The French and Indian War

1.http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/frin.htm

2.http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahistory/frenchindian/frenindwar.htm

1. The French and Indian war changed the economic, political, and social relationship between England and its colonies. The French and Indian was war very expensive for Britain so to pay off their debit they increased taxis for the colonies. They raised taxis on anything form sugar to tea. Once the taxes were so high the colonist started smuggling in sugar and tea so they didn’t have to pay the high tax. Britain also wanted to keep peace in North America, especially the western colonies, in order to appease some of the Indian tribes the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued, prohibiting colonists for moving further west past the Appalachian Mountains.

2. The French and the Indian war was fought in America. It was the British and the colonists versus the French and the Indians, their two threats. France and Britain were both wealthy nations and they wanted land in America. The British colonist kept pushing into the French colonist's territory. The Native Americans took sides with the French when the problem arose, so it was caused the French and Indian war because the British were fighting their two enemies, the French and the British.

3. The most important and immediate effect that the French and Indian War had was to emphasize many of the grievances that the American colonists had with their mother country. It was clear by the end of the war that the Americans who had fought in the conflict no longer believed that the fight had anything to do with them, and in fact, this was true. The war was an extension of a set of larger conflicts that had been taking place in Europe, called the Seven Year's War, and had little or nothing to do with what would become the United States. In fact, the eventual result of the French and Indian War was a reduction of the French presence in the Caribbean - a great boon for the British, but ultimately useless to the American colonists. The men and women of the colonies who had fought in the war no longer felt like they owed allegiance to the British, especially after being conscripted to fight in their European war.

Facing East from Indian Country>>>

Indian Country

1. I learned that there is more then one side to the story. That you can't just believe one side till you hear the other. Also, I learned that Pocahontas really did save John Smith and it wasn't just Disney's view of it. That it was John Smith that asked Queen Anne to treat Pocahontas with dignity on her visit to London. Only a year after being in England she died of small pox.



2. Reading the book "Facing East form Indian Country" put a different perspective on them first settling the "new world". When we learn about the settlers coming over from England we here there side of the story because there is written prof. Not many people tell the Native Americans side cause there was no supporting story's. So reading this helped me understand more of what the Europeans did to the Native Americans. That the Europeans were just as savage and the Native Americans. That in a way the Native Americans had all the right to do that to the Europeans. Maybe if they did not trick them or treat them bad after the Indians helped them, maybe there would have been less Indian attacks. I just think it was mostly the Europeans that cause all the hostility between the two cutlers. They gladly accepted there help but once the Natives could not provide them with enough they pushed them aside.



3. The strengths of using the perspective of the Native Americans looking east helps us understand that they weren't the savage people the Europeans made them out to be. It helps people understand that we came and settled there land they lived and hunted off this land way before the Europeans even knew it existed. The weakness of using this perspective is the lake of evidence. There is not a lot of written documents that support most of the stories in the book "Facing eat from Indian Country". Grant it there is stories past down from generation to generation that give us a better understanding of what the Europeans did to the Native Americans, but it is still not proven facts. I believe that the stories that were past down are true and the the Europeans were just at savage as the Native Americans were.

JAMESTOWN*

JAMESTOWN

1. In my opinion I believe that in a way yes, the videos on (http://www.historyisfun.org/chronicles/main.html) are credible historical sources about how Jamestown was in the past. It give the view point for a common person in the early Jamestown Settlement. You get many points of view form an African American slave named Angela, the Native American Tomocomo, and you even get the view from a women named Ann Burras.

2. Yes and no I have a split opinion o this one. I would have liked to of had a more understanding on the woman's daily routines. I wish when Tommcomo was talking it would have been more about how he met the settlers.

3.well I learned that King James the first did not want another country to settle the "New World" first. I also learned form Ann Burras about how honorably the boat ride form England was. About how most of the people died on the trip and when she reached the "New World" she wanted to turn around and get right back on the ship head home. She said that the conditions of Jamestown were so bad that the ship was more appealing then the living conditions. right before the bad winter she was the first person to get married in Jamestown. That was just a few months before the bad winter. She talked about how there was some men that would eat corps to survive. After the winter there everyone was really skinny and sick but about 50 people survived and a ship form England came in with new people to help populate the settlement.