If we’re talking about US history, this page would be in reference to Europeans arriving in the 1600s. By that time, the population of North America had been dramatically reduced by foreign disease. For the comparatively small number of foreigners showing up, there kind of already was “room” because of that.
Later on, when the US government was actively relocating people, different groups of people responded in different ways. Some decided it would be best to cooperate. Some decided it would be best to stand their ground and fight. None did these things because they freely “agreed” to.
Aha, yes, definitely true. I’m far more familiar with US history, but my understanding is that the way Native Americans / First Nations were treated by the US and Canada are equally horrible, only differing in the details.
Some of those details are critical. The very first settlers in Canada were French, and many actually integrated into First Nations populations, which gave rise to the Métis population. Later on, especially after the British took over, things went downhill.
There was some integration by the British early on. I’m thinking of the Roanoke colony, where the people who were left there “disappeared,” leaving only some cryptic “Croatoan” marks on fenceposts. It’s all but certain that they integrated with the Croatoan people on Ocracoke Island. There were other incidents of British integration, but I’m sure the French up north did that a lot more.
I’m from Oklahoma, the place we relocated Native Americans, formerly known as Indian Territory. We studied the Trail of Tears more than once, and it wasn’t candy coated. Probably could have been presented as even more brutal than they taught us.
A bit more:
If we’re talking about US history, this page would be in reference to Europeans arriving in the 1600s. By that time, the population of North America had been dramatically reduced by foreign disease. For the comparatively small number of foreigners showing up, there kind of already was “room” because of that.
Later on, when the US government was actively relocating people, different groups of people responded in different ways. Some decided it would be best to cooperate. Some decided it would be best to stand their ground and fight. None did these things because they freely “agreed” to.
Based on the map and the use of “First Nations,” this is a Canadian textbook. I have no doubt this happens (and worse) in American textbooks, though.
Aha, yes, definitely true. I’m far more familiar with US history, but my understanding is that the way Native Americans / First Nations were treated by the US and Canada are equally horrible, only differing in the details.
Some of those details are critical. The very first settlers in Canada were French, and many actually integrated into First Nations populations, which gave rise to the Métis population. Later on, especially after the British took over, things went downhill.
There was some integration by the British early on. I’m thinking of the Roanoke colony, where the people who were left there “disappeared,” leaving only some cryptic “Croatoan” marks on fenceposts. It’s all but certain that they integrated with the Croatoan people on Ocracoke Island. There were other incidents of British integration, but I’m sure the French up north did that a lot more.
“Quebec City” is a big clue, too.
textbooks made in other countries also include maps of Canada - your geographical secrets are known to us!
Yep:
Oops, missed that part!
Heh. No worries. I get it. If I had a nickel…
I’m from Oklahoma, the place we relocated Native Americans, formerly known as Indian Territory. We studied the Trail of Tears more than once, and it wasn’t candy coated. Probably could have been presented as even more brutal than they taught us.
Several of these people actually succeeded in prosecuting a war against invading US forces like the Shoshone.
Then, of course, we just reneged on the treaties later when they weren’t on a war footing.