Posted by Myrrh on March 02, 1998 at 11:55:47:
In Reply to: Re: Back to the Movie: Part XIIV posted by Bill R on February 28, 1998 at 15:59:05:
Bill said:
"But at that time, as long as no threat was posed to French trading interests, they were tolerant of
other cultures and other peoples to an extent. There was class distinction within the French
leadership certainly. But the "bush runner" and the individual trader got along well with the native
American. The English brought their class system with them. And those colonists who came often
hoped to raise their class distinction through property. And REMAIN here.
"That was the difference I feel which the rugged individual felt...the common man....the
frontiersman soon found civilization encroaching....and with it the same old laws, class
distinctions, and exploitation. The French counterpart was free from much of Quebec's influence
once in the woods. Quebec made little attempt to grab land, clear it, plant it, and own it outside of
what was necessary for defense and feeding of the few cities.
"To the French, the indians were allies. To the English, the indians were to be used, removed,
exploited and discarded but never to be trusted and rarely treated with dignity. English commanders
made little attempt to win the hearts and minds of teh native american. The French needed to in
order to do what they had been sent to do. And.....the English settlers being far more numerous
than the French.....the French needed the indian allies in war as well as peace. The English only felt
a need in war....in peace the native american was a hindrence to their goals."
.
Well put, Bill! I hadn't thought of any of it this way, and I find your comments most enlightening! Thanks! (Is this the other, more sedate and dignified side of Mr. Bill???)
Myrrh