is this quote accurate?

Question

Consider the following quote by nineteenth century historian Francis Parkman: "Spanish civilization crushed the Indian. English civilization scorned and neglected him. French civilization embraced and cherished him." Is Parkmans statement a fair assessment of European experiences in the Contact Period? What degree, if any, is Parkmans thought a legitimate interpretation of the European Amerindian cultural exchange?

Answer 1

It is not true. The french civilization exploited the indians also. They used indians to fight british armies they themselves were too cowardly to fight.

Funny, everyone everywhere is always having to fight the french's battles for them.

Answer 2

Parkmans assessment is prety accurate.
It is a well documented fact that the Spanish destroyed the native peoples they came into contact with. The conquistadors were after gold, precious gems and glory. Their relationships with native peoples were always one of vanquishers.
England, as we see from our own colonial period and its history did a bit more than "scorn and neglect" the natives. They also enslaved them. While its true that in some areas the colonists learned much from the natives, in the end we see how much advantage was taken of them and the repeated justification of it in calling the natives "ignorant savages".
The french did embrace them. France was less concerned with what they had than with what they could gain knowledge of through them.
This is a direct quote from: http://www.frenchandindianwar250.org/relive/the_history.aspx

"New France had three colonies: Canada (along the St. Lawrence River), the Illinois Country (the mid-Mississippi Valley), and Louisiana (New Orleans and west of the Mississippi). There were about 70,000 colonists throughout the French settlements. Their economy was based on trade with the American Indians. It was a weak economic system and the colonies were not self-sustaining. They needed to purchase food from the Indians or import it. The French colonists had a much different relationship with the American Indians than the British. They viewed the American Indians as trade partners and established personal relationships with the nations they traded with. They became members of the native communities and often inter-married and had children. "

Answer 3

Not too far from the truth. I should point out that this is a sweeping generalization. There were people in all those groups who went against the tide. Particularly the quotes assessment of the French. The French did get along somewhat better than the Spanish and English. One example is the practice of intermarriage, many Frenchmen married Indian women and lived amongst the tribes.

One other difference was the Spanish and French was the attitude of making homes in America. Only the English mostly decided to come to America and make their own new lives. The Spanish and French tended to think of making a fortune, returning to their home land to live the life of the folks with money.

Answer 4

With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina.

According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at http://www.familysurvival.tv and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.

Answer 5

How bad the Spanish and the British were, here is my cartoon drawn in words. They may be nasty, though:

1. THE SPANISH: Dracula sitting on a chair, grinning while holding a goblet overfilled with blood; blood seeping on the floor which is covered by the corpuses of his victims.

They were murderers, ignorant, hypocrite and caused humanity to suffer from periodical ambiguities in history by destroying everything related to those periods. They never cared about knowledge.

2. THE BRITISH: Some one behind you; without your consent, his Phallus deep in your a.s.s while his rubbery nick stretches to place his smiling face in front of yours. You smile in return unaware of what is happening to you.

The British acted like gentlemen, civilized, sophisticated, but snappish. They were cold-hearted, smiled but in the meantime they were in fact screwing the native. They were liars, cheater, hypocrite, selfish, arrogant, rappers and killers


As for the FRENCH, I do not know that much about what they did in the area, but I can still express my opinion using analogy:

Napoleon Bonaparte may have conquered Egypt for his own political reasons. However, it is worth mentioning that when he went to Egypt he brought with him Surveyors, engineers, linguists, historians, artists; an array of experts to excavate, describe and document any thing they find. His experts wrote a book named “Description de Egypt”; a reference and a master piece till today. One of his soldiers discovered and deciphered the Rosita stone. Without all these efforts, ancient Egypt might have remained silent for a long time.

Of course atrocities happen during occupations and colonization, be it Spanish, British, or French. But for the sake of fairness, the French have always carried a torch and book in their hand.

Answer 6

I believe this is an accurate assessment. The Natives were "Crushed" by the advanced armor, weaponry, and fighting skills of the Spaniards, not to mention that they imported diseases which decimated about 2/3 of the ENTIRE population of natives on this hemisphere. They also imposed Inquisition-like punishment on natives in Central and South America who refused to convert. The English came much later, but fought the natives for territory, betrayed treaties, pushed them further and further west, demanding they adopt Western ways. Most refused but the Cherokee are an exception, even when they tried to live as English people do they were still betrayed and sent westward as their land was consumed. They are still neglected on poverty stricken reservations under our post-British government. However, the French approached the natives entirely differently. They attempted to parley with them, learned their languages, survival skills, trapping and hunting techniques, intermarried with them and otherwise treated them as legitimate people.

Answer 7

I wouldn't agree that the French embraced them. They used them like every other colonial power as they saw fit. Then the early French colonies in Canada and elsewhere in North America were very small consisitng only of trappers, traders, missonaries and craftsmen. Not many farmers which were the usual source of friction as the demanded lots of land.

Answer 8

lol that is straight up your homework isn't it? sorry, don't know.