Difference between revisions of "HIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Bernal Diaz del Castillo) |
|||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
Powhatan's "Speech to Captain John Smith" leaves me with multiple questions. I'm confused of who recorded it, was it John Smith? Also, how is it that the speech has suddenly become translated into english? Within the 2 years the colonists have been at Jamestown, there doesn't seem to be a the Indians could have become so fluent in a foreign speech. Especially knowing that by 1609 the population was so low that the exposure to the english language was extremely limited. How were the Indians and colonists able to communitcate so well if their languages differed so dramatically? -Ally Campo | Powhatan's "Speech to Captain John Smith" leaves me with multiple questions. I'm confused of who recorded it, was it John Smith? Also, how is it that the speech has suddenly become translated into english? Within the 2 years the colonists have been at Jamestown, there doesn't seem to be a the Indians could have become so fluent in a foreign speech. Especially knowing that by 1609 the population was so low that the exposure to the english language was extremely limited. How were the Indians and colonists able to communitcate so well if their languages differed so dramatically? -Ally Campo | ||
| + | |||
| + | In reading Johnson you find out that when the Europeans came to eh Kingdom of Congo they brought and started trading guns to the natives. Is this the event that has lead to the mass genocides and "terrorism" in the Congos. You see movies of the Congos with guns, killing, and terrorism around every corner and in my mind i can see the Europeans coming and trading guns as the event that lead to some of all this. In the letter from King Afonso to King Joao III, you see Afonso very distressed and sensing the change that this trading of firearms and other goods has brought to his Kingdom, and look where they are now. - Landon James | ||
| + | |||
| + | If Columbus said he believed "they (Indians) were a people who would be better freed [from error] and converted to our Holy Faith by love NOT by force" then why was their oppression in the first place? I know we talked about hwo he pretty much had permission to opress and enslave whomever he so pleased, but was their no sense of personal morality, a sense for what's right and what's wrong? For Columbus to write this then go and oppress them makes me ashamed. - Landon James | ||
| + | |||
| + | Columbus seemed really intent on changing the Native Americans and converting them to Christianity. What did he have to gain by this? - Jake Guralnik | ||
| + | |||
| + | Columbus discovered the New World, NOT the Indies. Spain and the Queen and King had invested money into finding the Indies and spices and immediate payback funds for their investment in Columbus. However, when Columbus did not discover the Indies, or at least a route to them, was Isabella not just a little bit disappointed or upset that her funds did not go towards their original goal. Nowe it may seem like this question is stupid, for Columbus found what might be better than a spice route to the Indies; a new continent and the opportunity to settle. Yet, if I was Isabella I would have liked to see that route to India. Is there any indication that Isabella was disappointed? - Jake Guralnik | ||
