia because he kept everybody together, the main reason for his importance in the community is he would trade with the natives to bring back goods for the colony. Virginia is much like us here in America they have rules and laws just like we do just to maintain in order in the world just to keep everything to together because if not everything would have been chaotic, there would have been no way of direction. The ply mouths didn't have a sense of direction or laws to maintain order. But being able to express religion freely did not help them, it only cause conflict between the people in Plymouth because they debated which religion was best for that colony. I would like to be with Virgina because they have direction, are able to help their people succeed by giving them the resources that they need, and also have just laws that everyone can follow to be secure.
ReplyDeleteTyler, you make good points. Points that I didn't even consider. I just thought that the colonists in Virginia were just a bunch of men trying to take over the lands of the natives. Yes, the Plymouth colony were colonists who wanted the freedom of religion but they also didn't want to be told what they could and could not do. They wanted their freedom to live the way that they wanted to. Eventually the government controls everything that we do and the Plymouth colony was trying to escape that.
DeleteIf I had to choose between being a part of the Virginia Colony or the Plymouth Colony, I would definitely choose to be included in the Plymouth Colony. First off, I am a girl and the colonists from the Virginia Colony were a bunch of men; so I probably would not have fit in with that group. However, if I were a male I still would not have picked to be a colonist in the Virginia Colony, mainly because they were greedy and they didn’t care if the natives already owned the land. They also did not respect the native land and they should have, especially since the natives were there first. The Virginia colony had no chance in surviving because they attacked the only people who had knowledge about the land that they were trying to settle on. The Plymouth Colony was made up of families and people who wanted to live with the freedom of religion. They were not searching for profit but they were searching for peace. All they wanted was to live their life the way that they wanted and to make the choice of their religion, their own. The Plymouth colonists seem like a good bunch of people. They also became alliances with the Massasoit tribe; so the Plymouth colonists had to be nice, welcoming people. The Plymouth colony continued to have a good relationship with the natives and that made surviving easier because the tribes helped the colonists by showing them how to get food. Therefore, I stand with my choice of being a part of the Virginia colony.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to be on the same page here. The Virginian Colony would have been a lot of hard unnecessary work, only to live in a tent and be unprotected from everything around them. I agree, I would want to be a part of the Plymouth Colony as well.
DeleteOops, at the end I meant to say Plymouth colony not Virginia.
DeleteAfter reading about the Virginian Colony and the Plymouth Colony, I would much rather be a part of the Plymouth Colony. To start with, the Plymouth Colony had better motives for moving to the new world. They were a mixed bunch of people who wanted nothing more than to practice their own religious views without being seen as outcasts. The Plymouth Colony also had a better farm land for their crops, which may have kept them from starving. They were also more concerned about the well being of their people unlike the Virginia Colony who only cared about the money they wanted to make. Plus it would have been tough to be a part of the Virginia Colony; the men went through a lot of hard labor trying to make a profit instead of properly structuring shelter or bettering their malnutrition. The Virginian colony was close to a few breeding grounds for mosquitoes which would lead to many diseases and deaths. Plus if you were to sick and couldn’t work, you couldn’t eat. It seemed to me like the Plymouth Colony had it much easier. The Plymouth Colony was pretty much self sufficient and didn’t rely on England as much as the Virginian Colony. With an abundance of food, helpful Native neighbors, and a few actual houses instead of tents, it might have been nice to be a Pilgrim with the Plymouth Colony, compared to what the Virginian Colony had to deal with.
ReplyDeleteHi Jeffrey,
DeleteI as well, agree with you. I would want to participate in the Plymouth colony rather then the Virginian for the purpose that their intentions were completely opposite from each other. The Virginian colonist were selfish in my opinion. All they wanted was wealth and power. As where the Plymouth colony just wanted a place to live. They also were in harmony with the natives which was a big advantage to both of them. The Plymouth colony succeeded in that and that made their colony much more appealing and more successful then the Virginia colony.
So, here I am imagining that I am immigrating to the New World. The first thing that comes to mind would be a great fear of what is to come. I would most likely assume the natives would be weary of our arrival and could possibly become hostile in our first encounter. I would also like to band with the colony that would better ensure my family’s safety and survival. Personally, I would choose the Plymouth colony because the colony is circled around family and the sharing of views which would lead me to believe that the people of the colony would also share resources and better the common good of the colony. I’m picturing the colony like a town up in Alaska surrounded by deep woods and land where resources are sparse and the people depend on each other to survive. Women would also come with the men to the Plymouth colony which would promote population growth. This could also be seen by the natives as a non-hostile group attempting to start anew. The Virginia colony as opposed to the Plymouth colony was more concentrated on making a profit rather than enhancing their settlement. I wish the colonies would have focused more on defenses and survival before turning their greedy eyes to money making crop, but such was not the case, which led to many problems that could have possibly been prevented. Overall the Plymouth colony was a better choice of the two, but personally I believe neither colony were efficient at developing and implementing a settlement for profit and survival.
ReplyDeleteHi Jon,
DeleteIn conclusion both colonies weren't efficient at developing a settlement, but I had not realized what you said at the beginning of not knowing what the new world might be like.If they had both been more prepared for what they were going to experience, they might have been more successful in survival.
Times of the past are no different from times of the present when it comes to cultural immersion. If we look at the problems of clashing differences today, we can see a lot of similarities between the colonists and the natives’ first encounters. For instance, when first meeting someone in an Asian culture it is often customary to bow in order to show respect. When somebody outside of the culture meets them with a greeting that is uncustomary to their own, the action could be considered extremely rude or confusing. Eliciting discomfort between the two parties upon first encounter. I do not know what the natives’ customs were, but I assume they ran into the same problems, if not more with the colonists on their arrival. Communication would be a major problem when it came to establishing a good relationship between cultures so each knows that the intention was not to harm the other. After solving the communication issue, their outlook towards religion and traditions could bring more issues. Over time each group could begin to feel that their culture is superior to the other and this will promote conflict causing fights over differences that should not matter. Examples are fighting over whose religion is better, methods for completing tasks, cultures, and social viewpoints. The differences between the natives and the foreigners didn’t only have negative effects, there were some positive differences such as new methods for agriculture and farming were taught to the natives, the foreigners were able to learn from the natives as well.
ReplyDeleteI forgot that not all interactions between the Native Americans and colonists were negative haha. Kind of weird to think about as most of what we hear about their interactions are usually about bloodshed.
DeleteAs for myself, I would like to add that I would like to be in the Plymouth Colony because they had a better relationship with the natives and they didn't have any real intentions to be as selfish as the Virginia Colony. Even though my name falls into the Virginia colony, (just thought it would be funny to mention), I believe in my opinion that the Colony was selfish and didn't care at all about the Natives and as for the Plymouth Colony, they would rather be with the Natives. Seriously though, how cool would it be to learn about other people's cultures and religious beliefs? I think it would be pretty awesome because your learning a grand amount of whole new ideas and it would feel like you have accually entered a new world.
ReplyDeleteMiss Virginia, very cool ideas, even if you did leave your namesake Virginia for Plymouth!
DeleteI see what you did there Dr. Schmoll, I found that very humorous!
DeleteVirginia, I can completely agree with you. The Plymouth Colony were more family oriented and that could possibly been one reason why they advanced better than the Virginia Colony. I did find Virginia Colony to be more greedy like you mentioned especially for the fact that they decided to grow tobacco as their new cash commodity instead of food crops.
In history when the differences between groups are great or at a state where they can not be agreed upon turmoil between the two will often occur. This exactly what happened between the Europeans and the Native Americans. The Europeans sailed out looking for personal gain, they wanted an easier more affordable way of reaching the east coast of Asia to maximize profit from trade. When they stumbled upon the Americas they found the Native Americans who the Europeans saw as much lesser people than they were and easy to exploit. On the other hand the Native Americans viewed the Europeans with great admiration. They were amazed with everything the Europeans had. The thing that caught the Europeans eye was that these people had tons of riches and not much of a military protecting those riches. At first the Europeans tried friendly approaches to get what they wanted from the Native Americans but when the huge difference in cultures and beliefs caused the Native Americans to refuse the Europeans things turned ugly. The Native Americans had their own gods, religions and way of doing things and there was no way they were going to change them for the Europeans. The Europeans were going to get what they wanted one way or another. They drastically overpowered the Native Americans in military might. So when the Native Americans refused to do as the Europeans asked the Europeans went ahead and did what ever they wanted by force. They crushed the Native Americans with their superior weapons and technology. This is usually what happens between groups when one has something the other one has but won't give it up, the stronger of the groups will ultimately prevail in attaining what they seek.
ReplyDeleteI agree, culture and religion played a big role to why the Europeans and the Native Americans did not see eye to eye, but I think that if they tried to understand one another especially the Europeans, they could have avoided the blood shed and still get what they wanted. But the Europeans were very driven to get what they wanted, and knowing the Native Americans did not have any military power, the Europeans took advantage of it. And just like you said, the Europeans crushed the Native American.
DeleteI would personally choose Plymouth Colony over the Virginia Colony. Plymouth Colony seems to be more peaceful. Both colonies did their best of helping people succeed hard times since unfortunate diseases and such disasters came in but giving individuals freedom will is a start to success. By giving freedom of religion, individuals may now practice any religion without any restrictions. Obviously, there will always be a religious debates however, people choosing their religion of choice is much better than being forced into one. Virginia Colonist enforced religion which is Christianity. How come if I was in the Virginia Colony and I did not see Christianity as the “perfect” religion anymore and I have opposed this? What would happen to me? Concealing your religious views is like hiding a part of yourself. Also if the Virginia colony is strict about this religious enforcement, they will certainly check and test your faith which will cause more conflict. If I was in the Plymouth Colony, I would not have to worry about consequences just because of religion. How I compare people and religion is that all of its cultures, traditions, and such are combine. Offending a person’s religion is also insulting one’s culture and traditions in my view. If a person's religion is respected, then they will do the same most of the time. This is why Plymouth had an easier time building relationships with the Natives. It shows respect to their differences. Also by building relationships with the Natives, survival strategies may have improved. Virginia Colony tried not to “insult” the naturals/natives but selfish acts have thrown this idea out the window! This has created more conflicts with the Natives which means more problems to deal with. Besides religion, one of my main concerns for the Virginia Colonist is that its people stayed in tents unlike the Plymouth Colonist which its people remained in a few houses which is obviously better. They could at least improve the safety of their people. Virginia Colony is more concentrated in profits rather than its people in my view which is greedy and selfish. Profits are acceptable but it should not be its standard goal. Both colonies had its pros and cons but Virginia colony’s religious rules, greed, and selfish actions are unacceptable in my opinion. I see Plymouth Colony more welcoming and have greater acceptance of differences than the Virginia Colony. As a result, I choose the Plymouth Colony because of these reasons.
ReplyDeleteHey Harmon, you made some very good points and I completely agree with you. I too agree that freedom of religion is important because not many would be delighted to be forced into doing something, let alone changing their beliefs. I think letting the people decide what religion they want to practice reduces the chances of them creating conflict with one another. The Virginia colony's perspective and motives were much different than that of the natives. I can see how selfish the Virginia colony's was compared to the Plymouth, and realize why I too would want to be part of the Plymouth Colony. They are a much more collaborative group.Overall, your points were solid. Great job.
Delete3. I believe there are universals when people immigrate to new lands. Entering a new land would be a culture shock; you would not understand all of the traditions, routines and customs that the people of the land practice everyday like: how they say hello, why they dress how they do, why they have paint on their bodies, what their currency is, what crops they grow, etc. Upon coming to the new world the Europeans could not have known what language the natives would be speaking so there was a communication barrier. This communication barrier is universal to most everyone moving to a new land, but today when people immigrate they know what language to expect. Given that there is a language barrier and other differences, each party learns the basics of a new language and they learn other customs as well in addition to trading goods. The Europeans were looking for something new and they were looking for fortune in less civilized societies. Today people come to the United States for other reasons, and they are not traveling to a less civilized society. It is easier to communicate now than it was for the natives and colonists. The natives were eventually taken over by the Europeans as Mauricio Cardona stated above. Someone always thinks they are superior to the other group and they make that known by doing and getting what they want. I wanted this reading to be more like the movie Pocahontas but alas I am naive in thinking that haha.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the ways have changed in many ways. I don't know if we will ever know the extent of shock that the Europeans experienced coming to the Americas. You make a great point.
DeleteI also agree with you because when the Europeans first came and met the Natives they struggle to understand them and their tradition. Also, you make great points about how today somethings have a change in regard of immigration and how people already know what to expect when they arrived to other countries.
Delete3.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely universals when people immigrate to new lands. The movement of people across the globe is a completely normal thing. When considering both today's immigration and the immigration of Europeans to the Americas, it is clear that they were driven by similar motivations. Cultural circumstances in their respective origin countries, such as poverty and desire for religious expression, caused these individuals to seek out a new place to live.
1. I felt like there were many differences between the native american and Europeans. first off their cultures were very different, the native Americans were not really that interested in conquering new land like the Europeans, to me the little things for them was what was more important to them like their beliefs, cultural, the way they dressed and their people. everything for them had a meaning. For them it was what made them happy. for me I think that is really good because I think in order to be different you need to be able to be proud of who you are and what you believe in. At many times the Native Americans were very welcoming to the Europeans they were giving them gifts and stuff. They cared more about their people that were there with them. Where in contrast I felt that the Europeans were looking for more of a personal fame, so they can become more dominate and rich. I feel like once you become those things that stuff that once really mattered to you, don't anymore. although the Europeans were more technological advanced only because they were exposed to more, the Native people were also advanced in other things like mention in the videos on how they would build their structures. I think it is really interesting to see that people from that age group is already with the concept of engineering. They all had a common thing though, and the idea was no mater what it was to survive. It is kind of like the concept of survival of the fittest. Only the people who know to protect and live will be the ones who live to tell their story.
ReplyDeleteLuz, I totally agree with what you stated in your entry. You made a great point about how the Europeans were looking for more of a personal frame so they become more dominate and rich. The European people were greatly influenced by money, greed, power, and credit for expansion. While the Native American people were very humble and welcoming and did not expect the European's to change their way of living and beliefs. From the Native American's point of view, the group probably found it barbaric and an end to their era.. I also agree with you about both group's having the common goal of survival, I do not necessarily believe that it is "survival of the fittest" but how both created systems and organizations in order to have a way of being.
DeleteIn regards to the third question, the similarities between early European settlers and immigrants moving from all around the world to inhabit the United States are closely linked.
ReplyDeleteIdeology and Culture
Early European settlers arrived to the new world with their own set of beliefs including religion, culture, and lifestyle. That part is fairly evident but the interesting part is even though the land was new and the surrounding cultures were very foreign early settlers for the most part kept their beliefs fully intact. In other words, integration was not really a priority for them they preferred following their already engraved believes and ties with their country of origin. Integration at least for the settlers could have given the settlers a better idea of the native culture and could have used that valuable information to their advantage. We see this today with many immigrants deciding to keep their culture and pride for their nations intact. Immigrants today export tons of goods to other countries to provide for their families.
Goals and objectives
Both early European settlers and Immigrants today seem to have similar objectives. Whether fleeing persecution or seeking a better life in regards to wealth. The new world was a land of opportunity filled with wealth. Today we see the same attraction between America and immigrants. The American dream, home of the brave and land of opportunity are just a few of the titles the U.S. instills on foreigners. Same type of visions we read with early European settlers. The goals for opportunity and dreams of a great life are definitely the same in early settlers and modern immigrants.
Raul, you made a very good point. I agree that both European settlers and immigrants today share some similar motives. The Plymouth and Virginia colonies migrated to provide a better life for their people and spread Christianity, by establishing cash crops and trading goods with the natives. In today's world, immigrants also migrate with a purpose. Their purpose is to live a prospering life and to live the "American Dream." The Colonists and Immigrants today travel to new land without knowing what obstacles might come their way. Immigrants arrive without having a place to stay and without any income. Likewise, the colonists also traveled empty handed which led them to look for resources to survive.
DeleteAlthough there are many differences between the Native Americans and early European settlers, many parallels can also be drawn. Both cultures relied heavily on religion. The Europeans were devout in their Christianity while the Natives looked to the Gods and spirits for their higher power. However, religion was of the utmost importance to both cultures in defining who they were as a people and also how they lived their lives. Both societies made technological advances based on their needs. Native Americans utilized irrigation in order to water and maintain agriculture. Europeans were also building complex structures in their communities, ships to travel across the Atlantic Ocean, and even early firearms. The Native Americans, being hunter-gatherers, depended more on the land for their food from crops and hunting what wildlife was in the area. This contributed to their nomadic nature. The settlers from Europe moved less but also developed communities where groups of people combined resources in order to create a society of people who live and work together. A hierarchy of power was established within both groups; significantly different ways of approaching it, nonetheless it was an essential part of each groups prosperity. Another similarity is the curiosity of both peoples. Perhaps it has more to do with human nature, but the Europeans were willing to sail into uncharted waters in order to find a new path to the Indies. The Native Americans were curious of the Europeans upon their arrival and attempted to learn all they could from them. The fact that both groups did not try and kill each other right off the bat is somewhat shocking in my opinion. In fact, they were able to break down the communication barriers that existed to trade for items that the other group had never previously known or seen. This shows that although differences exist, groups of people with continue to adapt and benefit from whatever situation they are in geographically, socially, or otherwise in order to progress and survive.
ReplyDeleteHey Ashton, you made some very good points and I completely agree with you. Both groups had to come to an understanding to try to adapt to each other to make their stay bearable, and to survive as a group. I really liked what you said about both groups being curious and wanting more. Overall, great job!
DeletePersonally, I would much rather live as a colonist in the Plymouth Colony for the reason being that both male and female were involved in the excavation. The Plymouth Colony was defined by families versus the crowd of men that represented The Virginia Colony. It seems to me that The Plymouth Colony was well established due to the diversity of people. The men, women and children were all involved and each had a task to complete. Another reason being is that Europeans were being motivated mainly by wealth and power. During 1612, farmers started planting tobacco crops which brought large amounts of profits to the colony. The English men devoted their full time to plant cash crops which led them to stop planting food crops. They shown to be more interested in wealth and power rather than establishing a nourishing place to live. The Virginia Colony concentrated on making profits and conquering territory. They had a difficult time building relationships with the Native Americans. Due to their differences, the English Colonists and the Natives ended up having an altercation. On the other hand, the Plymouth respected the Native's views on religion, which was much easier to establish a friendship between the two cultures. The Natives were willing to trade and welcomed the Pilgrims. This shows that living in The Plymouth Colony would be a much safer and well settled environment.
ReplyDeleteThe Plymouth Colony would be a better situated place to live than the Virginia Colony. Living in the Plymouth Colony contained a freedom for religion for all people since the motives in coming to the New World was to have freedom; whereas the Virginia Colony wanted to spread Christianity and did not have respect for the Native’s religion. Being in the Plymouth colony was more peaceful than the Virginia Colony because a relationship was created early with the natives, in which helped them by giving the colony food, even though many died during the first winter. When establishing the settlement, the Mayflower crew scouted out the area for an ideal place in which was deserted Indian village. Then instead of building a weak barrier, the Plymouth Colony had two hills to protect them instantly, including a cannon. Also they built some shelter when settling there instead of living in tents. The shelters were the start, but by making a prosperous colony they needed to grow and having families settling there caused it to grow, including the ships that came over the years after that. Having men, women, and children there would cause more ease than living with “gentlemen” who wanted only a fortune. The families in the Plymouth Colony wanted a place to live, which probably encouraged them to help each other survive. After several years, the colony became a self-sustaining place and did not need to rely on England anymore. The people found ways to trade and then had livestock to sell or trade and help produce food. The stable environment of a prosperous town with many families would be a better Colony than the Virginia Colony.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Heather, because I too believe that the Plymouth Colony was more successful than the Virginia Colony because they actually cooperated amongst each other and the Natives; unlike the Virginia Colony, half of the men, the "gentlemen", they brought refused to do any work and their intentions were only profit, trade, and to convert the Natives to Christianity. Their motives was all wrong from the start because they only used forced to achieve their goals, and I think thats the reason why they failed in the end.
DeleteHi Heather. I definitely agree with your points. I, too, decided on the Plymouth colony. Some points that you made that I wish I would have considered when writing my response would be about the topography of the Plymouth land as opposed to the Virginia land. Also I didn't think about how it was much easier for the Plymouth colonists to start crops being that they were able to use soil that had previously been used be the other tenants of the land.
DeleteI also like the point that Mary used. The fact that the "gentlemen" refused to do hard labor eventually led to the downfall of the Virginia colony.
I would rather have been a colonist in Plymouth Colony due to their pure intention to explore and settle to the New World especially the “Pilgrims” who only wanted to live in a land where they can practice their religion freely. The Plymouth Colony went to the New World without the intentions to force their beliefs on the Natives unlike the Virginia Colony, who only wanted profit, a trade route through Virginia to the Pacific, and to convert the natives to the Christianity. These goals/ motives are all wrong from the start. I wouldn’t want to be in a Colony where everything they do is for their selfish gains. Another reason why I wouldn’t want to be in the Virginia Colony is that half of their men brought to the “New World” were “gentlemen”, “who thought of themselves as possessing an exalted rank in life and who would not expect, or be expected, to actually do anything, like work!” I wouldn’t want to be part of that kind of colony where HALF of the men refuses to help and build the colony I would live in. Having the “gentlemen” come and refusing to help develop the colony set the exploration to the New World a failure. While the Plymouth Colony successfully established a relationship with the Natives, and as a result, they were able to learn and gained experience from the Natives, which helped them preserve the colony from starvation. In conclusion, I think the Plymouth Colony was much more successful than the Virginia Colony due to their pure intention and cooperation with the one another and the Natives.
ReplyDeleteTaking everything in mind from the video and writing, I believe that there are many dissimilarities amongst the Native Americans and the immigrating European people. Some differences include: the system of words for communication, lifestyle, spirituality and beliefs, development of land, structures they build in their societies, government systems, and sophistication. Considering the fact that both groups were geographically very distant from each other had a great influence on how their lifestyles were different. The Native American people single-handedly dedicated their lives through hunting, gathering, and cultivating in order to survive and created systems to keep organization and protection for their people . While in Europe, the people dedicated themselves in trading goods and commodities amongst each other or selling in return for currency. In my opinion there were also differences in personal principles and standards, the Native Americans were being genuinely friendly and innocent to the Europeans and welcoming them to the “New World”. The Natives were very honest and naturally basic people and had very courteous purposes. As for the European’s, their behavior and actions toward the Natives were all about and were greatly influenced by money, greed, power, and credit for expansion. From the Native American’s point of view, they may have thought of the European’s actions as cruel and/or their God’s way of ending their group’s era.
ReplyDeleteThe European people wanting to change the Natives did not go well because of all the countless differences, and led to rebellion, death,and conflict. I believe both group's standards differ because of the lifestyle they were born into and what they assume is the "norm". The many differences between the two was a large explanation of why the societies conflicted and contrasted.
Hello Kassie, you made great points which I definitely agree with. I can see where personal principles and standards could have been a great factor to their disagreements. While the natives behaviors were more natural and calm because of their innocence, the Europeans seemed to be more greedy in the sense where they didn't care whose land they were taking or what people were being affected by their actions. Lifestyles also affected their behavior towards each other because of the different mentality that they had. I find that to be normal because obviously they were totally opposites; their error though was their lack to find a compromise.
DeleteHey Kassie! i really like when you stated that"they were born into and what they assume is the 'norm'". That is very true. Every culture is different. What some people think is normal might not be normal to others. Everyone should put in the effort to try and understand and accept that its ok for others to have different perspectives on whats right and on whats wrong.If the Europeans wouldnt be so demanding on changing the Natives, it would have been a different story.
DeleteI completely agree with you, Kassie. Each group was born in such different environments, their values settings were incredibly contrasting.
DeleteIt is evident that there was great differences between Native Americans and European people. One of the most important differences between the two, in my opinion, would be the distinctive ways of their views of the world. While hunger for innovation remained within the Europeans, their main purpose was only to create change and great advancement in their society. On the other hand, Native Americans only concern was to survive, their land, and their people. Even though the natives had their own ways of advancing, they still did not compare to the rate of the sophistication of the Europeans. Their views of the world were very animistic; they saw the land as the source of "life itself" and they believed that it was somewhat part of them. It is for that reason that they made agriculture their source to prosperity and with agriculture came new cultures and their own way of innovation. The different perspectives of the Europeans from the Native Americans lead to a clash between them. The fight for land was one of the major reasons for the clash since they both believed that it was their land to own. The mentality of the Europeans was another reason for the clash between them. While Europeans believed and saw themselves to be superior to the natives because of their little advancement and their lack of intelligence, Europeans found themselves having the authority to try to control the natives and take over what was originally theirs. Those affairs of the uncompromising settlement between both eventually lead to the long and conflicting disputes of the Native Americans and the Europeans because of the different mentalities of the two.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you Anakaren. The Europeans came in thinking they were superior and everything they did was right. Not knowing that by thinking that way, they were acting selfish and starting problems with others. Everyone is allowed to believe in what they want. No one should try to change or demand others to think the way they do. Thats when the real problem comes in.
DeleteIn regards to the second question, there are several reasons why I would choose to be apart of the Plymouth colony as opposed to the Virginia colony. These reasons include three main actions : 1.) The Plymouth colony motives. 2.) The experience the colonists had with settling in new areas. 3.) The difference in interaction amongst the Natives.
ReplyDeleteThe motives of the Virginia colony was to fulfill a charter with a set of missions. They were being sponsored by certain gentlemen and allowed by the King primarily for business. The Virginia colonists were adventurers seeking out profit, and converting Natives. First and foremost I would never support conversion of any religion. To me religious persecution is always wrong. Also, I need a better reason than money to leave my home land. I'm not big on exploring unknown land. To me immigration due to religious persecution would feel like a better argument. Plus, I would be settling with my family as opposed to being alone.
The Virginia colony had more experience with making an effort of permanently settling. Although they were ill equipped to form and sustain a new colony, they did better understand how to interact with different cultures.
The Virginia colonists were also more fortunate to have better luck with their first encounters with the Native Americans. This made it easier to start their colony since they were less fearful of the other tribe.
All in all, immigrating to a new land is difficult in it's self. Knowing what I know now I would choose to be apart of neither colony. They were not ready to build homes, start crops, and especially deal with the hardships of weather and sickness. To me the Plymouth colony is the better choice, but not by much.
Considering the video and the reading, there were many differences between Native American and European peoples. As everyone has mentioned, their culture, language, style and way of thinking was extremely different from each other. The Europeans viewed surviving as owning the most land, making profit out of everything and anything they could, and they thought that the way their beliefs were set up was the right way of thinking. Everyone else around them was wrong. Europeans were very selfish and only thought of what would benefit themselves and no one else. When they came to the new land, they noticed how different the Natives were from them. Yet they still came in with a closed mind and expected that the Natives would change their way of living to theirs instead of coming in with an open mind to a different culture and giving them an opportunity to compromise and work together. In the other hand, the Natives were more humble and caring about their people. They didn’t care what the Europeans had planned to do. They were more worried of themselves and what they could do to survive. They did more agriculture to survive and they thought that the bigger their population was the easier it would be for them to continue growing their crops. They also believed in gods and they put meaning to the smallest object or situation such as clothing and the way the sun would raise. The Natives were also very nice to the Europeans and welcomed them with kindness. I believe that all these differences led to a clash between the Natives and Europeans but mostly because they were both from different worlds and had the same goal in mind which was to survive and overcome their struggle and fight for their land. The Europeans wanted everything their way, little did they know that the Natives were not so advanced as they were but they had their methods and systems in order to survive and maintain their land. The Europeans came in demanding change and I think that’s what led to the clash between these people. The Europeans were selfish and didn’t make any attempt to make a connection with the Natives so they can trust each other and also learn from each other.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at the video and the reading I have became very interested in both the Plymouth and Virginia colonies. They are very similar in what they do but of course very different in their reasons and goals. Even though I am interested in what the Virginia colony did, I do not like the reasons or goals that they worked for. "Profit, finding a trade route, and convert the "naturals" or native to the Christian religion." Profit, also known as money coming in, the root of all evil. One of the reasons and probably the most important reason why the Virginia company was even there. They were not there to live and make new lives for themselves to just be happy, they wanted to take over and make everything their way which I find very rude. They came from another place to take over other peoples homeland! Another thing I greatly disagree with is how they wanted to make natives convert to the Christian religion. It's not right because the natives have a right especially being on their own homeland!
ReplyDeleteI guess its easy to say that I would rather be with the Plymouth colony. Mostly because they were more there for the right reasons. They could practice religion however they wanted to without interference from the state. The Plymouth colony were also more of a family where as the Virginia Colony were business partners. The Plymouth Colony worked together more as people that were working to survive and to just live and be happy. With that said being apart of the Plymouth Colony would seem more relaxing and more of a home. It is easy to see how the Plymouth Colony would get along more with the natives than the Virginia Colony and the Natives.
The Europeans and the Natives could not have been partners in any way just because the Virginia Colony wanted everything their way and there was no changing the reasons they came there. As I have read what others have responded to this question, the Virginia Colonies were just flat out selfish.
Melissa, I think you and I were kind of thinking along the same path because I was also somewhat interested in the Virginia colony. I didn't choose to be apart of them for very obvious reasons, like what you mentioned, but at the same time they were somewhat strategic in how they got things done. However, in the long run, I knew I wouldn't want to be apart of the Virginia colony because of their harsh ways, despite some of the few positive things they had going for them.
DeleteGiven the option to be a colonist for the Virginia Colony or the Plymouth Colony I would have chosen to be part of the Plymouth Colony. First off, they had different perspectives. The Virginia Colony soul intentions were to obtain wealth from the new land they seek after, and convert the natives to the Christian religion. The Plymouth colony was more of a collaborative group who helps one another, and communicated with their native neighbors in order to build trust. That trust benefited the colony, and helped preserve it from starvation. I would also choose to be part of the Plymouth Colony because they gave freedom of religion. The Native Americans didn't try and convert the European people to their beliefs, and seemed like they felt discomfort when the Europeans approached them with their beliefs. As they should. One who is taught a certain belief throughout their whole life isn't just going to change overnight. Finally, the Virginia Colony seemed to have started off shaky from the get-go. Even though I would prefer to have John Smith who was confident and had many years of experience in the military, amongst the 106 men who embarked on the journey with him, half of them were reluctant to do any work.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the reading and the presentation, there are various differences that can be noted between the natives and the Europeans. The natives slowly bettered themselves by starting off as hunter-gatherers and later using agriculture in order to be more self-sufficient and able to remain in one area. They attributed their plentiful harvests and game to the various gods that they paid tribute to and took care to be respectful to the land- not wasteful. When the tribes would expand they would do their best to keep the bloodshed low and focus more on expanding their beliefs and creating unity.
ReplyDeleteThe Europeans were not spiritually similar to the natives, and did not pay tribute to any gods for good harvests and the like. Instead, they believed they could simply take the land and trade with the natives in order to sustain themselves. With just a few exceptions, the Europeans also did not make many efforts to achieve strong relationships with the natives and ended up simply using violence in order to finally conquer them. The Europeans saw the Natives as a lesser form of people that required civilizing rather than learning what they might have been able to learn from their skills in agriculture and hunting.
With no doubt, I would have chosen the life of a Plymouth Colonist rather than a Virginia Colonist. The Plymouth Colony had good intentions. They seeked an escape to new land to live at peace with their beliefs without the criticism of those who surrounded them. The Plymouth Colony wanted their children to grow in their own religion rather than grow into a culture in which did not define them. On their journey, the two groups who conjoined, worked together as a whole to survive through the obstacles they were put through in effort to find the land in which they both looked for. On the other hand, The Virgina colony came off to me as a very selfish group. A group of men, whom which i believe were just a bunch of business men out to make profit for the benefit of themselves. The intentions of these men were not only to make profit from a different land in which they did not belong, they desired to convert the Natives into Christians. I would not be one to say what religion a person should be, everyone has the right to choose their own beliefs. The Plymouth Colony had also built a relationship with the Natives, something the Virginia Colony did not do. The relationship with the natives meant access to more food and survivor ship overall to a longer living economy. In the end between both colonies the Virginia died out while the Plymouth expanded by over thousands of residents and well obviously i would choose to live then to die.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the second question, I would rather be a colonist in the Plymouth Colony. From what I read about the Virginia Colony, the crew aboard their ships consisted half of “gentlemen” who valued themselves at a much higher prestige than the rest. The crew members were arrogant and did not put in much work. Although John Smith had excellent leadership skills and military experience being on a ship with crew member who put in no work would seem useless. The Virginia Colony was about business and the need to generate profit. Their goal was money and in business, competition and greed can play a big part. The Virginia Colony has a view of money vs. humanitarianism. Their adventures were only for self-interest and ignorant trying to convert the natives to their own way of belief. The Plymouth Colony had a humanitarian element to them. They had religious freedom where people could believe what they wanted as long as they worked together for the common goal. As with the natives, the Plymouth let them have their own belief system and did not force any belief system on them. The Plymouth Colony also had women whereas the Virginia Colony only had adventurous males. In order to begin a colony, women would be needed to start a society. In the Plymouth Colony the people could procreate and start families. The Virginia Colony seemed selfish and only cared about their own gains while the Plymouth Colony had family values, religious freedom and a more humane sense about themselves.
ReplyDeleteTavon, I totally agree with you. I really like how you brought in humanitarianism into your description as well. The Plymouth colony definitely displayed humanitarianism and the Virginia colony definitely lacked it. The Virginia colony was greedy and trying to be as powerful as they could be, and would take any means to accomplish this. Whereas, the Plymouth colony seemed to just want peace for everyone, including the native people around them.
DeleteI do believe that there are universals when immigrating to a new land. One is that the people have a goal set in mind. Whether it is to make lots of money or to be somewhere that is better for their family or to just start a new life, everyone leaves their homeland for a reason. There are many similarities between Europeans moving to the new world and people now a days who come to the United States. The way humans must survive hasn't changed much. Most of humanity is trying to make a living. There are those who have family and want what's best for children and spouse. There are those looking for freedom whether the religious kind or the liberal(?) kind. All are common within the past and present.
ReplyDeleteIf i had the option to chose between being a colonist in the Virginia Colony or a colonist in the Plymouth Colony, i would chose to be a colonist in the Plymouth colony. The reason why i would rather be a colonist in Plymouth opposed to a colonist in Virginia is because of the intent and motives that the Plymouth had compared to the Virginia colony. Its clear that the differences are great in regards to their motives. Plymouth to me, seemed more peaceful and at ease. Virginia's colony seemed more harsh. What i mean by harsh , for example, would be that they forced their religion onto the natives. They did not care that they had their own religion, and yet forced them to learn and accept theirs. The motives for the Virginia colony where to take over the land with their religion and to gain money and power from their "new" discovered lands. As for Plymouth where their intentions were not as harsh and aggressive. The relationship that the Plymouth colonist had with the natives were also more at ease and friendlier then the Virginia colonist. The Plymouth had a more successful relationship with them, which allowed them to become more advanced then the Virginia colony.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways both the Plymouth and Virginia colonies have similarities. For instance, both colonies lacked military aid and training which is tragic an established colony. New colonies may be taken lightly leading to battle. Without an army of trained fighters no one can be considered professional and may lack the skills needed for proper protection. Neither of the two was firmly aware of their environment before they landed there which made it a horrible place to get sick. Although they had similarities they also had their differences. The Plymouth colony had different views on religion than the Virginia colony. Although there were multiple ongoing religions, Virginia at the time only wanted to their members to believe in Christianity. The leaders of Virginia had already proven themselves to be potential tyrants while Plymouth leaders seemed to be more considerate of others freedom of expression. Allowing religious freedom made their colony stronger because the people in the community felt as if they belonged. I didn’t agree with the fact that Virginia wanted to have natives convert religions as if they were destined the property in the same fashion of the natives. Both colonies had starvation and health issues, but Plymouths friendliness had provided for them. The Plymouth colony worked well together as a team and knew how to cooperate with each other. I would consider myself to be a people’s person; hence, I would love to be around an ethnicity that isn't so similar to mines and may enjoy the opportunity that they provide. Overall the Plymouth colony had better survival skilled and appeared to be more mentally prepared than the Virginia colony. Although many lives were lost from malnutrition, Plymouth used their strategical thoughts to uplift their community, therefore they have the potential to progress.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the videos and reading from this week, there seem to be a lot of major differences between the Native Americans and the Europeans. To begin, the Native Americans were much softer in nature, focusing on expanding and sharing their lands with one another. While on the other hand, the Europeans were a bit more violent and territorial. They relied on goods from other cultures, while the Native Americans worked hard to make their own things. Now for choosing between the Virginia Colony and the Plymouth colony, I think I would much rather be siding with the Plymouth colony. As much as I admire the Virginia Colony's organization to some degree, their violent and destructive way of moving is not appealing. I would much rather be apart of the casual, kind, and effective movers of the Plymouth colony. Although they had their issues too, they were able to keep a better relationship with the native people. The Plymouth people were free to worship whatever they liked and seemed to be much more close-knit than the Virginia colony. Lastly, I think to some degree there are universals when people immigrate to another land, like having common courtesy when visiting someone's home. However, many cultures view or practice these "universal" in different ways.
ReplyDelete