Old Hawaii: How Life Could Have Been Being born here in Hawaii, I have always wondered how it would be different if Captain Cook hadn’t come here. I’ve always wondered what Old Hawaii was like and how my ancestors lived before Captian Cook stumbled upon these islands and what happened when he came and how it had changed our people. Through my research I have found that there was nothing written of Old Hawaii before Westerners came to Hawaii. What is written has been translated through songs and chants of Old Hawaii. Hawaii is a cluster of islands that was isolated in the Pacific Ocean from the rest of the world having no contact with the human race and not knowing it existed.
Unlike Europeans' belief, the Indians had a complex and dynamic history in America long before 1492. Since there are no accurate facts about their way of living and new discoveries are made daily, we can not make any exact assumptions and everything has to be treated provisional. Plus, many native people reject the scholars' explanation of native origins. Some people see the native's way of living as living in perfect harmony with each other and with nature, until the first Europeans set their foot on the American land. Europeans considered them as being “uncivilized”, but I believe they were always civilized.
Communication in the 1830’s was mostly verbal, so how where they supposed to find out about this act if most either couldn’t read or lived in areas hard to reach? In the text, Kelly describes how “all this occurred in a time of no television, radio, telephones, few towns and newspapers”. In my opinion, the Maka’ainana are the victims of this arbitrary distribution of territory. The king should not have allowed the privatization of the land in the first place. And in second place, as Marion Kelly states, “the laws, and the methods by which they were administered, not only were inadequate to protect the rights of the commoners, but they often permitted and intensified the oppressive control over commoners”.
Early Europeans Have the Right Idea About Natives? Europeans were not correct in their assumptions about the “savagery” of Indians. In fact the Indians may have been ahead of their time and if anything they were simply different in their civilizations compared to the Spanish and English. The Indians were sophisticated people who knew how to efficiently use their resources and land without leaving a trail of destruction in their path. The Europeans may have thoDidught of the Indians as savages and seen as them very different than themselves because of some fundamental differences in their attitudes, as well as some societal advances and practices that were completely foreign to the Indians.
Another interesting point is that the encomienda grant did not give the Spaniard the right to exercise any political authority over the Indians. However, these distinctions were very difficult to enforce, because there was an ocean between the rulers making the laws and the colonists in charge of the natives. As time went on, the conquerors of New Spain came to expect the encomiendas as their reward, so the practice became an institution and eventually became tradition to divide new
2004 DBQ – Sample Essay (9 Essay) For many years, throughout the 1600s and early part of the 1700s, the British pursued a policy of salutary neglect (healthy noninterference) toward its colonies. Britain enacted a series of Navigation Laws, but these attempts to regulate trade were minimally enforced. The colonists had a generally friendly attitude toward the British overall and they enjoyed the benefits of an imperial relationship without accompanying restrictions. However, this relationship was dramatically altered by the French and Indian War of 1764-1763. The course of the war itself significantly affected the political and ideological relationship of the colonials to their mother country, inasmuch as the colonists found the British imposition of restrictions and its hierarchical army to be repulsive to liberty, while the British saw the need for greater imperial control.
|started as an ad-hoc body, that the colonists had no history of working together toward a| | | |common goal, it was clumsy and inefficient. | | |While the battle was a victory for the British, since they were able to capture |The Battle of Bunker Hill is arguably the most important battle fought between the | |Bunker Hill |Breed’s Hill, the losses suffered dealt a devastating blow to the redcoats. Of |British and the newly formed American militia not because it was a victory in fact, but
I believe we take advantage of it because we are used to it and no one has been able to take it away from us, most of the people in the U.S. probably don’t know their full rights, the rights people before them died for in order to keep the future secure. The founding fathers didn’t have the technology we have, they didn’t have the weapons,
What was the difference between the Native Americans and the Europeans? One valued life more than the other. When the Europeans first intruded upon American territory, it was apparent that the Native Americans weren't sure what to think to such an intrusion. Of course, compared to when the Spanish encountered the Aztec and Inca empires, it was quite a subtle experience. The Native Americans had never been exposed to any world but their own.
Imperialist actions can affect the entire world; there has been very few positive effects but large number of negative effects. Overall, Imperialism is an atrocious action a country can execute. First, Imperialism was one of the reasons World War one was started. During the early 1900’s Africa was a