In my essay, I will argue that the primary source Memorandum on Colonizing New France shows that New France had difficulties settling, and how the French used manipulative tactics on the First Nation’s to convert them to Christianity.
The source was written in the year of 1663, however the writer of the primary source is not identified but we know it was translated by CJJ, which shows the original source was not in modern day English. Since the source was translated we may have some information that wasn’t translated due to lose of words, words changing meaning so the source could have been tampered with. Memorandum on Colonizing New France doesn’t seem like it was written in New France because the source talks about how the France decided to manipulate the First Nations.
The primary source talks about how “establishment of colonies [have] always been one of the surest means of preserving conquests” (Paragraph 1, sentence 1). If colonies follow this they can become like the Romans. The Romans symbolize a great empire, (Roman empire) and how it became “the strongest chain” (paragraph 1). Many colonies and people attempted to …show more content…
If this source is public and the Native people would have gotten it, understood it the Native people would not have stayed neutral between the tensions of the British and French, instead all of the tribes would have sided with the British because they have a common enemy. There still is a huge divide on race during this period, and class. The French believe they’re religion is superior to others, especially the Native religion, even though the environment has lots of rivers and they could learn how to fish from the Natives and learn how to adapt to the environment, instead they cut down the woods, and plan to convert the Native
The source was written in the year of 1663, however the writer of the primary source is not identified but we know it was translated by CJJ, which shows the original source was not in modern day English. Since the source was translated we may have some information that wasn’t translated due to lose of words, words changing meaning so the source could have been tampered with. Memorandum on Colonizing New France doesn’t seem like it was written in New France because the source talks about how the France decided to manipulate the First Nations.
The primary source talks about how “establishment of colonies [have] always been one of the surest means of preserving conquests” (Paragraph 1, sentence 1). If colonies follow this they can become like the Romans. The Romans symbolize a great empire, (Roman empire) and how it became “the strongest chain” (paragraph 1). Many colonies and people attempted to …show more content…
If this source is public and the Native people would have gotten it, understood it the Native people would not have stayed neutral between the tensions of the British and French, instead all of the tribes would have sided with the British because they have a common enemy. There still is a huge divide on race during this period, and class. The French believe they’re religion is superior to others, especially the Native religion, even though the environment has lots of rivers and they could learn how to fish from the Natives and learn how to adapt to the environment, instead they cut down the woods, and plan to convert the Native