Taffet 1 Cody Taffet AMH 2041 Paper 1 October 3rd, 2011

The underlying role of similarity While exploring the early settlement period of British North America, it appears evident that much of the immediate conflict was indeed due to such similar desires amongst settlers. Whether we choose to differentiate between such desires as reputation, honor, sexual partners, land, property and wealth, or simply place them under the category of power, it is fair to say that each of these possessions are all interrelated, especially relative to this particular point in history. During the early 17th to 18th centuries in British North America, property was undoubtedly the most attractive entity that a man could acquire. Despite the seemingly blatant distinctions between race or skin color, even an African could obtain land in the new world, and thus could potentially obtain a more significant social status than that of a white-European. Of course, without much regulation enforced by government, the quest for power amongst whites, blacks, and Indians alike began to run rampant, monopolies were formed and greater distinction between races became much more prominent. Indeed, it is of the conventional wisdom that from the earliest developmental stages of United States, there has been a very clear distinction between the rights of whites and blacks. As T.H. Breen and Stephen Innes argue however, this is most certainly not the case. The process of black debasement and degradation was not linear and

Taffet 2 foreordained.1 In fact, they state that for almost two generations, Englishmen and Africans experienced almost complete equality in terms of rights to personal property, reputation, and wealth.2 In other words, being an African bore little effect on ones social status in the early 17th century of British North America. Some African settlers owned ample amounts of land, most of which contained slave laborers, thus providing them with a significant social identity. However, as the production of tobacco began to increase, greed began to take hold, and the existing laws prejudiced against Africans suddenly seemed conspicuous. As T.H. Breen and Stephen Innes state, Political factionalism created social cleavages-economic and political niches-that ambitious men could exploit for their own benefit.3 Powerful, ambitious white settlers started to monopolize the tobacco industry with large plantations, requiring vast amounts of slave labor. These powerful landowners took control of the entire industry on the Eastern fronts, and competition became increasingly difficult. Before such monopolies existed, the initial bargain with indentured servants was an opportunity at self-purchase. The idea being that one day, once a slave has earned enough money, he or she will be able to purchase themselves as a means of incentive. However, T.H. Breen and Stephen Innes conclude by stating that near the end of the 17th century, it became almost impossible for a slave to buy his or her way out of slavery.4 Thus, Africans had lost their chance at eventual property, which in British North America also meant ones chance at freedom. From this point on, the push for property only continued to intensify in North America. Due to the natural geography of the land, plantation owners were forced to head west in order to expand their fronts and increase profits. Of course, the only thing that

Taffet 3 stood in their way were the lands existing inhabitants. As Ann M. Little describes in her book, Abraham in Arms, the English waged wars out of rivalry with the French as well as out of lust for Indian lands.5 The Native Americans, as once seemingly peaceful people, understandably began to project a more militant state of mind in an effort to sustain their property. This undoubtedly aroused conflict, and the inevitable bloodshed was soon to occur. Perhaps one of the most important topics regarding this conflict, as Little illustrates in her work, is in fact the similarity between the native North Americans and the white-European settlers and their idea of the male role. Little begins by claiming that it was a universally understood insult to call another man a woman in the Atlantic world. She argues that though the two opposing sides refused to acknowledge this similarity, both systems of power were based largely on gender inequality.6 Stemming from this idea, one can obtain a more vivid perspective as to the root of such devastation endured during these conflicting periods. Both the Native Americans and the white-Europeans began to poke at and test one anothers idea of manhood. They even went so far as to send mail, which was often backed up by malicious action and brutal warfare. Little states English and Indian men saw war and politics as important fields for proving manhood and establishing mastery over the enemy.7 The opposing sides continued their press for each others display of cowardice. The white-Europeans often displayed their ideas of manliness with more extreme measures such as castration, and utter mutilation during battle, which the Indians initially viewed as a sign of weakness. Much to their demise however, the Native Americans were forced to surcease their control of their land. As a result, the white-Europeans view towards the natives was that

Taffet 4 of not only a coward, but that of a dehumanized savage. Little describes, an emerging discourse on racial difference began to put more rhetorical distance between EuroAmericans and Native Americans.8 As one can see, there are a number of similarities that have shown to produce conflict during the end of the 17th and early 18th centuries. It seems as though, like most of human conflict throughout history, that many of these issues stemmed from the ideas of personal property. As the wealthy landowners began to expand their power and monopolize industry, poorer whites and Africans were exploited. Africans, having already possessed a less significant role in society due to the color of their skin, were exploited directly. Their chance at self-purchase was terminated, thus inducting them into slave life for much of their foreseeable future. As we now know, this slight mishap would soon begin a whole new realm of conflict over time. On the other hand, we see another conflict as a result of Euro-American expansion. As more land was demanded, the native inhabitants of these areas also grew unsettled and retaliated against the colonizers. As we take a step back and examine these events in history, it is undoubtedly a result of similarity amongst all parties, which influenced many of these clashes. The Africans desired property for it meant freedom. The whites desired property for it meant expansion and profit. The Native Americans desired property for it had always been their home. It is also fair to say that in this new world, with property also comes the rest of human desires: reputation, power, sexual partners, wealth, etc. In 17th century British North America and even today, all of these values go hand in hand. Many of these issues, relating to the same root of conflict, only continued to worsen over time. Slaves

Taffet 5 seemingly had lost their fair chance at freedom in the new world and conflict with the Indians would only continue until nearly every tribe was practically wiped out of existence. Such unrest created eventual upheaval and civil struggle within the new colonies. Eventually, a press for change from the public would be the only hope at putting an end to the conflict. Of course today, we can see similar struggles around the world, as a result of the same issues of power and property, continue. While we may like to think that there has been an end to human barbarism, it has been continually occurring right before our eyes for most of our lifetime.

Innes, Stephen. "Introduction." Myne Owne Ground. By T.H. Breen. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 5. Print. 20 Sept 2011
2

Innes, Stephen. "Introduction." Myne Owne Ground. By T.H. Breen. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 5. Print. 20 Sept. 2011
3

Innes, Stephen. "Northhampton County at Mid-Century." Myne Owne Ground. By T.H. Breen. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 52. Print. 20 Sept. 2011
4

Innes, Stephen. "Conclusion: Property and the Context of Freedom." Myne Owne Ground. By T.H. Breen. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 114. Print. 20 Sept. 2011.
5

Little, Ann M. "Chapter 2." Abraham in Arms: War and Gender in Colonial New England. University of Pennsylvania, 2007. 52. Print. 20 Sept. 2011.
6

Little, Ann M. "Introduction." Abraham in Arms: War and Gender in Colonial New England. University of Pennsylvania, 2007. 3. Print. 20 Sept. 2011.
7

Little, Ann M. "Chapter 5." Abraham in Arms: War and Gender in Colonial New England. University of Pennsylvania, 2007. 166. Print. 20 Sept. 2011.
8

Little, Ann M. "Chapter 1." Abraham in Arms: War and Gender in Colonial New England. University of Pennsylvania, 2007. 53. Print. 20 Sept. 2011.