Throughout the early decades of the 18th Century, three European powers held an uneasy hold over North America.
Spain continued to hold onto the land once conquered by Hernan Cortes and called it New Spain. In addition to modern day Mexico, Central America, and the islands of the Caribbean, they held onto what today is Florida.
France followed the rivers and waterways to claim Northeastern North America as well as the Midwest and as far east as the Appalacian Mountains. As the map on the right shows, they did not agree on where their claims ended and where British claims began.
England's 13 colonies on the Atlantic coast were growing more and more powerful each year that passed. As more people continued to pour over to the colonies, they began looking west to expand. The obvious problem: the French already claimed it.
THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS EASIER ON THE EYES TO SEE WHERE EACH EMPIRE CLAIMED.
THE MAP ON THE RIGHT GETS INTO MORE DETAIL AND SHOW HOW MUCH OF THE LAND WAS CLAIMED BY BOTH.
As more people continued to arrive on North American shores, more land was needed for them to live on.
The problem: there were others living here already. Many others. People very different from them. These Native Americans didn’t understand the reality of just how many people were moving in and how much their world was going to change.
Some of these tribes were peaceful. Some loved war. Some were nomads. Others never moved. Some have been wiped out forever, while others still remain strong to this day.
This is not a major research project, but a quick snapshot into the life of one group. You will choose one tribe and find out what life was like for that group. There are 4 links included below. You can also simply Google search, "What foods did the Sioux eat?"
We will share what we learned in class and compare similarities and differences. You will be looking at 10 categories. Below is a list of the tribes you can choose:
After the French and Indian War, the continent of North America was changed greatly. The map below shows how land claims changed from the beginning of the war to the final Treaty of Paris in 1763.
Ms H (13:28) - Very thorough, with maps and images
Location of Braddock's defeat today: Braddock, PA
Braddock marches right into the hornet's nest.
History Channel (3:22) - Focuses on 5 things about the war
General Braddock -- skilled, arrogant. He never fully respects the danger presented by the French and their Indian allies
French Tulle Fusil Musket -- light and popular
Guerilla warfare: using the land and terrain to give you an advantage in battle. Here you can see the Native Americans using the hills nad trees to attack the British troops below.
Oil painting of General Braddack's mortal wound.
WAS IT SMART TO CHANGE THE WASHINGTON "REDSKINS" NAME?
“What the Word Redskins Means to My Famil
By Baxter Holmes, Esquire.com
Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we don't have much of it left. As tribes were exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term "redskins.
The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized killing of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a reward on their heads. They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12. These bloody scalps were known as "redskins."
The mascot of the Washington Redskins, if the team desired accuracy, would be a gory, bloodied crown from the head of a butchered Native American. Defenders of the team nickname say its origin was totally innocent, and that it's not possible to know the true meaning of the word. Those defenders cite a Smithsonian article (Smithsonian is a famous museum) that traces its origin to skin color, before the systematic scalping.
I feel that pain not only because I'm a proud Native American, of Cherokee and Choctaw lineage, but because my parents steeped me and my brothers in that culture so that it would live on within us. But "redskins" is not just a twisted compliment, like "Savages," "Warriors," "Braves" or "Red Men." It represents a trophy of war—the bloody scalp of a murdered Native American, slaughtered for money, the amount dependent on whether it was a man, woman or child.
“Poll Results Say the Redskins Name is Not Offensive”
By Fred Bowen
I’ll admit it: I’m surprised.
The Washington Post last week published the results of a survey of 504 Native Americans (also called American Indians) concerning how they felt about the name of Washington’s National Football League team, the Redskins. In 2005 and 2013, I wrote columns arguing that the team should change its name. I talked about the history of the name — the Redskins were once called the Boston Braves — and how other professional sports teams over the years have changed their names.
At the time, I assumed that lots of Native Americans were offended by the name “Redskins” and would want the team to change its name.
Surprise! The Post survey indicated that 90 percent of Native Americans are not bothered by the team name. Even more surprising was that a big majority of the Native Americans surveyed (73 percent) did not find the term “redskin” disrespectful. Some even told The Post they liked the word and used it among themselves.
The Post survey has made me realize a few things. First, it’s a good lesson for me or anyone else not to assume you know how other people feel without talking to those people. I thought Native Americans would be upset by the name “Redskins.” The survey indicated that the vast majority are not or don’t care. It’s also important that when new information, such as this survey, becomes available, you think about the information. Things change, and everyone has to be ready to change how they feel about different subjects as new facts are discovered.