Comparative essay on Anderson and Haefeli/Sweeney
Anderson and Haefeli/Sweeney both examined the history of native, French, and English peoples in their book “The War that Made America”, and “Captives and Captors”. That is why it can’t be helped that some of their conclusions are the same because they are basing their theories on same evidence from same eras and place. They, however, have their own unique ways of interpretation the history. Anderson argued that the French and Indian War is “the war that made America” (Anderson viii) because it established the foundation that would later cause America Revolution. The way he structured his argument will be through an analysis of his sources, and a conclusion made from the pieces of evidence. …show more content…
3). They examine the individuals rather than national and ethnic groups those people come from. This allows them to provide a much more different and complex interpretation of the raid as they learn how it was like for those people in the past. Their different methods of analysis make them come to similar and yet own unique conclusions. Anderson doesn’t views The French and Indian War as a struggle between two great empires, but rather a “vastly oversimplifie[d]” view of the war which “makes it impossible to grasp its true significance” (Anderson xxiv). He thinks that the empire is the “extension of dominion, or control, by one group over others” (Anderson xxiv). That is why he considers that the Iroquois League is a third imperial power in the struggle. With third power involved, there was a stalemate. This “both enabled colonization to succeed and limited its success” (Anderson 3).The reason for that is in order for French, British, or colonists to gain advantage in the struggle, they have to rely on Native Americans for trade, military, sources of labor and land. One example of how much they have to rely on natives can be seen when British force of twenty thousand regulars and seventeen thousand
Anderson and Haefeli/Sweeney both examined the history of native, French, and English peoples in their book “The War that Made America”, and “Captives and Captors”. That is why it can’t be helped that some of their conclusions are the same because they are basing their theories on same evidence from same eras and place. They, however, have their own unique ways of interpretation the history. Anderson argued that the French and Indian War is “the war that made America” (Anderson viii) because it established the foundation that would later cause America Revolution. The way he structured his argument will be through an analysis of his sources, and a conclusion made from the pieces of evidence. …show more content…
3). They examine the individuals rather than national and ethnic groups those people come from. This allows them to provide a much more different and complex interpretation of the raid as they learn how it was like for those people in the past. Their different methods of analysis make them come to similar and yet own unique conclusions. Anderson doesn’t views The French and Indian War as a struggle between two great empires, but rather a “vastly oversimplifie[d]” view of the war which “makes it impossible to grasp its true significance” (Anderson xxiv). He thinks that the empire is the “extension of dominion, or control, by one group over others” (Anderson xxiv). That is why he considers that the Iroquois League is a third imperial power in the struggle. With third power involved, there was a stalemate. This “both enabled colonization to succeed and limited its success” (Anderson 3).The reason for that is in order for French, British, or colonists to gain advantage in the struggle, they have to rely on Native Americans for trade, military, sources of labor and land. One example of how much they have to rely on natives can be seen when British force of twenty thousand regulars and seventeen thousand