Grenville's Proclamation had good intentions, particularly after the Pontiac uprisings, but it was also designed to keep colonials concentrated along the seaboard (easier to control and was hoped would keep them part of the mercantile system). The colonials resented it and the British didn't have the manpower in the colonies to fully enforce it, and it was often ignored. The line was even modified for monied interest, both colonial and British, by allowing speculators to buy up native lands in the Ohio Valley. The British tried to reinforce it with the Quebec Act in 1774, but that only threatened and angered the colonials even more.
Wait... so you hate that word.... but you use it anyways...... 2 possible reasons - 1)too lazy to think up an alternative word. 2)you don't really have any clue what the word means.
I think one of the greatest failures of western society was the failure of the 1763 Royal Proclamation to the natives. That is when the real trouble started in North America... I've not heard of this, could you start another thread about it? I would enjoy learning about why this was a pivotal role in the history of America. To bad the Native Americans couldn't write their own proclamation about the people invading their homeland!
The proclamation created a demarcation line that ran along the crest of the Appalachians and was intended to keep colonials from moving into the Great Lakes region and Ohio Valley. It followed the recent Seven Years War, which had literally broken the British treasury. A native uprising under Pontiac, in which every British fort and outpost west of Pittsburgh had been captured, had also just recently been put down. While the British, after removing the French from the region, maintained those few forts spread out on an axis from the Great Lakes to Quebec, they couldn't really afford to keep the necessary troops levels in the area to put down future uprisings (since they might be needed to enforce upcoming regulations intended to tighten control of the colonial empire), so George Grenville, First Lord of the Treasury, issued the proclamation. As I said in an earlier post, it also would serve to keep the colonials confined to the east coast, making them easier to control by the few troops that were being kept in the colonies and easier to maintain as part of the mercantile system. Grenville knew this might be necessary to enforce some of the new taxes designed to cover Britain's costs in the recent war with France, the first of which was the Sugar Act in spring of 1764. To the British, the proclamation, and the ensuing tax(es) were sensible, necessary acts; to the colonials, who had expected to move across the Appalachians once the French were removed, the proclamation was the first step of the ensuing imperial crisis over the next 12 years.
Should have taught the Natives so they could write their own laws about their own land because those who trespassed upon the Natines lands were the ones doing it illeagley, without any permission or without any adherance to tribal ways and customs of sharing the lands. No one owns the Earth the natives thought so why is it they can't have what was stolen from them returned to them today to set things right?
look to Voltaire & others for that view, most Natives were just as blood-thirsty as any other human, but they did have more democratic beliefs, see: http://www.historyamericas.com/Indi...mericas_Transformed_the_World_0449904962.html after they killed the big game, I think they learned their lessons, we haven't yet
And also, when the Indians killed a buffalo or something, they didnt ever do it for fun, or just for the meat, they used EVERYTHING. Bones, cartilage, sinews, fur. So whilst the whites often hunted for fun, or just for one commodity like leather, the Indians did it out of a genuine requirement to survive.
I'd like to have the American history books corrected before trying to find out that area of history at this time, but who do you think were the first people that discovered Europe?
I suppose neanderthal man discovered Europe, or was the first to live there. I dont know where they came from, Africa i wouldve thought.
Could we classify the neanderthal man as a human discoverer? And if so, at which 'homo' species should be draw the line?
I can't agree with you, I would think that those who settled in Europe would have to have intelligence.
The Neanderthals did have intelligence, they had rough speech and lived as groups, made weapons and jewellery, the equal of Homo-Sapiens (right one?) at the time. And it was competition for food that drove people from Africa, to the Middle East, to Europe. But i wouldnt call them the discoverers at the time, they were just the first to live there. They didnt consciously set out to discover and name a new land as such.
A snippet from the Aztecs history, again not trying to justify anything simply reiterating that it is naive to believe life was one big love-in before the spaniards came
I read somewhere it was the Chinese...they found a map, recorded earlier that when America was meant to have been discovered, with the US on it. Have a web search, there's a book on it.
I've read 1421, which describes the Chinese voyages before the Europeans to the Americas, which did indeed influence map making in Europe.
so? are you saying it justifies what happened? Land theives, genocide, cultural imperialism, oppression?
I find it hard to believe, it sounds like the mormon claim that post-exile jews came to this continent in roughly 600 BC, no proof, should have had a wave of disease epidemics wipe out west coast peoples (like happened with the spanish), come ashore take a few samples of native ware, like happened on the chinese voyages mentioned in Asia & Africa (I think thy got a giraffe back to china). Some smart cookie would have figured out that these people were still stone-age & took them to the sword, carved out a small empire. Please, don't tell me they were peaceful, they came to show the flag & project their power, telling the world at large that they were a superpower, read about hose voyages in real history books
