Using the Examples Drawn from This Chapter, Discuss the Differences Between Colonizing “Frontiers of Inclusion” and “Exclusion”

989 Words Sep 3rd, 2009 4 Pages
Colonizing is to establish or secure permanently a residence or it is, to become fixed, resolved, or established residence or colony. frontiers of inclusion is a border between two countries/a region that forms the margin of settled or developed territory that decide to include another group, religion, country and or settlers into their culture or environment. Exclusion is to prevent or restrict the entrance or/to expel or bar especially from a place or position previously occupied. An inclusive policy of colonization would mean making colonized subjects an integral part of your new system and an exclusive policy would be pushing the vanquished out of the new system. Exclusion is to expel and keep out, thrust out, or to eject. The ways …show more content…
Therefore, the English saw the Indian as having "little to contribute to the goals of English colonization and was therefore regarded merely as an obstacle"
By looking at the French-Indian relations, one can observe what is meant by a "frontier of inclusion". The French chose a much different approach with the Native Americans, "while the Dutch and English typically used military force or guile to wrest land and political submission from their Indian neighbors, the French in the North were forging relations of a much different kind with Indian societies". For one thing, the population of the French settlements must be considered. Whereas the English settled great numbers of people in the New World, the French communities consisted of small settlements which depended on the friendship of the native peoples if they were going to enlist their help in trapping furs or converting them. In order to understand what is meant by "frontiers of exclusion" or "inclusion", one needs to look at the specific examples discussed above. The English practiced a policy of "exclusion" when it came to dealing with the Native Americans. This practice can best be understood by recognizing the English attitude toward land. Englishmen saw Land as a commodity to be divided, sold, and used to grow crops that could then be used in the marketplace. The Spanish-Indian interaction, on the other hand, can still be characterized as "inclusion" but, in a different manner than the

Related Documents