Accommodation and Conflict
Both outcomes, from the same rivalry
- Interactions between European rivals and American Indian populations fostered both accommodation and conflict.
- French, Dutch, British, and Spanish colonies allied with and armed American Indian groups, who frequently sought alliances with Europeans against other American Indian groups.
- The second sentence makes native groups agents: they sought alliances, for their own purposes.
The CED says American Indian groups...
They are agents in the CED's sentence.
Conflict over three named things
- British conflicts with American Indians over land, resources, and political boundaries led to military confrontations, such as Metacom's War (King Philip's War) in New England.
- The three causes are exactly what 2.2 predicted for a colony of settling families: land, resources, boundaries.
- So the English pattern of living separately on taken land generates a different kind of conflict from a trading colony's.
Select all three causes of British-native conflict the CED names.
Exactly what 2.2 predicted for a colony of settling families.
Resistance changed the coloniser
- American Indian resistance to Spanish colonising efforts in North America, particularly after the Pueblo Revolt, led to Spanish accommodation of some aspects of American Indian culture in the Southwest.
- The causal arrow points from resistance to accommodation — the empire changed because it was resisted.
- That is the clearest statement of native agency in the unit, and it is worth quoting exactly.
Alliance, conflict, or accommodation?
Sort each interaction.
In the Southwest, the causal arrow runs from...
The empire changed because it was resisted.
The CED makes native nations agents, not only objects. They frequently sought alliances with Europeans against other American Indian groups, and Spanish accommodation of some aspects of American Indian culture followed resistance — the causal arrow runs from resistance to the empire's change.
The CED's named New England confrontation is Metacom's War, also called King ____'s War.
A conflict over land, resources and boundaries.
Why alliances and wars coexist
- When several empires compete, each needs local partners, so an alliance is available to a native nation that wants one.
- When one empire wants land rather than trade, no alliance can satisfy it, so conflict follows.
- So the outcome depends on what the European party wanted, which is 2.2's question again.
Whether an interaction produced alliance or conflict depended mostly on...
2.2's question again.
Interactions changing over time
- The objective is how and why interactions between various European nations and American Indians changed over time.
- How: from alliance and armament toward confrontation where land was wanted, and toward accommodation where resistance succeeded.
- Why: because the European aim and the balance of power in each region were different, and both changed.
A nation facing a stronger neighbour can gain from a newcomer with guns and no local claims. The same newcomer, once it wants fields instead of furs, has nothing to offer that nation but the loss of its land.
Interactions between European rivals and American Indian populations fostered both accommodation and conflict. European colonies allied with and armed American Indian groups, who frequently sought alliances with Europeans against other American Indian groups. British conflicts... over land, resources, and political boundaries led to military confrontations, such as Metacom's War (King Philip's War), while American Indian resistance... particularly after the Pueblo Revolt, led to Spanish accommodation of some aspects of American Indian culture in the Southwest.