I think the natives part was more persuasive. I think this because they said how they helped the pilgrims and how they were mistreated.The natives also talked about how they thought it was wrong because they had given them land and the pilgrims were now harming and wanting war against the English. Lastly they said that the land that the English did buy for cattle, they would put a fence around them. these are just some of the things that they said.
I think the English were to blame because the English took land, mistreated the Indians, and also were quite cocky. If the English had not taken land, and mistreated the Indians then there would be no war. That is why I support King Phillip's side in this argument.
Although both sides clearly made many mistakes before, during, and after the King Philip's War, I believe that the King Philip's Perspective is far more persuasive. We know that when the English colonized North America the indians tried to help settlers in many ways. They taught them to hunt, fish, and farm. The settlers returned that good will by cheating the indians our of their land, not honoring agreements, not trusting them, and allowing their cattle to run free.
I believe that the colonist's perspective is unreasonable. Yes it's terrible that the indians destroyed homes, crop, livestock, and human life, but it seems to me that they were left with little choice.
I think that the English are more to blame because they have been rude to the Indians. One example is that the English had been making bad trades with the Indians. Another reason is that Alexander was found dead on the way back from a meeting with the English. The last reason is that an Indian warned the English that King Philip was preparing for war and some how the Indians found out that he told them and they killed him by drowning him in a lake and the English found him. The English were mad and had suspected that King Philip's best friends were guilty and killed them three. That is why I think the English are more to blame.
I think that the Indiandś part was more persuasive because the English took land, kept on coming, and they treated natives unfairly. I think this because Massassoit always tried to make peace but was annoyed inside. I also think this because strangly enough philipś brother died after a meeting with the English.That is why I think the natives side of the story was more presuasive.
Both sides clearly were in the wrong, but I think the English were more in the wrong. The English had ripped off the indians for their land. They let their cattle roam freely in the Indians land. The English also made the Indians drunk so they could rip them off. This is why I think the English are more to blame.
I think the English are more to blame because, the English came there in the first place and took most of there land also changed a lot of there important rules. ( to the Indians) Another reason is the Indians had a more descriptive reply. All though the Indian did some damage to the English, THEY WERE RISKING THERE LIFE! What were they supposed to do?
I think the English are more to blame because the English took many things and did not give back. One reason I blame the English for starting the war is the Indianans gave corn and taught the English to plant seeds. Another reason is that the English took their land and the English took about 100 times the land the Indians have now. The last reason why I blame the English is that the English taught the Indians to uses guns, but the Indians did not have guns.So it was no use to the Indians.
I think the English are more to blame because the English made poor trades and disrespected the Indians, while the Indians didn't really do anything wrong. When the Indians did something wrong it was only an effect of the English. Also, the Indians were there first and the English had no right to move onto the land that was the Indians, all the English had was a charter given by someone who didn't own the land either. That's why I think that the Indian's side of the story was more persuasive.
I think that the colonists are to blame because they ripped of the Indians and took their land and let their animals run free on it. The colonists also took advantage of the kindness of Massasoit and made the Wampanoag Indians angry. That is why the colonists are more to blame.
I think the English are responsible for starting the war. The English tried to convert the natives and took their land. They did not respect King Philip's brother or King Philip himself. They were ripping the natives off with horrible trades and killed Philip's best friends. Because of these actions the natives wanted to fight but they waited for the English to take the first shot.
This is why I think the English are more to blame.First of all,they were the first to start cheating the Indians.Second of all,the violated the mayflower compact a lot more than the indians did.Also,they showed the english how to get food,but the English gave them nothing in return.Those are the reasons I think the English are more to blame.
There are two perspectives king Philips and the colonist. I think the English are more to blame because if you look back the Indians taught them how to plant crops, they let them have more land, and the English killed three innocent Indians who just happened to be king Philips three best friends. I think they both where to blame, but I think the English were to blame more.
The Colonists are more to blame for King Philip’s War. The Indians argument was definitely more persuasive and factual to me. During the period leading up to the war, the English prospered, multiplied and expanded their settlements while the Natives were in a state of decline dying off to diseases introduced by the Europeans and losing land rapidly. The Colonists cheated and stole from the Indians; they gave the Indians no choice, but to resort to violence. Another point of contention for the Indians was the damage that the English’s cattle did to the corn crops on the dwindling land of the Native Americans. The Indians did not want to fight or have war, but every time they negotiated their land was taken or exploited. In conclusion, the Colonists complete disregard for the rights and property of the Indians was the predominant reason King Philip’s War began.
I think the Indians are to blame for starting King Philip's
War. I feel this way because they were the ones to break the agreement that stated the Wampanoags would only trade with the Settlers. The Wampanoags broke this by making alliances with other tribes. They also responded to the Settlers' dishonest dealers with violence, by attacking their livestock and the settlers themselves. King Philip also plotted with other tribes to attack the Settlers. That is why I think the Indians started the war.
Both documents, the colonists’ and King Phillip’s perspectives, both had good reasons on whether they should go to war or not. Although, I think that King Philip's perspective on whether to go to war or not was more persuasive to me, and that the colonists are more to blame. I think this because, King Philip was there first and King Philip lost much land , because of colonists needing more land to live in and to grow crops in. Also, the colonists “ripped off” King Philip’s dad (also a former leader among the Wampanoags), they were suspected of the killing of King Philip’s brother, and they killed King Philip’s best friends. So, because of these reasons, I think that King Philip's perspective on war is more persuasive than the colonists and that the colonists are more to blame.
In my opinion, I think the English are more to blame because they were making lots of bad trades with the Indians. The English were also being selfish by taking over the Indian's land.
I also think, King Philip’s perspective is more persuasive because the Indians were more honest than the English, so I believe this more over the Colonist's perspective on how the war was caused.
In King Philip's War there are two sides that you can to blame for it’s start. I think that the English are to blame because of many reasons. Some reasons are how the English treated Philip’s dad poorly, how the English may have poisoned his brother, and the last one is that the English killed three of his best friends because the English thought that his friends had killed one of the friendly Indian. John Easton’s document, ” King Philip’s Perspective” was more persuasive to me because there were more descriptive reasons for why the English started the war. One reason why is that the English cattle and horses still increased, kept spoiling the Indians corn.
Who is more to Blame? Based on the two arguments I feel the English are more to blame for the King Philip's war. This is based on how King Philip listed all of the wrong doing's the Indian's had with the English. Like not fencing in cattle and taking more land then what was negotiated. The King Philip's perspective also talked to how the Indian's helped the English out by giving them corn and showing them how to plant it. That is why I think the Indian's perspective is more persuasive.
I think king Phillips could have been nicer about it and not be so mad if he never would have started war then he never would have died
I think that the English are to blame. First of all, the Indians helped the English, but the English made them drunk and cheated them. Next, the English were selfish and took over Indian land, even when there was a whole undiscovered country to live in. Last,
King Philip's perspective was more persuasive because the Indians were more honest than the English, which makes me think that the cause of the war was because of the English.
I think the English are more to blame for many reasons. One reason is the English earned king Philips dad's trust and completely broke it by breaking the treaty. Another reason is the English over stayed their welcome to the Indians by taking most of their land and spreading disease. I would say that the Indians have a more persuasive argument because they give better and more reasons such as killing King Phillips friends, father, and ripping them off.
I think that King Phillips argument is more persuasive because the
English argument seems like they are just blaming each other and not giving out strong points on why they think it was the indians fault for the war
I think the English are to blame for many reasons such as:
1. The English broke the treaty they signed.
2.Also they took all of the food and land.
3. Finally they killed Philips best friends.
Number 3 is just not right like who kills peoples best friends that is just rong. That is why the English Colonists are to blame
I feel that the English were more to blame.One reason was I feel this was is because the English made bad trades with the Indians. Also the Indians found Alexander dead on the side of the road I believe the English killed him.One more reason is that Massasoit tried to keep peace but I think that the English wronged him.There are many reasons why the English are to blame like killing Alexander,bad trades,and the English wronged Massasoit .
Actually both of them are to blame they both made mistakes,but in my opinion I take King Philip`s side! Why well a long time ago when his father Massisoit was king they made an agreement. Now to simplify it the agreement said that we are always going to be nice to each other, and we will also have each others backs. Massisoit even helped them plant crops and taught them to hunt, but when the colonists came things started to get ugly. Colonists took over land and broke the rules. So can`t you see don`t you pick King Philip`s war. I do!!!!!!
I think that King Phillip's argument was more persuasive. It seems like they had good intentions when the colonists first came and tried to help them build a life there. The colonists took advantage of them by not sticking to their word and trying to cheat them and trying to use religion as an excuse. They probably both made mistakes but I think the colonists were to blame for most of the problems.
I think that both were to blame. I think this because neither were better than the other, they both hurt one another. The English stole the Indians land but the Indians burned 1200 homes and killed 8000 heads of cattle that belonged to the English. The Indians may have killed many people but the English stole much from the Indians. The argument of 2 wrongs make no right applies. If I had to choose I would say The Colonists convinced me more. I think this because they lost more than the Indians. They lost their crops, cattle, and families. That is why I believe that the colonists convincing.
I think that the English started the war because they were taking all the land from the indians.The English were making bad trades with the indians.The English cheated on the indians which made the indians angry.That led to war.I think King Phillips perspective was more convincing because the English were trying to find ways to take the indians land.
The Natives and English perspectives of starting the war were very different.I side with the Indians. From the background knowledge I believe that the English's complaints were groundless. The Indians had some sense when they only attacked when a fellow Indian got shot.So They didn't start the war. Also the English dishonored what there forefathers on the mayflower who wrote the mayflower compact. They also kicked the Indians out of there homes and land. The English horses and cattle also kept ruining the growing seasons. The Natives and the English had very different views of the war.
I think King Philip's army and the colonists both had reasons why to blame the other "side", or why to begin the war. One reason is, the Natives said,”when the English first came, their King’s Father prevented other Indians from wronging the English, and gave them corn, showed them how to plant, and let them have a 100 times more land than now the Indian King had for his own people”. Another reason is, the English made the Natives drunk and then cheated them; that now, they had no hope left to keep any land. In addition to that, the English didn’t have a fence to keep the increased number of cattle and horses, so the animals kept spoiling the Natives’ corn. I believe King Philip's perspective was more persuasive than the colonists’ perspective of reasons on having war with the Native Americans.
I liked King Philip's perspective the most because it had more details. The colonist perspective only talked about the natives being different. Like when it said King Philip wouldn't give the land for free and how they didn't follow their religion. King Philip said that the colonist cattle kept coming and eating their crops and the colonist did nothing about it. That is why I think the colonist are more to blame.
You may earn bonus points in SS by answering the blog question of the unit in a complete 5th grade paragraph. Post in a comment on this blog.