The discussion started off smoothly with different sides providing their points and what their mission is. After the first few topics, its started to become a roast fest on who has its the worst. They went over religion, lack of food, influence over the land, trading, and the very last, trading deals. I think the fishbowl conversation went very well once the roasting fest was over and the arguments and facts started to come up. I think the natives did the best expressing their points and ideas although the promoters ended up winning. The promoters had a trap card they can play "God made me do it" or "God guided me in that direction" whenever someone would put an accurate argument against them. The natives, however, had some good points to their argument of what they wanted and had a reason when someone proposed an argument against them. The most important point made was the hostile interaction between the natives and colonists and how the promoters had something to do with it even though they were not there. They both claimed that they burned each other's villages down and the promoters influenced the colonists to do so. The native's point was because the colonists were hostile to them once the natives help them there for the natives just fought back. Mostly everything made clear sense once the conversation was finished it just was a matter of deciding if it was important to the argument or not. I think I understand everything it makes sense so far and I look forward to the future.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorColin Vail Archives
November 2018
Categories |