Re: Iroquois imperialism

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mohican WWWboard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bill R on May 01, 2000 at 10:06:05:

In Reply to: Re: Washington, Montcalm and the bigger picture posted by Elaine on May 01, 2000 at 09:00:50:

Elaine, Veronica

Oh yeah. The Iroquois were imperialistic. You becha. As I understand it, most of the lands they resided on had been conquered from other tribal nations and the very reason for their confederation was to be able to expand their power and control.
Once they had conquered another nation, even if not physically occupying that territory, they considered it theirs and that they were "allowing" the conquered to reside on it subject to their
(the Iqoquois) benevolence.

They did indeed sell such lands which had been conquered so it was not unusual to see Iroquois meeting and treating with whites to sell land the Delaware were actually residing on. It may even be that they believed partly that they were being politically astute - appeasing the white leaders at no expense of their own (but at the expense of those they had conquered) while removing an annoying problem of controlling the subjugated.

At any rate, the entire Iroqois Confederation was all about power, expansion, and conquering territory. The endless bitterness between the Huron and the Iroquois stems from an early conflict between the two over territorial rights.

Bill R

: These two quotes in particular, Victoria, contain the seeds for some excellent discussions! The Ohio Company & its interested parties was a great contributor to the unfolding of events within the interior & subsequently, in the eastern theatres.
: Yes, both the French & the English were playing economic manipulation to gain favor, service, and alliances. No doubt. However, there was a third player in the art of political shrewdness; the Iroquois. I realize the first argument most are ready to put forth is that the Iroquois were protecting 'Indian land.'
: Okay ... to be as much the devil's advocate as I can be, I ask, which Indians' land? There was no unity or shareholding & the Iroquois successfully struck agreements that served their own interests while causing loss to others, the Algonquians generally speaking.

: So ... would it be accurate or not to say the Iroquois were somewhat imperialistic?

: I would like very much to hear thoughts on this from as many as possible!

: Thank you, Victoria ... as always!

: E

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 
Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mohican WWWboard ] [ FAQ ]