shows the relationship that the Indigenous people had with the french; they help one another

This part of the text suggests that the Indigenous people would not be able to survive or support themselves without the help and presence of the french. Morris seems to be suggesting that the only reason that the Indigenous people are able to survive is because of the french holding the fort, the resources that they have, and the skills that they are able to teach. This is ironic to me because we obviously know that they have been surviving off of the land for centuries. Morris, while im sure intelligent and scholarly in different areas, seems to lack an immense amount of knowledge on the Indigenous people in the area, which I find slightly surprising as he does mapping and I would think that he would pick up understandings of Indigenous people as he would have seen the areas with which they lived and had other exposure to them

This shows the "fear" of the Indigenous people that the settlers had. It is interesting to see that they purposely held off on farming as a result of the murders that they could be subjected to. It is also interesting to see how Morris refers to the murdering of the Indigenous as "inhuman", as it calls to question what he thinks about the murdering that the settlers do of the Indigenous people. I am assuming that they are kinder in their attempts of removal to other european people than they are to the Indigenous groups who have been living there for centuries.

its interesting to see that they actively make plans and suggest ideas on how they want to get rid of people. this line and the ones prior also make it sound like this is a method that they've used multiple times before, because the highlighted part of the section sounds very confident that the people will abandon the colony. It seems like Morriss is saying that once they use up all of the supplies that they have and once no more people come to the land, they will ultimately leave and find other "better" places where they know that they can survive

This line suggests that the English were in this area with the intention of either attempting to map the area (which was this guys profession) or that the English were there to attempt to remove the Indigenous people from the land and the area so that they could begin to settle. It is also interesting to see that Morris believed, and other settlers probably believed, that the Indigenous people had no settlements, when we know in the world today that they did, and that if they did have to move from place to place it was as a result of the weather and other factors, and even then, they would still established settlements and places to live.

The document immidiately begins by highlighting that the information that is about to follow was as a result o the Indigenous people being Hostile. This immediately establishes the idea that the Indigenous people are the ones who have created whatever problem this is and sets up a bias that would make it hard to analyze whether this was truth the case, or if what is to follow also is as a result of the English.

This passage shares the start of their contact and their fight with the french people. The french were allied with the Indigenous people to protect this space and land. This reinforces some of the documents and text that we have looked at previously that display the french and the Indigenous people (usually the Mi'Kmaq), working together to ensure that the Englsih cannot take their land or to get the English off of the land thqat they forcefully take. I also think that this is interesting to read because it again reinforces the previous texts and documents that have been looked at through the course that state that the English took the land by force and without asking. With Winslow stating that they would simply be marching on the Fort and then writing about the fight that takes place, it displays this

Because this was included in the document, I wonder if this suggests that he was surprised by this fact. I also question if the people at the fort that they are marching on know that this is going to happen and if this will be a surprise for them. Or are the people that stay within the fort simply waiting and preparing for them?

As mentioned in the excerpt that we received about this document and WInslow, he was sent to remove people from areas and colonies on behalf of the British. This evidently shows thet he is possibly about to do the same thing. through looking at the amount of people present, this statement, and that the people on board were expected to do their duties, this supports that idea. He also from this statement appears to be preparing for fight to come, displaying that for whatever reason that they are coming to this land, it will be something possibly forceful and if it is a forced removal of people, it suggests that he knows that this is an area and a space that he knows that people will not want to leave from.

This displays that even though the Penobscot people were sent to create the treaties and that the Enghlish could have simply used them as the sole people who agreed on everyones behalf, that they still wanted to go over the terms with everyone and get them to sign and agree

So far, up until this agreement, the treaty primarily seems to be in favour of the things that will the most benefit the englsih people. It is not only making the Indigenous people recognize and listen to the king (making it into not a mutual alliance but into more of a relationship controlled by group), it is also making a claim on the land. While there may have been other treaties and agreements that came prior to this that give land to the english, the looseness of the fourth agreement seems to suggest that they can use more of the Indigenous peoples lands

This also reinforces the idea of finding and creating peace as being something that is really wanted by Indigenous people. Because they are saying that they will agree to whatever the terms are, shows that all they want is peace. it also shows the large amount of trust held in these delegates to make a good decision on what should be in the agreements, and also suggests that there is trust in the English people to come to fair terms with the Indigenous people

While the choice to not be there and to participate in the negotiations appears to be a conscious choice made by the other tribes, it does show that not everyone was always involved in the discussions of treaty making.

This suggests that finding and creating peace with the English is something that is desperately needed or wanted. The fact that more than just the original tribes of people are wanting to join in on this peace treaty shows that peace and friendship among the peoples was wanted and it was something that the original Indigenous tribes either spoke about or told people about (because how else would the other tribes really know this)

This part also highlights that Indigenous people did no think in terms of borders and boundries. this shows that the borders between countries and states/provinces were a european thing and that they were established by the British settlers and imposed on the Indigenous people. This shows that the Indigenous groups did not care about boundaries and borders in the same ways as the english and that they valued alliances and loyalty over that

This part of the section clearly shows how strong the Wabanaki Alliance was between the different Indigenous groups. It displays that the alliance really works together and that they did this to support one another and to stand together with one another

It's interesting to see the contrast in how the different groups of people are introduced. The Indigenous peoples are just referred to as the "Indian Delegates" whereas the English have their individual statuses and titles displayed rather than just grouping them as delegates also

similarly to the previous document, this section again reinforces the protect of the English people from any other Indigenous groups or any other groups in general. While the document says there there is a want for friendship and peace, it also highlights the fact that the English people still want to look out for themselves and make sure that they are protected. This also appears to pledge the Indigenous people as devoted allies to the English who will essentially do anything to protect them

This treaty varies from that of the first one, as it recognizes that both groups of people did things that were violent, rather than placing all of the blame primarily onto the Indigenous people. In addittion, it shares that both sides will bury and get rid of any of the anger or hurt that they have towards or have gained from the opposit group. This is important because it, on paper, displays that there truly is a want of reconciliation and peace to be reached and understood.

This statement confirms and seals the idea that all of the agreements and promises that will be made throughout the document are to be strengthened and reaffrimed. This statement also highlights that all parties involved had looked closely at the terms and that everyone will be signing under a clear understanding of the aggreements and what is expected of and between both parties. This creates an emphasis on the importance of upholding the aggreements made and that they must continue to be honoured if respect, friendship, and peace want to be reached and maintained. The passage reinforces the seriousness of upholding the promises being made, whilst also highlighting that they have been made before and not upheld. This demonstrates that actions truly need to be done and taken to ensure that their can be a common ground reached between both groups of people and so that one group is not the only ones who will be getting something out of the aggreement

This part of the text, states that the Wabanaki alliance and the Indigenous people that are a part of it are promising to cease all acts of hostility and violence. To me, this is interesting as it does not highlight anything as of yet for what the English people are promising. This seems to be like a statement that works out to be more for the benefit of the british rather than for the benefit of all people. Continuing on in the passage, it also displays that a friendship is wanted on the behalf of the Indigenous people, and states that they will uphold it, and also promises that the english people will be one of their only alliances and that they cannot be harmed. Thus far, I have not seen anything that has alludded to what the British people will be doing for the Indigenous groups, and all I see it that the Indigenous groups are to give the British what they want and that they must adhere to those terms and aggreements

Following the promise to behave and to have all of the violence that was enacted forgotten, this clearly is a statement of committment to Dummer. This appears to be a promise to co-operate and work with him to ensure that there are no incidences such as the violence mentioned prior to this.

This section shows that the British believe that the Indigenous people are responsible for this war and the hostile actions that have been enacted- it also seems to display that the Indigenous people were the sole people responsible and that the British were not responsible for any of it. This piece of the document shows that the Indigenous people have apparently realized their poor actions and that they are trying to gain favour with and appeal to the king. I personally wonder if whether this is a fabrication of the truth as a result of the the British being the ones who wrote this document. Is the want for these actions to be forgotten really the want of the Indigenous people of is it a reflection of what the English want as a result of them being the ones who also committed (possibly more) heinous actions

This section evidently shows that the treaties and supposed peace that was made and established between the two groups of people, were instead broken and disrupted. Rather than upholding the agreements that they made, they decided to go against them breaking the trust, and the agreements that they made. This suggests that there were many acts of hostility enacted that broke the agreement and made both groups lose faith in one another

This points out that there were other people appointed to make decisions for treaties, negotiations, and anything else on the behalf of the king/his majesty. This is interesting to see, as one would think that these decisions on land, war, and ownership are something that the king himself or a high ranking general would only have the authority to make. These individuals then, are presumablt the ones who were entrusted to make peace with the Wabanaki alliance and to be the ones who come up with a treaty and who found a "common ground" amongst the two groups of people.

The document begins by making it evident that there is a war going on and also highlights the Indigenous groups who are a part of it (all of which are part of the Wabanaki alliance). I think that including this is important to see in the document as it acknowledges all of the people who are involved, rather than simply grouping these Indigenous groups and "Indigenous people" as it has been done in the past. This also displays the large amount of people who were present and being impacted by this war

This is important, because it is the first time in one of the articles that we have read, where an indigenous person is asking for a solution to be proposed by the english on where they are to go and what they are to do. While I understand that this may be more rhetorical, it still it forcing the english settlers to acknowledge what they have done and to take action for the displacement that they have caused. It also forces them to acknowledge that they have taken almost all of the land, which many of the prior documents have noted, was most definitely not for the english settlers to just take. I think the part where the document states "you chase me" is also important to pay attention to, because it very clearly takes notice of the fact that no matter where the indigenous people move to, the English settlers follow and take everything that lays before them.

This again shows the fact that the the lack of the settlers adhering to agreements and shows that the Indigenous people were very aware of it. WHile we cant be sure how much of this was influenced by the person who translated it, it is still important to notice that this was not something that was subtle. Not only were the settlers simply taking land, but they were breaking the treaties that the groups had with each other, breaking the agreement and the trust that they had with eac hother.

again, this shows that the indigenous people are not okay with or happy about the settlers coming in and taking over the land that they were allowed to use and making it into their own. However, When reading this document, the idea that the french allies/translators who are writing this on behalf of the indigenous people could have altered what was being said or made it more abrasive came to mind. This could have also been expressing some of the anger and annoyance that the french had toward the english people as well. However, it is still interesting to see the frustration that would have been evident in the indigenous people towards the settlers for moving onto their land and suddenly expanding to wherever they would like and forcing the indigenous people to move and find new spaces for themselves. I also think that the line prior to the one that I highlighted is important to look at, as it brings up the fact that the settlers were misusing the land that they were granted and allowed to share. The land, as we have seen throughout this course and other courses, is extremely important to indigenous people, and this clearly calls out the destruction and other misuses that the settlers are imposing on the land that is home to the indigenous people and animals, and also has more value and importance to the indigenous people and their survival.

This is very direct and points out that the settlers are simply settlers and that they are coming here without the permission of the Indigenous people. It emphasizes that regardless of what they do, this is land that they are taking and establishes that the this is the land of the indignenous people, not through the tactics that the settlers are taking. This line to me really shows the displeasure that the indigenous people have of the taking of their land.

This displays the displeasure with which the indigenous people have about the fact that their land is being taken from them and used against their will. It highlights the idea that they were supposed to live peacefully amongst one another and that they need to be upholding their end of the agreement, but that they are not. Instead it shows that the indigenous people are recognizing the fact that settlers are allowing the want for land and the power that they believe that they have, to let them look past the agreement and to focus on what they want, rather than what is right and what they agreed on

This emphasizes the idea that the indigenous people are not reliant on the settlers and that they do not NEED them to help them to survive or function. This establishes them as their own people, and not people who belong to or fall under the rule of the settlers and whoever owns the land at that point. It emphasizes the idea that they themselves and their country are not free right now, but suggests that they are being captured and controlled, and this is against their will.

This displays that the Indigenous people are very aware of what is happening to them and the biases that the settlers have towards them. The document clearly points out that the settlers would not have been as kind or welcoming as the indigenous people were in allowing the settlers to use some of the land. It displays the bias attitudes and opinions of the settlers, and shows that while it might be happening, the indigenous people are not happy about it and emphasizes that this is and reclaims this as their land

This is interesting to see, as the prior translation does not include this. This is good to see, as it, in some ways, provides validity for what is being said. This also allows for more trust to be placed in what is being said is accurate and the true opinion and words of the indigenous people. While this could have been placed there to just put it into the minds of readers that this is accurate, it does establish a trust in what is being said and in the accuracy of the document.

I think that this is interesting to look at. It seems to be appealing to the feelings and senses of the settlers and the King. Through talking about fearing for ones life and religion, and also stating that they are losing hope, it is identifying things that the French value within themselves, but also seems to be identifying the things that the French have worked so hard to instill in and give tot eh french (i.e religion/catholicism).

This entire part here, only seems to place the French/settlers as higher than the Abenaki people. It first highlights the kings work as essentially more important than the support that the Abenaki people need. This to me makes me question if the Jesuit interpreted that himself also, ad the support against the english seems like it would be something that the Abenaki believed was extremely important. Additionally, the part that i specifically highlighted, points out that if they misspoke, than it is a result of how they live and having a lack of manners. This to me is also interesting that it was said, as it generates the idea that the Abenaki believe that they are "uncivilized", similarly to the perspective and thoughts that the settlers had towards the Indigenous people. If this is, in fact not changed and distorted as a result of the Jesuit, the writing really seems to be trying to appeal to the King. By making themselves appear less than and flattering the King through diminishing themselves, it is a smart tactic to be able to gain his favour and help. The Abenaki people, seem to be establishing a behaviour and attitude that would have appealed to the king and other settlers to get their help in this fight. But again, if this translation is not accurate, it sets the tone of the Jesuit making the Abenaki people appear smaller and less than again

Because this letter is being written to the king of France to gain his support against the english, this makes me wonder if this is something they truly believed, if this was written to be tactical and gain favour from the king, or if this was written/translated by the Jesuit who (possibly) wrote it. If this was truly said by the Abenaki's, it displays the trust that they had in the French and possibly shows the respect that they had to their allies. If this was instead written by the Jesuit, the language like "small as I am" and questioning how they could even speak to this kind of royalty and power, seems belittling and diminishing, placing the French at an automatic higher power than the Abenaki's who had similar powers and strengths in their society

This section here clearly shows the lack of humanity and regard for human life that slave traders/owners had for the people that they kept as their slaves. This section however is different the texts of Jean and Jacques as it is displaying asking someone else to be able to “get rid” of the slave rather than the person writing the text or narrative being the one to sell them. The specific part of asking someone to get “rid” of Tousaint is diminishing to Tousaint and displays that many people of the time did not care what happened to these other people.

This again reinforces and shows the hope that captives were able to keep and maintain as a result of their faith in God. Gyles thanks God for the rest that he is able to have, which seems to display his hope and faith in God, as he decides that the Indigenous people not moving for a bit, shows the "goodness"of God and that God is the reason for this and that it may not have happened without his faith in God and God's generosity

The lines leading up to this outline the gruesome experience that he went through. Not only was he left behind in the cold after his companion left him with the moose, but he also has to suffer through the experience of almost freezing to death. The indigenous people around him thus far, display a lack of care for his well-being and while they provide him with advice on what to use to get better and gave him binds to wrap his feet, they also state that its not like it will matter because he will die regardless. Knowing that the context behind his perspective and narrative stems from the tensions and war going on between settlers and the Wabanaki Confederacy, can lend the idea that this treatment is done as a result of these tensions. This then, provides an understanding to historians of how Indigenous peoples may treat their war captives (that they don't have much care for them?)

This part of his text reveals a different interaction with this Indigenous community from the one with which Mary had. While Mary was given the opportunity to not overwork herself to insure her injury did not get worse. This instead shows Gyles pushing himself to new limits, making himself feel unwell and unable to continue on easily.

while Gyles does not inherently seem like he is complaining about anything, the exclamations points that he uses to end his sentences does convey the bewilderment and shock (?) about the things that they have to do and the Indigenous ways of living. He seems shocked that he has to do this and experience these things, which makes it evident that this is not the European or settler way of life.

The textbook mentions that settlers would hold hope within their captivity narratives that their communities would come to help/save them from their captivity. This part of her excerpt shows the failure and loss of hope (?) in her community. It is interesting though to see that she chalks this up to God not thinking that they were ready to be saved yet. This allows us insight into the thought processes of settlers being held captive during the period, because while her community did not attempt to get over the river or for some other reason stopped, she is still able to hold onto hope rather than giving up on it. Her faith plays not only a role in her interactions with the Indigenous people, but it also impacts her perspective on the things happening around her

Mary seems to be shocked that she has managed to remain alive and unharmed. While she makes it evident that she might not fully understand their customs and that she would prefer to remain within her own society, she also makes it clear that her Indigenous captors have been kind and have treated her well. Her settler and her christian perspective however, appear to prevent her from fully interacting eith her captors in an unbiased and open mind. I.e.- when she gets asked to get to work, and says no due to it being the sabbath day, this shows that she does not understand their communal habits and processes. as mentioned in the text though, this excerpt shows a settler overcoming the "dangers" that they experienced. It instead reinforces the idea that Indigenous people were very different from the idea of this group of people being considered "savages"

This line and the ones leading up to it, display Mary's recognition of the kindness given to her from the indigenous people who are holding her captive. This excerpt thus far appears to be sharing a positive experience with being held captive in this context. She does not have to carry much, and as a result of her injury, she is being given special privileges, and quite honestly, is being treated like how they treat people within their community. In many captivity narratives, such as within the context and content of slavery and with settlers/europeans, holding people captive, the common trend is that the captives are treated poorly. Yet, here, Mary is being treated like how the indigenous people are treating and caring for their own people, which speaks volumes to the environment and behaviours of this community. rather than not caring for her, she is given more care and help than she even receives from her own community. I think that this clearly highlights the kindness, care, and processes that Indigenous people have, through them helping her and working to ensure that she remains alive. It gives a small look into the community and culture of this group of Indigenous people.

This reminds me of many other documents that I have read where settlers or missionaries share their accounts on indigenous people. This idea that the indigenous people are "disordered" and lack the conduct with which European people act, places the indigenous people again in the trope of them needing saving by the missionaries. Maillard also makes it seem like they have their work cut out for them in working to convert the indigenous people.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? have the indigenous people been waiting for a missionary to come so that they can start their journey within christianity? or have they been expecting a missionary to come and force them to become christians?

This seems to outline and highlight the responsibilities and duties of missionaries- or at least the ones with which Maillard values. I think this because Maillard seems impressed and satisfied with the actions and behaviours of this person.

This displays a more blatant and honest revelation of what the missionaries want from the indigenous people and what they are using them for. The missionaries are the ones who are primarily benefitting from this relationship- as they are gaining protection from attacks and are also able to convert the indigenous people to christianity. I also would like to bring attention to the use of the word "instruct". to me this insinuates that the missionaries have total control over the indigenous people and that they will just tell them anything and they will believe it.

This seems to display that missionaries used trickery to convince the indigenous people to convert to christianity. this missionary essentially states that he manipulated the indigenous people into thinking that the doors to the church would be permanenetly closed to them, as a way of making them want to ensure that this could never and would never actually happen to them. This again places missionaries in control and in power here, which was their aim. It is unfoertunate to see that through these missions, not only was power gained through the fear of what could happen to them, but that trust was placed into missionaries who used it to their benefit.

I'm not too sure what to make of this sentence as there is a lot that comes with it. Not only is it expressing that the indigenous people were eager to gain more knowledge about christianity and that it made LeClerq excited/happy to see. It also seems to be pitying the indigenous people. By labelling them as "poor Indians" which has been done in the earlier accounts also, it portrays them as people who are in need of help and saving.

I find this really interesting as it is the first mention, thus far, of a missionary working to find a method that works the most efficiently in teaching the indigenous people their religion. I think that it is interesting to see a settler/missionary actually work with the indigenous people rather than forcing them to adhere to ALL of the methods and practices with which europe uses (such as their standardized teaching methods)

These few sentences are interesting to read because it shows that the missionaries are only concerned with themselves and the expansion of not only their empire, but also the expansion of their religion and beliefs

i feel like this is an odd statement to throw in here. I also can't tell if this writing is coming from a place of anger, saddness, or frustration. However, I do feel like this statement displays the importance that the french placed on converting the indigenous people. does this line insinuate that they believe that the english will reverse all of the "work" that they have done as a result of their heresey?

This is the first time that the mention of an indigenous person being renamed has been displayed. I think that this is an important aspect that should have been added into each document thus far and after. The idea of names and naming is extremely important, and through renaming indigenous people, it just seems like another method and way of missionaries and settlers taking control of indigenous people and their identitities. I also think that it is a clear display of the assimilation that these missionaries were working towards

This first line to me, seems to be setting the tone that the indigenous people are in need of saving. By labelling them as "poor sauvages", it automatically sets the tone of the account to the account of a saviours

I haven't seen many shared perspectives state that they trust the indigenous people. This is interesting as it displays the possible relationship that the missionaries might have had with the indigenous people, outside of the fact that they were converting them to christianity. to me this suggests that there was harmony and trust amongst one another, as Perrault shares that they trust the indigenous people, which I have not seen stated in many other perspectives written about relationships with indigenous peoples.

It's interesting to see that some missionaries thought that the indigenous people were simply following orders because they were a simple people and because they were docile. This again relates to the lack of knowledge that settlers had about indigneous people. Rather than acknowledging that the indigenous people may have been doing this to further grow their bonds with the settlers or for another reason, Perrault seems to still be suggesting that the missionaries have become the heroes as they have given something big to the indigenous people and are guiding them

This sentence seems to be stating that the missionaries are bringing religion and belief to the indigenous people. This displays the ignorance and lack of knowledge that the settlers had of the indigenous people. the following line suggests that this makes the missionaries and settlers happy as they are doing a "good deed" for them and that they are saving them. While we know that this is not true, it is interesting to see what the settlers acknowledged in order to justify their actions

These few lines show that Perrault did not regard the MI'kmaq people as unintelligent, and instead recognizes that they are very aware, conscious, and intelligent. him saying that they are agreeable though has me confused- I'm not sure if this would be an insult or if this is giving an acknowledgement to the fact that the Mi'kmaq were kind and valued friendship with the settles

this entire sections shows the lack of care and respect that these missionaries had for indigenous people. The missionaries knew that through getting the indigenous people to believe in and follow the catholic faith, it would result in being able to further end and erase their traditions and customs.

Briard makes it evident that he is either frustrated by this or that he finds it incredulous. I think this speaks to the different natures and beliefs of the settlers in comparaison to the indigenous people. in this line, it shows that the indigenous people wanted to live in harmony with the settlers and to be able to sustain a friendship, whereas the settlers wanted to control the indigenous people rather than have that relationship with them.

I think that this is an interesting part of the text, because Biard is sharing that although indigenous people have been baptized and "christianized" they still continued on with their own beliefs, traditions, and practices. This to me simply displays that the indigenous people were working to prevent the erasure of their culture and that they were not going to simply allow the settlers and missionaries to do that. The few sentences around this, line shows that although the indigenous people may have adapted to this new religion that was pushed upon, they were also adapting it to be able to co-exist with their traditions and practices that have been apart of their lives for centuries

This section of the text clearly highlights and states the thoughts and ideas of the missionary author. This question and the sentences before it, that question how the indigenous people can truly be religiious if they continue to live by their customs, displays the stereotypical ideas and mindset that this missionary had. From this, it tells us that Pierre Biard believed that it was his duty and responsibility as a servant to god to do this. This allows him to believe that he is truly helping them through doing this, as they are in need of it. It is interesting to see the beliefs of Biard, as he makes it seem like the indigenous people have no culture and no practices- even though we know that this is far from the truth.

The argument of land is made clear within the treaty and this document offers a deeper understanding of the maps that we have looked at and the boundaries with which we have examined. this provides more understanding into why the maps might have looked different. It is interesting to see that the boundaries went back to what they were after working to gain more land on both sides.