Step 1- Read all the comments from the previous assignment.
Step 2- Choose one comment which is thoughtful.
Step 3-
First, paraphrase the comment you are responding to: For example: “Mr. Bello thinks that…”
Then, write a question about the chosen comment. The question must be: clear, sincere, useful and be the sort of question which leads to more questions. The question you write must complicate the comment’s argument, make the reader of the comment you are questioning think deeper. Stir up some intellectual trouble
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The comment I choose was Imani Clarke’s. Ms.Clarke thinks that From Thanksgiving in 1620 to King Philip's War in 1670, Why the slip from collaboration to conflict? That is a good question and from the primary source links and my textbook, I have found alot of information, and I just might have a answer for that question.
I think that the Europeans changed the way they felt about the Iroquois because of religion.
I say this because while I was reading the two primary sources given on the weblog page I saw alot of differences.
One of them that I noticed, was that in the christian story God had started out with nothing, and he created everyting himself.
While in the Iroquoi story there was a great ruler and he already started out people(animals).
So that is why I think the Europeans had desided to kill of most of the Iroquoi nation because they did not have the same belifs that the Europeans did.
My question for Ms.Clarke is “Why couldn’t the Europeans just sit down and discuss their beliefs and everything and make an agreement instead of killing the Iroquois nation?”
The comment I chose is Susana Liang. Susana Liang thinks that from Thanksgiving in 1620 to King Philip's War in 1670, it slipped from collaboration to conflict because during the 1600s Europeans began to reexamine their world, relations between colonists and the Native Americans had become tense by the 1670s. Battles between the groups intensified through the years. It was mainly about how the Europeans changed how the way they felt about the Iroquois because of religion and their beliefs. Metacomet a Wampanoag leader known as King Philip opposed the colonists’ efforts to take his people’s lands. In 1675 the tensions finally erupted in the conflict. The soldiers fought the Native American warriors; both sides attacked which ended up killing men, women and children. 600 colonists and 3000 Native Americans had been killed including King Philip. In exchange the colonists’ traded goods and as a result they both started relying on each other. English colonists traded and allied with the Iroquois League. The Native Americans had a belief of the creation: Hah-gweh-di-yu claimed the right to beautify the island, while Hah-gweh-da-et-gah determined to destroy. But the Europeans had a different belief, which was how it took six days to create it and how he would add things that he thought would be good. Due to religion and beliefs, this is why Thanksgiving in 1620 to King Philip's War in 1670 and why it slipped from collaboration and conflict.
My question to Susana Liang about her comment is “ Why can’t the Europeans and Native Americans share their different beliefs and religions with each other to learn different ways? This is my question to Susana Liang comment.
The comment I chose is Destinee Garcia. Destinee Garcia wrote: I think why they wouldn't share because they are very greedy and they will like all the land for them self. Also they wouldn't like to share because they will have more advantages with the land and make more money. So that's why I think they wouldn't share the land with each other.
My question to Destinee Garcia is, even though the land belongs to the Natives, why can’t the Natives just divide the land with the Europeans so that both of them don’t need to create war for a little thing?
The comment that I chose to question about is Rubiyath Chy's. The issue or question of web log #6 was about the Europeans and Native Americans and the conflicts between them. This was the question: From Thanksgiving in 1620 to King Philip's War in 1670, Why the slip from collaboration to conflict? Support your theory with specific quotes from the primary source links and the textbook.
Rubiyath Chy said: Raymond Chen's question leads to many different answers. As i re-state Raymond chen's question: Why cant the Native Americans and Europeans live togather? The Europeans and Native Americans are two different people. The Natives lived in a totally different world then the Europeans. The Natives Americans provided land for themselves and did not rely on the help of other tribes. The Europeans interacted with each other especially when it came to trade. Another difference that set the Native Americans apart was that they did not have a sense of ownership. The whole tribe shared everything they had. But the Europeans on the other hand, needed property to gain respect from people. The natives did not pick on place and lived there forever, so they were constantly moving. This was on of the reasons that Europeans felt that they could take the Natives lands. One of the most very differences were their view of religon. The Europeans belived in Christianity and the Native americans belived in polytheistic.The fact that the natives were polytheistic was yet another reason that the Europeans felt that it was acceptable to own the Natives lands by simply taking over. From 1620 of having a thankgiving togather to King phlip's wars was mainly because Europeans were greedy and they did not want to share land. Also the reason was how native americans lived in New England's border which caused the population to be bigger.
I read the textbook for information on this issue, but not all Native American Indians were nomads. Nomads moved from place to place. The ones that stayed in place still had plenty of resources. Nomads moved from place to place not because they felt like it, but because they ran out of resources to use. Even though nomads would move, it wasn't always constantly, so why aren't you saying SOME of them moved constantly?
My questions to Rubiyath about his are: If some of the Native American Indians were nomads, then wouldn't they come back to their original homeland eventually?
If the nomads had run out of resources to use and live, and the Europeans took over, how'd the Europeans survive without any of the resources?
Even if they WERE constantly moving, why couldn't they plan an attack to kill the invaders that were killing their people?
The comment I chose is Destinee Garcia. Destinee Garcia wrote: I think why they wouldn't share because they are very greedy and they will like all the land for them self. Also they wouldn't like to share because they will have more advantages with the land and make more money. So that's why I think they wouldn't share the land with each other.
My question to Destinee Garcia is, is it all because they are greedy or is it also about religion reasons too? Why can't the Europeans teach the Natives the religion so that there wouldn't be any war? Also, What advantages did the Europeans have that the Natives didn't?
The comment I choose to ask a question to was Destine's comment.
Destine Garcia stated: I think why they wouldn't share because they are very greedy and they will like all the land for them self. Also they wouldn't like to share because they will have more advantages with the land and make more money.So that's why i think they wouldn't share the land with each other.
My question is: If the Europeans were greedy how did they let the Native American's stay in the United States for all this years?(100 and 100's of years).
The comment I chose was Destiny Garcia's. This is what Ms. Garcia wrote:I think why they wouldn't share because they are very greedy and they will like all the land for them self. Also they wouldn't like to share because they will have more advantages with the land and make more money.So that's why i think they wouldn't share the land with each other.
My question to Ms Garcia is even if they are greedy how come the Native Americans didnt sign an alliance instead of going to war with the Europeans?.
From Thanksgiving in 1620 to King Philip's War in 1670, Why the slip from collaboration to conflict? To anwer that question i will need to use specific quotes from the primary source links and the textbook. I agree with Imani Clarke because when you look at the
bible's creation of the earth god created it instead of in the Iroquois earth creation animals created the world. So just as Imani says the Europeans probably killed the Iroquois because of the religion.
That was charles answer.
my questiong is how do you know that the bible is lying is there any other information saying that exact information because you can't only put all of your trust into one source.
the comment i chose was cieras this comment really made me think in many ways.at first i was asking myself what does she mean by this?she basically said the europeans killed the natives because they didn't like there way of life.my question is what if the europeans had there life as the natives and the natives lived like the europeans?do you think they would still attack the natives?would the natives attack the europeans?would there bepeace?would they both try and kill eachother at the same time because they both didn 't like eachothers way of life?would the europeans even had met the natives?all these questions make me think.
I chose Mechelle's comment because i agree with here statement. she said the Europeans were greedy and wanted all the land in the world. also the Europeans would have more advantages and get conquer the world.
My question is Why couldn't the Europeans just stay in europe and leave the natives alone? also why couldn't they just share the land and made a new community with the natives?
destinee gracia said that europeans are greedy and want more land. then can make more money and own more land. of couse they are greedy and would want more land. but! they will have more encomic problems. my qusetion is what will be the problem and how will they ever fix all of them?
Kiran said ……Raymond Chen had asked me why didn’t the Europeans just share the land with the Native Americans? The first thanksgiving was held in Massachusetts in 1620. It was a feast that the Dutch had with the Native Americans. When the British came to North America they forced all of the other countries out. The British then forced the Native Americans out. The British constantly were looking for power. They wanted to control everything. The Europeans also had many different beliefs than the Native Americans. The native Americans believed in a god that had gave them everything that they needed. The Europeans believed in a god that had to work hard. My question to kiran is Why couldn’t the Europeans share the land with the native Americans?
Well my question is to Ian who asked Destinee a question
Ian asked: My question to Ms Garcia is even if they are greedy how come the Native Americans didn’t sign an alliance instead of going to war with the Europeans?
My question to Ian is why the Native Americans even go to war with Europeans would and the Native Americans weren’t greedy the Europeans just took everything from them.
The comment I chose is Susana Liang. Susana Liang thinks that from Thanksgiving in 1620 to King Philip's War in 1670, it slipped from collaboration to conflict because during the 1600s Europeans began to reexamine their world, relations between colonists and the Native Americans had become tense by the 1670s. Battles between the groups intensified through the years. It was mainly about how the Europeans changed how the way they felt about the Iroquois because of religion and their beliefs. Metacomet a Wampanoag leader known as King Philip opposed the colonists’ efforts to take his people’s lands. In 1675 the tensions finally erupted in the conflict. The soldiers fought the Native American warriors; both sides attacked which ended up killing men, women and children. 600 colonists and 3000 Native Americans had been killed including King Philip. In exchange the colonists’ traded goods and as a result they both started relying on each other. English colonists traded and allied with the Iroquois League. The Native Americans had a belief of the creation: Hah-gweh-di-yu claimed the right to beautify the island, while Hah-gweh-da-et-gah determined to destroy. But the Europeans had a different belief, which was how it took six days to create it and how he would add things that he thought would be good. Due to religion and beliefs, this is why Thanksgiving in 1620 to King Philip's War in 1670 and why it slipped from collaboration and conflict.
My question to Susana Liang about her comment is “ Why can’t the Europeans and Native Americans share their different beliefs and religions with each other to learn different ways? This is my question to Susana Liang comment.
christopher
The comment I chose is Destinee Garcia. Ms. Garcia wrote I think why they wouldn't share because they are very greedy and they will like all the land for them self. Also they wouldn't like to share because they will have more advantages with the land and make more money.
My qusetion is do you tink that thay wanated to take over or theyment no harm they just wanated money.
But I agree with her destinee about I think why they wouldn't share because they are very greedy and they will like all the land for them self. Also they wouldn't like to share because they will have more advantages with the land and make more money.
Post a Comment