Now that we've spent substantial time expolring the intial motives and consequences of European colonization in the Americas, I'd like to hear about your position on this week's essential question. Please refer to class materials and/or any research you've completed for your first project as evidence to support your point of view. Remeber, responding to one another is what will make this an inqury-driven learning community - that's the point of the blog!
Also, thank you so much for all the warm wishes and your sustained focus and hard work while I was out!
25 comments:
helllloooooooo.
just testing to see if it workss!
Elizabeth Che - A.P. U.S. History - Block H
The Old World was superior to the New World due to revising of ideas and practices that the colonists used. When compared to today’s society, the New World and the Old World are relatively similar if not any different in terms of development. But when time is taken into account, the development of the cultures and societies in the New World came into being much faster than when it was originally developed in the Old World. However, the New World never actually started off as nothing.
True, it was the colonists who needed to build the dwellings from scratch and pave their own roads, but those in the Old World had done the same thing but further back in time. Settlers from different areas of the Old World came to start a new life, bringing their cultures with them. Tools and production methods were adopted from previous experiences in the Old World. Thus, the New World is just a mixture of revised versions of the previous world. As indicated on page 61 of Out of Many, “... the Spanish, French, Dutch and English were all drawn into planting substantial colonies in North America.” Explorers such as Francisco V squez de Coronado and Samuel de Champlain were the ones who set the New World in motion.
Although the motivations for the explorers and colonists were mainly for riches, trades. fame/glory and religion, they did come from civilizations that were already established. As more settlers arrived in the New World and furnished the bare grounds with their colonies, the New World became similar counterparts of the Old. Funding was needed in order for expeditions to be made. It was the Old World who supplied the essential equipment and men power to build the settlements. Enterprises like the Virginia Company of London were the ones who supplied the ships and sponsored expeditions to the New World. Had there not been any foundation, the New World would not have been discovered by the Europeans nor came about to be as developed as it is in the modern society.
Teresa Konopka
Block H
AP US
Reflection:
What constitutes superiority? Is it politics, economics, culture, or something else? When comparing the New and Old World, such questions come to mind.
Politically, both the New World and the Old World were similar. Both had one person in charge of matters and other subjects subordinately. There were kings and knights, as well as chiefs and scouts. Additionally, both the New and Old Worlds had different ways of dealing with criminals. In the Old World, there was usually imprisonment as a punishment. Meanwhile, in the New World, humiliation / shaming one’s family was a familiar repercussion.
In terms of economics, the Old World had currency and sound trading systems. With naval fleets, it was somewhat easier for Europeans to trade with each other. As for Native Americans, they were more focused on sharing. When they did trade, they oftentimes did so peacefully. Even though Indians did have boats, they were elementary compared to the innovations of the white men.
Culturally, both white men and native men had societies. The Old World tended to be more patriarchal, while the New World tended to be more matriarchal (not always, in some special cases). When it came to birthing newborns, women of the Old World tended to be in bed with a midwife, while women of the New World tended to stand up and let gravity work advantageously.
Ultimately, superiority among different peoples is not as easy to determine as distinguishing apples from oranges. Therefore, it is a subjective matter that must be pondered upon carefully and opinionatedly.
Short response to comment already on blog:
Elizabeth’s entry was very pragmatic and had some logical points in it. It discussed fame, religion, and many other colonists’ reasons for venturing to the New World. Her entry was insightful and offered a unique opinion on the question of superiority.
I'm impressed so far, AP US! You are the first among my classes to catch on to the format I'd like to see us using. Both Elizabeth and Theresa incorporated information from our sources in their responses --- nice modeling for the rest of us!
I ask you all to consider this question from different angles; how do you think the colonists who lived in Jamestown and Plymouth colonies would reply if the question were posed to them in the 17th century? What's your evidence to this answer? Looking ahead, do you think the American Revolution occurred because life was better for the colonists in the New World OR because of the conflicts of interest between New World colonial enterprise and Old World traditions (including imperial power)? No one has to answer any of my questions, I include them here to plant seeds for future learning and to encourage new ideas.
Veronica Geager-Block H
Hey Everyone!!!
In the response the the question "Was the New World Superior to the Old World, they were two very different places. In the "old world" their were new ideas and questions being brought up, it seemed like, every few centuries. Also Europe was much more technolically advanced due to the population and size. Geographically, Europe is closer together and the people have more contact with each other. The "old world" was also very different politically. In Europe their were monarchs ruling over the citizens for hundreds of years, and their was a distict social class system in place. In North Ameica, the Natives had a ruling social class, however their was still some form of democracy. The Natives selected groups of people to rule over them, as opposed to the monarchs of Europe who practiced nepetism and selected people based on their staus in society. The "new world" was much more spead out and did not have the population Europe had at that time. The tribes were much more spread out, and each tribe had their own technolocal advancements. For example, the Iriquois were very advanced in medicine and even perfomed brain surgery. However, the resourced North America had were very organic and the Natives did not have the metals or the factories of Europe to make weaponery. The Natives were simply stringing together rocks and sticks to make spears and arrows, while the Europeans had guns and ammunition. Therefor, the original question "Is the New World Superior to the Old World," is simply impossible to answer. Both places were extremely different, and had very different societies.
P.S.
**Used Liana's gmail account for the blog!**
Sam Murphy - AP U.S. History
The Old World cannot be considered superior to the New World just as the New World cannot be conisdered superior to the Old. While it is true the Old World had dozens of cultures and languages, the New World had just as many. The only other aspects that could make any difference would be technology, religon, and government.
While the Europeans had many different religons stemming from the same place, the Native Americans had no oragnized religon, and this made the Europeans look at them as 'heathens' and 'savages.' The Europeans were more technologically advanced, however, and this gave them an advantage over the Native Americans. The European government system, as Veronica mentioned, was more based off religon and less controlled by the people. However, the Native Americans had a system of government that was much more based around the community as a whole.
So while both were equal in terms of culture, the Europeans were vastly superior in technology and lack of morals, and this allowed them to conquer the Native Americans and almost wholly destory the Native culture.
Ashley Aydin.
AP U.S. - Block H.
The new world was undoubtedly superior to the old world. Generally, the new world created a renaissance for the inhabitants of America, abolishing old norms to fit a society based on trade and culture. “Trade is free to all, this gives the Indians all things cheap, each of the Hollanders outbidding his neighbor and being satisfied provided he can gain some little profit” (Jogues 66). The population living in the new world was enlightened to an extreme. Seemingly, all that mattered was breakthroughs of innovative methods to receive simple income, while also obtaining power over lands and colonies. Nevertheless, the old world was also incorporated into the new world civilization. “All men were lulled into a fatal security and became everywhere familiar with the Indians – eating, drinking, and sleeping amongst them, by which means they became perfectly acquainted with all our English strength” (Beverly 1). The Natives were shunned and pushed away because of their “threat” to new world principles. Seen as living barbaric and traditional lifestyles, many colonists rejected the indigenous people. In order for society to advance, the colonists aimed to exclude every part of society that meant referring to conventional methods. With the flourishing new world, came achievements in education, dealing, commerce, farming, travel, and unity amongst the colonists. Moreover, the new world brought forth and inspired new ideas and movements. Although many new world ideals were based on old world ethics and standards, much change was experienced among the populace. Accordingly, the whole of America desired to redefine what being part of America meant.
•The History and Present State of Virginia – Robert Beverly.
•A Jesuit Priest Describes New Amsterdam – Isaac Jogues.
(DOCUMENTS USED)
A Response to Sam’s Comment.
Sam is indeed accurate in explaining that there were many differences among the pupils living in the old world and new world. Religion, as well as technology and government, played a major role in shaping both societies. Most importantly, however, was how these aspects created great social divides amongst the whole of America. Why were the colonists constantly competing and conflicting with each other over subjects regarding the distinctiveness of the population? Sam also touches on how the Europeans were far more advanced than the indigenous people. Although both groups introduced each other to new tools and resources, the Europeans possessed extremely modern machinery and goods.
Heather Vale :]
Ironically, the New World cannot be labeled as superior to the Old World. Hearing such terms like "old" to "new" immediately make one think of an enhancement or progress of some sort. In this case, the Old World did a decent job on being 'enhanced' with the materials they were given. Indeed, the Europeans colonized over what was once native land, yet they still cannot be seen as more powerful or better just like that. The Old World was filled with technology and communication of their own sort. They started from scratch, and built a strong foundation of brotherhood. These natives only understood so much, as they only had so many resources surrounding them. Thus, it can be easily justified to say that Indians made good use out of everything they laid their hands on. In the eyes of an Indian, their world was filled with the best that it could have been. So once the English came along, they opened the doors to resources that Natives never heard of. This particular move immediately illustrated the “New” world as a sophisticated and well-developed place. Though the New World appeared enhanced and wealthy to the Indians, their society was not much different to the Old World. This world was not even close to new, as they suffered with starvation, conflicts, wars and massacres. For a world to be considered new, establishments must have been made to avoid such events from happening. The Europeans and their egotistical personalities also played a deep role in the repuation of this world being 'new'. Overall, there was no specific enhancement or improvement that declared the New World to be superior. Such words played a large role in history, as the message behind the New and Old World can be forever discussed.
Justin Lefkowitz
AP US HISTORY
H Block
The actual question, “Was the New World superior to the Old War?” is probably one of the hardest questions to answer. There are so many factors that contribute to both sides and as a result, the decision is one, quite difficult to make.
The Old World consists of everything happening in the Americas from about the year 10000 B.C. (or possibly later) to the year 1492, when Columbus first started to venture out for Spain. The New World starts almost immediately after Columbus struck the Bahamas in 1492, when sailing for the Spaniards.
Some might disagree with me, but I feel that the Old World was much more superior to the New World (when the first stage of colonization ended in the beginning of the eighteenth century) because the natives of the Old World had an unfair advantage of time. I agree with many of the ideas that Elizabeth had brought up in her blog, but I would also like to add a few more facts into the mix. The American Natives, also called the Indians by the Europeans, had over 11,000 years to work together. As a result of all of this time together, they were able to establish many different types of society all around the Americas, even though some were much more superior than others.
The New World, in my eyes, is a term only used to describe the finding of the Americas by the Europeans up until mid eighteenth century, the time period during the end of early colonization. The New World citizens, according to the Out Of Many textbook, consisted of the British, the Dutch, the Spanish, and the French. It is not very likely to do all of the things that the Indians did in 11,000 years into just 200 or 300 years. If the British, Dutch, Spanish, or French did have 11,000 years from the year that they first landed in this “New World”, there would probably flying cars by the 2,000th year together. Probably by the 4,000th year their would probably be no more world because they would have been at each others throats for so many years, that they would have probably just wanted to annihilate each other.
If the New World had just as much time as the Old World had, there would have been no competition for the Old World to compete with. I am only saying that the Old World was better was because time was on their side and they really had nobody to compete with until the Europeans started to migrate here. In some ways the New World was superior to the Old World because if one thinks of this in a different way, the Colonists did destroy the Indians population, civilization, and they stole everything else. But when it came to establishing a society, the Old World had the advantage because they knew the land.
This is a very interesting question and I feel that we should have an in class debate on this subject because of the strong points that each side could bring up. This would be a good idea for some extra credit maybe.
Michelle Shed
A.P. U.S. History
H Block
Was the New World superior to the Old World is a question that can be answered in many ways. While there are those who believe that the Old World was superior, there are also those who feel that it is the New World that was superior. Both worlds have their own individual strengths. The difference is that there were more indiviuals who were adapted to the old world, compared to the New World.
When the settlers first came to the New World, they were faced with many struggles. Some of these struggles included starvation, war with the Native American tribes, climate, religion, violence, and indentured servitude. The settlers came to America looking for gold and spices. However, unlike in the old world, they had a low food supply and there weren't many natural resources that they could depend on. There were no food surpluses and that made survival very difficult. The settlers ended up eating vermin. The settlers also faced harsh climates. Since they were so adapted to the climate back in the old world, the winters were extremely difficult for them to face. Both worlds were very cold. However, the problem the settlers faced was adaptation. They weren't used to the New World, which is why there are those who argue that the Old World is superior.
The New World was a mix of people. There were Native Tribes living on the land before the settlers have even heard of it. The English settlers had contempt for the natives. They were appalled about the unorganization of government and religion. There were many wars between the Natives and the settlers such as King Philip's War and the James Town Massacre. When most people think of the New World, they think about the blood shed of the settlers and the Native Americans. That's why there are many people who consider the Old World superior the New World.
The Old World and the New World are both connected. While the settlers from the Old World came to America for economic prosperity, the Old World was partially responsible for cultivating the New World. For example, in 1612, the Great Patience delivered food supplies to the colonies. Religion from the old world was used as a day by day life for the settlers. These are just some of the many examples how the Old World relates to the New World.
It's not that the Old World is superior to the New World. It's just that the settlers were more adapted to the Old World. If the settlers were already adapted to the New World when they arrived there, they would have considered the New World an exact replica of the Old World.
Jeremy Smith - APUS - Block H
"Was the New World superior to the Old World?" If so, how? What are some examples that could establish the answer?
The Old World is far more superior than the New World based on: politics, ethics, technology and religion. In the sense of religion, most European nations followed Christianity, Catholicism, or Protestantism. In turn, when arriving in the New World, early colonists discovered the Indigenous, clearly acknowledging them as "savages", had a religion, but it was not understandable. The Indigenous's religion also affected their political system. Also, the Europeans had discovered that the Indigenous did not have any "normal" European clothes, but clothes made of animal skin, which was also used for homes, tools, etc. Tools were made of animal bones, and weapons were made of rock and wood. The Europeans and Asia had the same information over time for trade, but the only things abundant in the New World that were worthy of trade were fur and fish. Technology was certainly far superior in the Old World as it was in the New World. In fact, everything that the Europeans had brought to the New World had changed the understanding of "worlds" left undiscovered.
Rachel Geissler
September 27, 2007
AP US History- HBlock
During the past week of school, we were presented with the challenge of determining who had the superiority - the New World or the Old World? Well after considering multiple documents, hearing multiple presentations, and reading through the text book, it seems as though superiority was in the hands of the Old World. Anything which the colonists used in the New World was somehow a take of methods, culture, or traditions from the Old World. The expeditions to the New World were sponsored by who? Oh yeah, rulers and wealthy people from the Old World! Sure the people who dared to venture off to this New World were pretty brave and seeking independence; however, they were still under the Old World's rule, even when they were on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The settlers in the New World were new and oblivious to the territory and how to work the land. The colonists sometimes had to look to the Native Americans for help. Yeah, that's right, believe it or not the colonists turned to those barbaric beings that they planned on enslaving or killing for help. The colonists were basically inferior to everyone - rulers in the Old World, natives of the New World, everyone. Although, the settlers did have some freedoms, such as freedom of religion and the freedom to set up their own little governments, they still answered to the Old World from which they thought they had escaped. The New World did have its perks, as Ashley said, farming and travel methods were improved. Basically, in the case of Old World versus New World, the Old World takes the cake in the topic of superiority.
The New World could not at all be compared to the Old World, as this was just new land waiting to become something greater. In that time however, the Old World was superior to the New World.
The Old World had the technology, the resources and the history to deem it superior to the New World. There was technology, literature, language, and religion. Along with those came a strong economy and organized government, which was something the New World was strongly lacking in
However, as the settlers moved into the New World, changes were made as it was slowly brought into a more "modern" age for the time. It seems however that the New World was allowed to perfect itself from the mistakes that were made during the long history of the Old World.
In conclusion, the Old World was much more superior to the New World, but the New World was the chance to start from scratch and advance forward.
Anam Baig, Block H, AP US
The New World and the Old World have not ousted each other in superiority. Without considering the amount of bloodshed and conflict the New World settlers bought upon the Native Americans, the Europeans did lead developments for the modern world. However, the Old World was modern in its own self without the interference of European settlers.
The Europeans claimed that the Natives were “barbarians” when they themselves committed barbaric atrocities against them. Many Natives were killed in cold blood, to make way for progression in the Americas. Unfair battles were fought against the Natives. Advanced weaponry usually secured victory for Europeans. Manipulation and deceit was also used to obtain what they wanted from the Natives.
Some Europeans felt the treatment of the Natives was cruel. Bartolome de Las Casas, a Dominican Friar, spoke openly against the brutality, mainly against the Spanish. He defended the Natives, and believed that they were modern before Spanish interference. He says, “…long before [the Natives] had heard the world Spaniard they had properly organized states, wisely ordered by excellent laws, religion, and custom” (Las Casas, Thirty Very Judicial Propositions).
The Europeans started much technological advancement in the Americas. They established colonies, set up trade routes, and opened new doors for expansion in the Americas. While there was continual bloodshed, the European settlers were very intent in opening mines and importing/exporting goods. The more settlers that came to the Americas, the more powerful the colonies became. While these colonies became more expansive, governments became more structured, and the colonists started to adapt to their environment. Adaptation was crucial for the survival of colonists because they were void the luxuries of their home countries. They way they adapted was important to America today because it helped the New World become superior and modern.
Jackie Mallozzi ; Block H
There are many different opinions to whether or not the New World was superior to the Old World. One could argue either way, since both the Old and New World had their own individual strengths as well as weaknesses. Based on how the Native Americans worked with the little they had, may have possibly made them superior to the New World. Elizabeth brought up great points about how people of the Old World had to completely build their own life, bringing new cultures with them. In the Old World, before Christopher Columbus set out from Spain in 1492, was basically built from scratch. The New World was not so new after all and might be better described as discovered. Another important point brought up by Elizabeth was how the explorers, such as Columbus, who came to the New World were already from established worlds and therefore they already had experience to base their advances on, while the Old World didn’t have any prior experience. The people of the New World who went to the Old World came in search of gold, spice, fur, and enterprise. However, they didn’t have all the supplies they needed to colonize in the Old World, and therefore relied on the Natives to supply them with food and resources. All things considered, the Old World with all their disadvantages proved to be advanced beyond their years.
Anam Baig, Block H, AP US
Short Response to Samwise Murphy
Samwise touched upon many aspects of the New and Old Worlds. He used apects of government, religion and technology to support this opinion of how neither the Old World nor the New World were superior of each other. When he said that the Europeans lacked morals, he basically perfected his response.
The New World, the land of the Native Americans, is often seen as many modern-day historians to be the "superior" society, due to their deep connection with their surrounding environment and easy partnership with the land. The Native Americans did not, unlike the Europeans, leave destruction in their wake. Though both the humans of the Old World and New were prone to warfare, in the New World it was of a much smaller scale, and the destruction was far less widespread.
Just as Heather mentioned several posts earlier, the Old World was very much ahead of the New in terms of technological advancement, something the natives knew little of. Yet, though those who view the Old World as superior constantly bring up the technological advances the Europeans have over the Native Americans, one is forced to wonder if those technological advances were really such a good thing. After all, we currently face a huge crisis with the changing climate of our planet because of these very same “advances” that are polluting the Earth. If the one reason that the Native Americans are considered inferior is called into consideration, how can anyone truly argue that the European Old World was superior?
Therefore, though arguments could easily be made for either side, the most logical conclusion is that both were superior, and neither was inferior. This may seem contradictory, but not if we call recall the first of the Seven Habits for Highly Effective Teens! Remember, no one has to loose an arm-wrestling match!
In any case, the New and Old Worlds were precisely that: different worlds. So, just as we can’t combine unlike terms, we can’t truly compare the New and Old Worlds.
Dominique D. Johnson, Block H., 9/27/07
The New World was not as superior as the Old World, but rather a latent development of all of the opportunities that was demoralized from the people. The New World was a place of dreams and goals that were set by the lower and middle class society that didn’t have a chance in the Old World. Being that the majority of colonists were second sons of wealthy families and merely peasants that would not inherit the wealthy privileges that was offered to the first son the New World offered that. Christopher Columbus discovered the new world in 1492, during his voyages around the world in search of conquering and establishing his own monarchy, he discovered a land that could perhaps be profitable and attract attention to all of Europe.
The New World was planned out to be a place full of trade and undiscovered treasure. Settlers looked at the land as a better place, freedom, and the opportunity to build the greatest country of all times. However; the climate changes and lack of materials to survive in this New World was a result of many settlers dieing. Even with the amount of death, colonist still saw this place as a gold or jewel in the world. The first settlers in Jamestown, Virginia in 1606 planned to stay until next spring. However; even though many of the British settlers were dying do to diseases and lack of food, the plan to expand their colony was a fresh plan that was eventually going to happen.
I realized that the settlers came here depending on the New World and the profitable enterprise to invest in rather then stocking up food and other reliable supplies to last them.The amount of land that the settlers can have was infinite. The New World was fresh and could be built up from the ground up to be just as superior or even more superior as the old world. The settlers looked at the land to bring religion and be more civilized.
The colonists who lived in Jamestown and Plymouth colonies would respond to this question if posed to them in the 17th century by hoping and determination to make the New World superior as the Old World. I don’t believe that they would openly admit that the New World was not a superior as the Old World because of the fact that they were rebellious towards many of the laws and acts that they were forced to permit to. They looked at the New World as freedom. For example the religious tensions in Europe were strong since the British were mainly Protestant with the exception of few who were Catholic. This New World was open for all religious beliefs rather then a war between religions as in Europe.
Dominique D. Johnson
As for Ashley F’s post, I must agree with the fact that the settlers looked at the New World as a fresh start to perfect itself. The New World indeed was looked upon as being the golden place for people of all classes to establish themselves and their beliefs.
Liana Inzerillo
:]
The Old World was seemingly better than the new one that many European colonists had created. In my opinion, there was far too much bloodshed and culture-clashing for a colony of such youth.
Yes, sometimes bloodshed is necessary for social change, but it just seemed that the economic advantages of new land went to the colonists head in turn creating massacre after massacre. Every country that went there (the Americas) in pursuit of land, they altered their customs to fit their new environment.
The Old World didn't essentially snatch land from people who already inhabited it, with the exception of a few European on European wars.
In all reality, I don't think either one was better than the other. In the new world thy faced problems, big ones. They had to start their own way of life, completely from scratch & that takes a whole lot of bravery, more than many can bare to recollect. If I had to choose, however, the Old World gets my vote!
Sarah Berfond- Blog Post One
European colonization of the new world brought many changes. The settlement of North America was both beneficial and harmful to the natives and their land. As colonization spread throughout the New World diseases, religious conflicts and environmental damage followed quickly behind. However, the newcomers also brought advanced farming techniques, sophisticated trading, new medicines and new technologies which helped advance civilization on the continent.
Native Americans were not prepared to battle the new disease brought over form Europe by the settlers. Their immune system consisted of antibodies that had never been exposed to smallpox. As a result, the infections spread quickly in the Native American community. As different groups of Europeans came to America, they brought their religious and social beliefs. They often fought for control of the land and the right to spread their customs and traditions. For example, in New Amsterdam the Puritans tried to control the harbor and exclude other religions. As more people came to the New World they brought overcrowding and sanitary problems to a land that had been pure and unscathed. Often the settlers polluted the waters the Indians used for drinking and cleaning.
Europeans also made the New World a better place to live. Their knowledge of irrigation systems and rotating lands for planting brought a surplus of crops to the Native Americans. Along with diseases the settlers brought new medicines to cure existing problems among the Native Americans. Finally, the Europeans brought their skills in building tools and equipment to make life more efficient.
Looking back from today's point of view it seems that if you were a white European settler the New World was much better than the Old World in North America. However form the perspective of the Native Americans the opposite is true.
Response to Jackie's Post: I agree with Jackie. The Old and New Worlds each had their good and bad points. She is especially insightful in piercing the superfical classification of Native Americans as backward and ancient. I never looked at the Native Americans as having an advanced culture.
Ian Murphy
AP US History
Block H
The question on which world was superior to the other: the “Old World” (Europe) or the “New World” (North America) is not an easy question to answer. When it comes to the potential for advancing, each had its own unique advantages and disadvantages that make such a debate impossible to settle. The Old World was established and controlled by the elite, wealthy social classes that included royalty and noblemen. Land owned by families would normally be inherited by the eldest son, while the younger son would receive nothing. The only way for that son to obtain land would be to establish it in the New World. There were many hardships encountered in the New World, such as lack of food and conflicts with the indigenous people. However, the colonists took advantage of all the new resources that were available there.
It should be noted that there would be no “New World” without an “Old World.” The laws that were established in Europe were carried over by the colonists when they arrived in America and, when supplies were limited in the colonies, they resorted to having food and equipment imported. Conversely, the Old World benefited from the exports coming out of the New World. The colonists certainly must have felt that the New World, if not outright better than the Old World, must have held some advantage for them or they would not have stayed. Their pioneering spirit is the one thing that sets the two worlds apart. That spirit is alive and well today in CSI High School. As members of the inaugural class, we have had hardships but we have also gained advantages.
Go AP US! Your blog posts are informative and you have supported your opinions with information from your source materials; some of you have even cited your sources!!! I also am impressed by your sound reasoning when you agree and disagree with your classmates' opinions. Of course, as Ian has stated, something must be said for those with "pioneering spirit" -- all of you are our CSI pioneers -- being members of our inaugural class and pioneers in our AP classes as well! Keep up the good work!
Margaret Scalesci
A.P. U.S. History
Block -H
Sorry it’s so late.
How do we really know which world is more superior? When you really think about it, the New World was superior in how advanced they were without being connected to the rest of the world. Even though the Europeans were more technologically advanced they took ideas from others countries throughout the nation unlike the Native Americans. The Native Americans didn’t know what the rest of the world was doing but they were still very advanced without learning from others throughout the world. The Europeans, who came to America to start a new life, and ruin the lives of the Native Americans, learned much from them and did form new ideas on how they lived. The European colonization of North America was in a way beneficial to the Indians but was mostly a bad thing because the Native Americans were wiped out. They were underrated in the sense of their intelligence because most of the Europeans considered the Native Americans savages and people of a lower standard. In The American Spirit, a source “Juan Gines de Sepulveda Belittles the Indians”, he speaks about the Indians like they don’t deserve to live and how barbaric they are. The people who speak of them in that way didn’t understand how amazing the Indians were. In another source “Bartolome de Las Casas Defends the Indians” he speaks about them in a way that much relates to my opinion. He honors them and their ways of living which is how most people should thing because the Native Americans are underestimated. In a way we will never know exactly how the Native Americans really lived and if all their ideas were truly theirs.
In response to Heather’s post, I agree with her in the sense that the two worlds can not be equally measured with each other. They were advanced in the ways that they could be, but they lived a completely different life with different morals.
Post a Comment