This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/Moll West Indies 1702 DETAIL Raremaps.jpg 2016-06-28T20:23:44+00:00 Europe's Empires Expand 63 What were the motivations of the private adventurers who claimed land for European countries? image_header 2020-10-21T16:02:41+00:00

  This week's big question

  What were the motivations of the private adventurers who claimed land for European countries?

  Video Introduction
  
  

  Learning outcomes

  At the end of this week you should be able to:
  • describe some of the major locations and bases for European overseas expansion in the 15th through 17th centuries;
  • explain something of the different motivations for overseas expansion;
  • explain the basis for the integration of the New World into the emerging Atlantic economy;
  • outline some of the major economic, political, and cultural reasons for overseas exploration and colonization.

  Questions to consider, and learning activity

  Remember what you've learned about secondary sources and "historiographical thinking" from the Lessons just before Reading Week on Agricultural Revolutions? Once you've read over this page, begin your preparation for the Week's Forum by reading the chapter from Appleby. In your discussions with your Forum colleagues, keep Appleby's perspectives and interpretations in mind as you use your reading and analysis of 3 to 4 of the primary sources to answer one or more of the questions below.
  
  Also remember to try your best to fulfill the criteria for a good Forum contributions that you can find in the course syllabus.
  • How would you characterize the motives of these writers for colonizing the New World? Drawing on the cultural and political ideas you’ve seen in the first module (e.g., the Great Chain of Being, or Catholic vs Protestant views about authority), do you see some of those influences at work in the discussions of colonization? Do you see patterns of similarity among the different writers? Differences?
  • What can the images included on this page tell us about early modern understandings of the New World? What did early modern viewers “see” when they looked at these images? Discuss different ways the maps can help us understand the process of imperial expansion. Do the maps speak to the same motivations as the texts?
  • How did these authors justify their plans to take over these newly discovered lands?
  • Why did Parkhurst urge English colonization of Newfoundland?  Why was he writing to Hakluyt? How is he similar/different from what we read in Hakluyt? Was Newfoundland different than the other cases?
  • Biard was a Jesuit missionary -- how does that influence how we should interpret this document?
  • None of our primary sources, including images, were produced by Indigenous Americans.  What does that tell us about the sources we use? Are they, in fact, primary sources? And if they are primary sources how might we qualify their importance? What does this mean for our (i.e. Western) understanding of early modern American history?
  • How was America drawn into the Atlantic world?

  Background

  Paralleling the development of the centralized state and the agricultural revolution, western European states also began utilizing improvements in map-making, navigation devices, and ship construction that allowed them to explore further along the coasts of Africa and ultimately to venture further to the west. We will not, in this course, pursue these technological questions relating to navigation. Instead we will focus on the question of what encouraged Europeans to venture further afield, and what motivated them to colonize the Americas.  An interesting dimension of this early exploration is who was leading these expansive movements.  While we often speak of these states as actors –- that is, that England (or France, or whatever) did things (explored, colonized, whatever) –- it was not the states themselves leading the way but private adventurers acting in the name of these states.  This in part explains why some of the most famous “explorers” were Italian seamen such as Cristoforo Columbo (who in English we call Christopher Columbus) and Giovanni Caboto (who we call John Cabot) sailing for Spain and England respectively.  ​Our questions this week focus on these adventurers’ motivations for exploring, what value they saw in the new lands, how they encouraged their sponsoring states to continue to support their endeavours, and ultimately what motivated the states to support expansion.
  
  In other words, our topic this week is the rise of European colonialism, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries.  This is very much one of those longer-term stories that we discussed in past weeks. But the exact parameters aren’t clear.  We might be tempted to say this story began with Columbus arriving in the Caribbean in 1492 –- and certainly in many ways it did –- but of course all that really happened on those voyages was that Europeans learned that there was another continent across the ocean, what they came to call the New World.  And while significant consequences began very quickly in places like Mexico and the Caribbean, the emergence of European power in the Americas, Africa, and Asia did not begin that day.  It took centuries to reach the point that we might now recognize as the colonial world being under the control, or domination, of Europe.  When we can begin to speak of a European dominance of the Americas is not clear.
  
  This raises several big questions: Why did the European empires form outside of Europe?  Why did European colonization take place? Why did it take so long? And if it took so long, and is not especially clear as to why it happened, how can we even understand it as a story?  We won’t answer that question this week.  Indeed, historians don't completely agree on the answers anyhow, but as we proceed over the next few weeks we’ll begin to see some patterns.
  
  This week, we’ll emphasize two features of this story. First, that much of the “imperial expansion” of Europe looked quite different on the ground than it did in the minds of (and as seen on the maps of) the European powers.  There are five early modern European powers that we should keep in mind: England, France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal.  While the Spanish and Portuguese did make significant inroads in terms of conquering and controlling territory in the Caribbean and South America, France, Holland, and England’s place on the ground in North America was much less impressive –- especially much less impressive than its cartographers imagined.  As we’ll see in a few weeks, New England and the other British colonies would grow quickly, but even by the time of the American revolution -– almost 300 years after Columbus! -– they remained tightly enclosed along the Atlantic seaboard.  Similarly, French maps depicted their control of much of eastern North America, but the actual place of French power was limited to a few enclaves along the St. Lawrence River.  
  
  Second, what the European states and their private adventurer-proxies thought the best actions on the ground were not always the same things, and often not at all compatible.  While private adventurers had to maintain the good graces of their Old World political supporters, in the New World they had a lot of latitude on the ground. There was no army –- i.e., no state force -– there in the New World or in Africa to enforce the expectations of Kings or legislators. Thus, these merchant-adventurers were taking risks if they tested their rulers' authority, but the lure of profit –- and power –- could be great.  Moreover, again as will become clear in future weeks, even that limited presence could have profound consequences.

  Toolbox

  Before you read this Lesson's sources, make sure you review the Toolbox entries from the Lessons of Module 1. In the First Module you practiced the effective analysis of primary and secondary sources, and you also learned about the importance of paying attention to the different perspectives historians take when they analyze sources. Don't forget what you've learned in these Lessons. Your goal should be to build on your skills throughout the course.
  
  In your Forum entries for this week's Lesson, you will continue to practice the analysis of primary sources. Pay particular attention to the perspectives in each document. In a way similar to historians having different interpretations of the same questions, so too did people in the past have different interpretations of their worlds. You can consider questions such as:

  • Who was the author and what economic or social or religious or political interests did that person have?
  • When did he or she create the source?
  • What is the source about and what did the author think about that subject?

  You can probably think of other general questions that will help you to think about the perspective in any source. These are questions that are related to the skills of "sourcing" that you learned about in Module 1. To find our more about the general kinds of questions you should always have in mind when you consider a source's perspective, see the two Historical Thinking worksheets available through the link. The particular questions to think about for this week (in the Lesson above) will also help. Together, these general and particular questions will guide you as you look for differences (and similarities) in the perspectives of each primary source.

  Primary sources

  Read any 3 or 4 of the following documents (and, to be clear, 3 doesn’t allow you to read less –- it means read some of the longer docs). Pay attention to the bibliographical details below (e.g., page numbers).
  • Christopher Columbus to Luis de Sant Angel [a high-ranking minister to King Ferdinand of Spain], 1493.
  • Thomas Hariot, A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia: of the Commodities and of the Nature and Manners of the Naturall Inhabitants (1585), 5-9.
  • Richard Hakluyt, the elder, “Inducements to the Liking of the Voyage Intended towards Virginia [1585]”, in David B. Quinn, ed., New American World: A Documentary History of North America to 1612, volume III (London, Macmillan, 1979), 64-69.
  • John Cotton, God’s Promise to his Plantation (1630).
  • Letters from Anthony Parkhurst, Newfoundland, 1577 and 1578, in David B. Quinn, ed., New American World: A Documentary History of North America to 1612, volume IV (London, Macmillan, 1979), 5-10.
  • Stephen Parminius to Richard Hakluyt the Younger, Newfoundland, 6 August 1583, in David B. Quinn, ed., New American World: A Documentary History of North America to 1612, volume IV (London, Macmillan, 1979), 21-2.
  • “Petition of Merchants of London and Bristol for a Newfoundland Charter, 1610”, in David B. Quinn, ed., New American World: A Documentary History of North America to 1612, volume IV (London, Macmillan, 1979), 131-2. [in the same file as Parminius]
  • Pierre Biard, “Reasons why the Cultivation of New France ought to be Undertaken in Earnest”, Rueben Gold Thwaites, ed., The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, volume IV (Cleveland, 1894), 111-7.
  • John Brereton, A Briefe Relation of the Description of Elizabeth's Ile [Cape Cod] (London, 1602).

  Secondary sources

  John C. Appleby, "War, Politics, and Colonization"​, in Nicholas Canny, ed., The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century, vol. I of The Oxford History of the British Empire (Oxford, Oxford University press, 1998), 55-78.
• 1 media/NEW DETAIL Desceliers Library and Archives Canada NMC 44736.gif 2016-06-28T21:13:16+00:00 The Columbian Exchange 63 image_header 3 2021-03-19T20:45:05+00:00

  This week's big question:

  What was the significance of non-human agents in the making of the Atlantic world?

  Video Introduction
  
  

  Learning outcomes

  At the end of this week you should be able to:
  • Explain the basic outline of the Columbian Exchange;
  • Understand something of the significance of the Columbian Exchange in the development of the Americas and of Europe;
  • Explain the significance of the movement of new organisms into the New World;
  • Describe early modern people’s understanding of the significance and the meaning of exchanging of biological organisms.

  Questions to consider, and learning activity

  This week (like last) read the secondary text (this time by Crosby) before you read the primary documents.
  • How did early modern people understand the presence of diseases in their worlds?
  • How did Amos Adams and Pierre Biard understand the demography of early America? What does Sahagun’s narrative tell us about the Spanish conquest of Mexico?
  • Why was disease still a problem for Indigenous peoples in Nebraska in the 1830s?
  • Crosby reminds us that early colonizers didn’t want Indigenous peoples to die; they wanted them to become labourers who would produce goods for European markets, and customers for European goods. The mass deaths brought about by infectious diseases changed that. Discuss the significance of these developments for the different peoples of the Atlantic World.

  Background

  Our examination of the early modern trans-Atlantic world emphasizes the movement of people and trade goods, but historians in the past few decades have also begun to highlight the movement of other organisms – plants, animals, and even microbes. Science and archaeology show us that the biology – the flora, the fauna, and the microbial worlds – of the Americas and that of Europe and Africa were quite different. There are lots of reasons to explain this, but the most obvious is that while Africa, Asia, and Europe have many biological differences, their proximity to one another means that there was nevertheless a good deal of movement of peoples, animals, plants, and microbes across the regions. Whether carried by the wind, or by ships, biological agents crafted a broadly similar ecology across the vast sweep of three continents. The Americas, however, were completely apart. For a million years, the Atlantic Ocean had separated the New and Old Worlds; now exploration, trade, and settlement brought these two separate ecological zones into contact for the first time. Historians have come to call this movement of biological agents, and its important transformative effect, the Columbian Exchange.
  
  By far the most important of these exchanges involved microbial diseases. Both Indigenous Americans and Europeans had their own diseases, but European ones were particularly powerful. Unlike Europe, Africa, and Asia, America had no domestic beasts of burden (cows, horses, and so on). Because most people lived in relatively close proximity to domestic animals, the diseases common to livestock – and thus ultimately some level of immunity to such diseases – were widespread. No such immunities existed among Indigenous Americans, and the results were catastrophic. Estimates vary considerably, but even fairly cautious writers maintain that at least 50 per cent (and some argue as much as 90 per cent) of the Indigenous populations of the east coast of the Americas was wiped out by the arrival of European diseases in the first few decades of contact. 
  
  This was an astounding and profound catastrophe for Indigenous societies. Some societies were devastated; others simply disappeared. Recall that when John Cotton (1630) argued that Englishmen found in America “a vacant soyle”, he meant in part that Indigenous peoples did not farm it in the manners Europeans did – that is, did not fix properties, build fences, and maximize their yields – but he also meant simply that there were no people. Apologists ever since him have maintained that America was under-utilized, and that because God wanted the land to be productive, it was therefore good that Christians "improve" the land – i.e., settle and farm it. We will not, in this course, debate God's will, but there is little doubt that the land had only very recently been vacated, and not in any voluntary sense.
  
  This new age of global trade also produced a much less traumatic, but no less dramatic, exchange of plants and animals. Horses and cattle were introduced into the Americas, offering fantastic new labour-saving possibilities, but also dramatically altering the landscape of the Americas. Raising grain and cattle required large grasslands and that meant either dyking extensive coastal marshlands (as the French Acadians did in Nova Scotia, or the English settlers in early Virginia), or cutting large expanses of forests (as English settlers did in the mid-Atlantic colonies). Sheep created their own grasslands, literally transforming huge swaths of central Mexico, overgrazing it to the extent that much of the region became an arid wasteland. Exchanges went both ways. New products, notably coffee and cochineal, were exported back to western Europe. And new crops were introduced into Europe, notably corn, potatoes, and tomatoes, altering not only the diets of Europeans (can we even imagine Italy without polenta, gnocchi, or tomato sauce?), but also in some cases offering peasants new market possibilities which some historians argue eroded the power of aristocratic landowners in the 17th and 18th centuries. Rice – which would later become a major slave-produced staple of the New World – was an African crop introduced to the Americas and domesticated by slaves.
  
  The Columbian Exchange also offers us a window on the world of unintended consequences – that is, of historical outcomes that do not appear to have been planned. It reminds us that humans are not all powerful, and that while we may be the dominant species on this planet, nature is a powerful force, and one that we can only sometimes control. This also raises controversial issues of human agency. Some social commentators now argue, for example, that Europeans cannot be blamed for bringing diseases to the New World: no one understood how germs worked – at least not this well – and so Europeans can hardly be blamed for what happened to Indigenous peoples. And yet others argue that while this may well be true, Europeans knew it was happening, took full advantage of the situation, and passed it off as God’s will – a feeble alibi for what remained enormous sins or crimes. Our readings this week take us to some examples of those exchanges where we can pursue some of those questions.
   

  Primary sources

  • Excerpt on smallpox epidemic from book 12 of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, General History of the Things New Spain, in Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, eds., The war of conquest: how it was waged here in Mexico: the Aztecs' own story (Salt Lake City, University of Utah, 1978).
  • Pierre Biard​, “On their Marriages and the Sparseness of Population”, The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, volume III, Rueben Gold Thwaites, ed., (Cleveland, 1894), 99-113.
  • Amos Adams, A Concise Historical View of the Perils, Hardships, Difficulties, and Discouragements which have Attended the Planting and Progressive Improvements of New-England (Boston, 1769), 9-13.
  • Paul Le Jeune describes the Huron response to epidemics, 1638, in Jesuit Relations, volume 15, pp. 37-51.

  Secondary source

  • Alfred W. Crosby, “Infectious Disease and the Demography of the Atlantic Peoples,” Journal of World History 2:2 (1991), 119-33.

  Supplementary material

  • Interview with Alfred Crosby (if the interview does not show up right away, use the link to go to the Smithsonian site, and then search for "Alfred Crosby")
• 1 2022-01-21T19:59:31+00:00 Assignment Sandbox 6 plain 2022-04-25T19:10:25+00:00 hsg
  
  
   
  for your major assignments, you again have a choice from three options.
  
  are to choose from one of two assignments for your major project. Note "major project" - this assignment is worth 25 per cent of your final grade, a big chunk in a full-year course. These two assignments are very different, but both are designed both to draw together elements from across the course and to elevate your your skills in particular areas. 
  
  The first assignment builds on the skills practiced in our fall-term mapping assignment while also asking you to integrate additional primary and secondary sources. It focuses on a small corner of a big story: British plans for the French settlers of Nova Scotia/Acadia in the 1750s. The second assignment has no specific topic, but a specific form of presentation: video. Make a video presenting a topic from of our second-term course lessons. 
  
  These are very different assignments, but they both require the use of basic historical thinking practices. In both cases, these are exercises in using evidence, reading sources critically, organising that evidence, and presenting an argument. Think about your sources, both primary and secondary, and their perspectives. Both assignments also emphasise critical thinking about images. In the mapping option, you need to think about how to read and evaluate the maps (though also how to present them in your essay), in the video you need to think about how to present images effectively (though also how to evaluate them).

  How to choose which one? That's hard for us to say. Obviously the second allows more creativity, but also demands that you have (or can develop) some technical skills. The first lays more out for you, but requires you to synthesize a fair bit of information.  Both will require a fair bit of time - neither assignment should be tackled at the last minute. 

  Option #1. Cartography and Empire

  On the eve of the Seven Years War, Britain expelled thousands of French settlers, Acadians, from the territory that is today called Nova Scotia. How can a series of historical maps help us to understand that story?

  Historical background
  
  The Seven Years War was one of the most important wars in modern world history. It shifted colonial relations across the globe, most notably marking the ascendancy of Great Britain as the most powerful country on the planet. In North America, it shifted the basic political arrangement, effectively removing France from the continent and compelling Indigenous nations to seek peace with their former enemy.
  
  Nowhere was the human cost more evident than in Acadia/Nova Scotia where the British expelled the resident French population, over 12,000 people. Most lost their land (often land that had been worked for generations); most lost any wealth they possessed (cash, cattle, houses, farm buidlings); many lost their lives (at least 2000 drowned or died of ship-born diseases as they were moved around the North Atlantic world).
  
  Acadia - roughly the modern Maritime provinces of Canada, plus sections of Maine and Quebec - had been a French colony located in Mi'kma'ki, the land of the Mi'kmaq. Over the course of the 17th and early 18th centuries, French settlers had built farms and a small resident fishery in what is today southern and southwestern Nova Scotia. In a war between Britain and France between 1710 and 1713, the British captured Acadia. The subsequent peace treaty - the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713 - carved up Acadia into two sections, one comprising what is today the mainland of Nova Scotia (which Britain kept) and the other comprising the "islands of the Gulf of St Lawrence", i.e. modern day Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island (which the French kept). That treaty, as was almost always the case, did not mention the Mi'kmaq. You, however, here you might recall our discussion of the Treaty of Peace in Friendship from 1752 that we read in our lesson on Settler-Indigenous Treaties. The treaty was one of several the British negotiated with various northeastern Indigenous peoples in the 1740s and 50s - clearly the Mi'kmaq were on British officials' minds.

  Hint: When we look at the maps for the assignment, the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) explains why these maps, unlike most other maps of the region, focus only on what today is the mainland of Nova Scotia - i.e. they're focussing on British territory.  In other words, these maps reflect political divisions, not the physical geography of the region. Most maps do that in some wya or another; the trick is to understand the perspective.

  Most of the French colonists lived in what became the British-held portion and so for a good part of the period between 1713 and the Seven Years War (over 40 years), the British were reluctant to take a firm stand on what to do with these alien (French, Catholic) people. That story is long and complex, but the short version is that the British allowed the Acadians to stay, to continue to farm, and to continue to practice their faith. It wasn't so much tolerance as neglect, as Britain simply put few resources into its new possession. Indeed, the British did very little outside a few miles surrounding the capital [Annapolis Royal, what the French had called Port Royal], and the Acadian settlements prospered in their effective independence; trade with New England thrived, and their population tripled in the period of British rule. British neglect enabled Acadian communities to prosper, and the Acadians negotiated a kind of neutrality with their former enemies. Acadian farms fed British soldiers; fishing boats and traders from New England sought Acadian wheat and cattle; Acadians purchased British goods. If based mostly in Britain's parsimonious neglect, it was a good relationship. If British officials grumbled about their French Catholic subjects, circumstances meant that they were also content to keep them.
  
  But it was precarious. Britain and France were at war almost continuously in these years and tensions would push Britain to seek ways to consolidate control over its territory. France tried to woo back the support of its former subjects and most Acadians felt pulled in very different directions. Most stayed in their villages, and continued to farm and trade. While some relocated to Ile Royale (Cape Breton) and Isle St-Jean (Prince Edward Island), most attempted to maintain their neutral place in the British colony. By the early 1750s, the French, the Mi'kmaq, and the British were all pressuring the Acadians to break their neutrality and align more clearly with one side or the other. The British threatened, as they had before, to expel the Acadians, and while most believed the British would back down increasing numbers sought security in French territory. Between 1752 and the beginning of the expulsion in June 1755 the population of Isle St-Jean more than tripled from about 1500 to about 5000 as refugees fled into French territory.
  
  It's in this moment, just before the expulsion began, that our documents are based. Your primary evidence consists of three maps of Nova Scotia, each was British but made just before (1755) and just after (1765) the Expulsion of the Acadians, plus the report of the mapmaker, Charles Morris. Individually, each might be seen as simple cartographic illustrations of people and places. But, taken together and placed in their proper historical context, they can be seen to illustrate a kind cartographic illustration of the ethnic cleansing of Nova Scotia.
  
  Quick theory bit via Harley: Maps are rarely neutral or objective. They tell stories; they are made to tell stories, to help construct narratives, to plan and thus to aid policies.  

  Basic question: how do these maps help us to understand the actions of the British and colonial governments in mid-18th-century Nova Scotia/Acadie? 

  This assignment asks you to use the following primary and secondary sources. You're free to make use of course materials as you see fit, but no additional research is required. 

  Tip: the heart of this assignment is the maps. I want you to think about the meaning of the maps, and their value in helping us understand this story. The major events here - the Seven Years War, the Conquest of Acadia, the Expulsion of the Acadians - will be important in framing your essay, but they are not the subject of your essays. The subject should be the maps and their value as sources. 

  3000 words (approx. 10 pages) - use proper Chicago-style references, and a bibliography. 
  
  Maps and other primary documents (you should use the high-resolution versions available by clicking on the links - the details will be critical to understanding what's going on).

  Your sources are listed here. Remember: you have several primary and secondary textual sources, but the heart of this assignment is figuring out how the maps help us to understand the story.

  Jacques-Nicolas Bellin [attributed], n.n. ca. 1745, Unnamed [Acadie, Isle Saint Jean et une partie de l'Isle Royale avec la Baye Françoise], Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center.
  

  This is a map drawn by a French mapmaker of territory that was once a French colony, was still mostly populated by Mi'kmaw and French people, but held since 1713 by the British. 

  
  Morris, Charles, (Surveyor), "A Chart of the Sea Coasts of the Peninsula of Nova Scotia", 1755.  Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center.
  

  Same, but this time drawn by a British cartographer. Here, just before the Seven Years War and the Expulsion of the Acadians. 

  
  Morris, Charles. "A chart of the peninsula of Nova Scotia", [1761], Library of Congress.
  

  Same mapmaker, but after the Expulsion and just before the end of the Seven Years War. Six years apart, but showing a very different world - there's a story there! Think about the people on the ground, what they were doing, who they were, and how and why the British wanted to change that.

  [Charles Morris], "Description and State of the New Settlements in Nova Scotia in 1761 by the Crown Surveyor", transcribed in Report on Canadian Archives, 1904 (Ottawa, Dept of Agriculture, 1904), 289-301.

  There are also some maps in this report that offer additional information, but they're really hard to read in the digital text. I couldn't in Covid-era conditions get these digitised properly but include here some crude images (made on my camera!!) that allow you to see some details of the first map and two of the second map. Given the dates, these maps are probably preliminary, or ancillary, maps to the finished version above dated 1761. You might use these as supplements to that map.

  Jonathan Fowler and Earle Lockerby, eds., "Operations at Fort Beauséjour and Grand-Pré in 1755: A Soldier’s Diary", Royal Nova Scotia Historical Society 12 (2009) - the introduction is useful, but the diary excerpt of most interest begins on p.153.

  Bancroft was an ordinary soldier, an ensign, in the Massachusetts militia. He was recruited from his home in Reading, Massachusetts in March 1755. His regiment sailed in April to Fort Cumberland in Beaubassin, at the head of what is now the Bay of Fundy. The Seven Years War didn't begin, officially, until 1756, but this action, along with General Braddock's incursion against Indigenous and French positions in western Pennsylvania, were efforts by the the Governors of New York, Massachusetts and Nova Scotia to strike early blows in a war they believed imminent. Bancroft's diary records two major events: the attack on Fort Beausejour in the late spring and early summer of 1755 and the beginning of the removal of the Acadian population from the area around Grand-Pré in August and September. Your excerpt is of the second period.

  An Act for the Quieting of Possessions to the Protestant Grantees of the Lands formerly occuppied by the French Inhabitants, and for preventing vexatious Actions relating to the same. (Nova Scotia, George II, 33, 1759).
  
  Secondary sources
  
  Barry M. Moody, ˜Delivered from all your distresses: The Fall of Quebec and the Remaking of Nova Scotia", in Phillip A. Buckner and John, G. Reid,, eds, Revisiting 1759: The Conquest of Canada in Historical Perspective (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2012). 
  
  Jonathan Fowler, "From Acadians to Planters in the Grand-Pré: an archaeological perspective", in Stephen Henderson and Wendy Robicheau, eds., The Nova Scotia Planters in the Atlantic World (Fredericton NB, Acadiensis Press, 2012),
  
  Geoffrey Plank, An Unsettled Conquest: The British Campaign Against the Peoples of Acadia (Philadelphia, University Of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 122-39.
  
  Jeffers Lennox, “Nova Scotia Lost and Found: The Acadian Boundary Negotiation and Imperial Envisioning, 1750-1755”, Acadiensis (Fredericton) 40, 2 (2011), 3–31.
  
  J.B. Harley, "New England Cartography and the Native Americans", in EmersonW. Baker, et al, eds., American Beginnings: Exploration, Culture, and Geography in the Land of Norumbega (Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 286-313.
  
  Some biographies of notable people you may encounter in the story:
  
  Charles Morris
  
  Jacques-Nicholas Bellin
  
  Alexander McNutt
  
  Some questions: 
  
  What did conquest and the expulsion of the Acadians mean for Nova Scotia? Why had it it taken the British 40 years to actually expel the Acadians? Why in 1755 was it important for the British to expel the Acadians? To erase Acadia? To erase Mi'kma'ki? Look at the pre-expulsion maps: what was being destroyed? Compare with the post expulsion map: much has changed - there's a story there. How do maps, both historical and contemporary, help/hinder our abilities to understand those layers of history. Does this exercise help us think about imperial history? About Canadian history? What about Indigenous history? Can we see Indigenous history here? (Hint: you can, but you need to look and think carefully.) There are lots of geographical, or what we might call environmental, information in these maps. How does the landscape/environment help us to understand the history?  

  To be clear you are NOT expected to answer all these questions. They're simply prompts. As you write, you'll see that some are connected, and some not - it depends on the tact you choose. There's no checklist - use your judgement.

                                                                                            - - - - - - - - 
  
  Option #2. Mini-documentary

  Make a short documentary-style video based on a second-term topic.

  Using the materials made available to you in one of your second-term lessons, make a 15 minute mini-documentary that presents that topic. It should be (i) academically rigorous (you're historians - use good sources, well), (ii) intellectually engaging (aim at an intelligent but non-specialist audience), and (iii) visually interesting (make effective use of images/visuals, and you probably need to find some additional visual materials). 
  
  This assignment, for obvious reasons, doesn't have any additional assigned documents. You already have them, and you can do some research to obtain more if you wish. I'm happy to offer advice and support there if it would be helpful.

  Tip #1: ask a question. Don't simply present material, present the material as solving a problem. Aim for an interesting question. Think, for example, of our discussion of the agricultural revolution. An obvious question would be, what was the agricultural revolution? But as we know, a more interesting question would be, when was the agricultural revolution?
  
  Tip #2: answer your question with an argument. Your documentary should make a point, not simply recount a tale. It should answer the question.

  The video will be graded on the following criteria: effectiveness as a piece of public history (clarity, accessibility, engagement), quality of the content/research, and presentation (i.e. that it looks good!).
  
  How you do it is up to you, but the most obvious format would be some sort of screencast (i.e.a video of images and some text with a voiceover). Suggestions and links on the technical side of how to make a video can be found in the Assignment tool in Sakai. 
  
  Should you conduct additional research? You don't have to, but you can. But, to be clear, as indicated above, that's not the object of the assignment. The heart of your work should be the material you've been given in the course; supplement where/if you feel it necessary, but focus on presenting strong and interesting content more than a comprehensive view. At least for text: visuals will probably require some digging.
  
  Use good quality, Open Access images, that illustrate what you're talking about. Open Access is really important is it means you're avoiding copyright issues. For most materials in our course, you're fine because our material is old. Where do you find them? Our eText has lots of image s we used and we've tried to source all ours. So, depending on your topic, good sources include museums, libraries, and archives that have digital collections. Note that we have some favourite go-to sources: the Library of Congress (US), the Leventhal Map Center (Brown University), the Nova Scotia Archives, the Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam), the British Library (UK) and the Bibliothèque nationale de France (go to Gallica BnF). All of these provide high-quality open-access images. One way we often cheat is to simply google what we're looking for, and then fonce we idenitfy something good we find a reputable source that provides a copy. Often we'll find an image on some weird obscure website and in poor quality with no attribution. But now armed with a name, or some kind of better terms to google, we find what we're looking for. Often, too, that new good site has more to choose from.

  Images, like texts, are produced by people and you should be acknowledging them. Sources your information and your arguments, as well as your images.

   

  Option #3: Architectures/Landscapes of Slavery:

  This assignment focuses on images, and in particular some landscapes and architectural drawings of buildings, associated with the slavery and the slave trade.

  What can these images tell us about slavery and the slave trade? What can these images tell us about how slavery and the slave trade were represented in England? Like all historical documents, you should be asking who made it, when, why, and for whom?  Do the texts allow us to better understand the images? Do the images allow us to better understand the text? Do the images and the texts convey the same ideas, or do they suggest different interpretations/representations of the lives of slaves? What does that mean when we look at such images? What other aspect of early modern life that we've examined do you think these images tie into?  
  
  Think too about the production of these images: why were they made? What purpose did they serve? When was the map made and by whom and for whom? i.e. who was the author? what economic or social or religious or political interests did that person serve? Think about the immediate context; think about the broader context. An image, like any document, is a product of human being thinking in some context. What're they thinking about? Was there a strategy here?

  There's lots of interesting data here, both in the images themselves and in thinking about how, by whom, and what purpose they were produced.

  Plan of James Fort,  Accra in Africa. Survey'd in January 1756 by Justly Watson [Accra Ghana] Source: National Archives (UK)
  
  Cane-Grove Negroe Hospital, in the Island of St Vincent, the property of the Honourable James Wilson. Source: National Archives (UK)
  
  George Washington's estate, Mt Vernon (originally built in ca. 1740, this plan is from 1787). Source: mountvernon.org
  
  James Thome, Emancipation of the West Indies. A six months' tour in Antigua, Barbadoes, and Jamaica, in the year 1837 (New York, Ant-Slavery Society, 1837), 20-1 and 54-8.

  • Note: Thome's book was reporting on conditions in the West Indies three years after British emancipation. Some of its content should offer additional evidence for your writing.

  The links take you to the source files where there is additional evidence. Some are library links so you need to be signed in.

  750 words, due 27/5
  
  
  
  
  
  
  NEW
  
  Compare three maps of colonial Berbice - what can these three maps (two Dutch , one British tells us about slave, trade, plantaitons, plantation life, ecology)
  
  From Rijksmuseum. 
  
  
  From David Rumsey:
  
  And from Wikimedia Commons.
  
  Paired with chapter from Randy M. Browne, Surviving Slavery in the British Caribbean (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017), 13-43.
  • Chapter 2, "Slavery and Empire on the Wild Coast" has significant Berbice content. 
  
  
   

  Option 2 - Travel and Reconnaissance:
  how can travellers' accounts help us understand the colonial world?

  
   

  How can travellers' accounts help us to understand the early modern world?

  While silver, gold, and even fish were profitable commodities, few things were precious than good information on the colonies. How could states - both the European imperial states and the local governments in the colonies - plan their actions without a sure knowledge of their worlds? Much of what Europeans knew about North and South America came from either travellers sojourning through the Americas, missionaries, and sometimes more specialised figures like surveyors.  
  
  Here, as in your Forum entries, you will continue to practice the analysis of primary sources. Pay particular attention to the perspectives in each document. Just as historians have different interpretations of the same questions, so too did people in the past have different interpretations of their worlds. What these writers reported on were expressions of their own peculiar interests, their backgrounds, the reasons for their being there in the first place, their audience (whose going to read these books?), on the broader interests (including prejudices) of society. Think about people’s interests, and by interests I mean both what captures their attention and what captures their attention because of who they are: are they are state officials? investors? missionaries?
  
  
  How can these travel accounts and reports help us to understand the colonial era? What information do they give us? How can that help us to understand both the specific places they describe and the general context of the American in the colonial era. Think too about what they’re describing: natural features of the landscape, altered landscapes, roads, water-routes, resources. Do we see economic activities? Do we see people? Settlers? Indigenous peoples? Indications of past presences? Agriculture? 
  • John Bartram, Observations on the inhabitants, climate, soil, rivers, productions, animals, and other matters worthy of notice (London, Wriston and White, 1751), i-iv and 14-29.
  • D. C. Harvey, ed., Holland's description of Cape Breton Island and other documents (Halifax, Public Archives of Nova Scotia, 1935), 58-96.
  • Louis Hennepin, A new discovery of a vast country in America, extending above four thousand miles, between New France & New Mexico; with a description [!] of the Great lakes, cataracts, rivers, plants, and animals (London, Bonwick, 1699), 22-30.

  Hint: these documents all share a basic similarity: they report on some far off colonial place for a metropolitan audience, but they're also quite different. Think about their similarities and differences.

  Don’t get caught up in the details here - don’t tell me that Holland reports that Chester Cove was a place where “schooners of a middling size may ride with safety”, or whatever. Look for the types of information he’s offering; is it military? social? cultural? geographic? For what do you imagine this information was being sought? Who do these authors imagine, or know, to be their audience? And given that audience, how will that information be used? Having said that, look for patterns. We may not care that Chester Cove was a place where “schooners of a middling size may ride with safety”, but if you notice that most harbour/cove descriptions tell us about what kinds of ships can berth there, then you might start asking why that information is important. And so on.

  Hint: When I say don’t get caught up in the details, I especially mean Holland’s report which is not especially long but very detailed. Think much more about patterns in his report and its general purposes. 

  An Option: Use Voyant-Tools to help read these pieces

  1200 words, due 11 June
   

   

   

  Option #2: Critical Map Reading: The Seven Years War on Isle Royale

   

  Can two historic maps help us understand differences in British and French colonial ideas/practices?

  Below are two maps of what is today called Cape Breton, the large island that makes up the northeastern third of modern-day Nova Scotia. These maps were made only about 20 years apart, but reflect very different worlds and very different world-views. One is a French map of what was then French-held territory (Isle Royale); the other is a British map, produced a few years after Britain captured the territory as part of its victory in the Seven Years War.
  
  
  Your instructions here are much the same as for your first map assignment. The only major differences are : (i) that we're looking at two maps made very close together in time and of a much smaller place than Africa, and (ii) that you'll be asked to bring significantly more context to your analysis through additional reading. Apply the general critical cartography questions from the first assignment again here,  but this time also bring to bear the broader knowledge you've developed this year of colonialism, the Seven Years War, and settler-Indigenous relations, as well as some readings specifically for this assignment. How do these maps add to our understanding of empire in North America? Do we see common patterns that help us think about this story? Do we see differences that suggest distinctions in the British and French empires? We've spent a lot of time highlighting Indigenous power in early modern North America, and yet the local Indigenous people - the Mi'kmaq - would seem to be absent from these maps. Or are they?

  Here are the two maps that should be at the centre of your essay:

  Jacques-Nicolas Bellin, Carte de l'Isle Royale, 1744 [After Jacques L'Hermite, 1717] [HI-Res Here]
  
  Samuel Holland, A plan of the Island of Cape Britain [Breton] reduced from the large Survey made according to the Orders and Instructions of the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations (London, 1767). [HI-RES here]
  

  Hint: use the hi-res images at the links I've provided. Each is visible there in much greater detail. Screen-grabbing some details and using them as illustrations in your essay will probably be useful (again, use the hi-res versions for this).

  Additional primary sources:
  
  D. C. Harvey, Holland’s description of Cape Breton Island and other documents (Halifax, Public Archives of Nova Scotia, 1935), . 
  
  Jacques-Nicholas Bellin, Remarques sur la carte de L'Amerique Septentrionale, comprise entre le 28 et le 72 degrees de latitude, avec un description géographique de ces parties (Paris, Didit, 1755), 27-32. [translated]
  
  Pierre Maillard, An Account of the Customs and Manners of the Micmakis and Maricheets Savage Nations (London, S. Hooper and A. Morley, 1758).
  
  Anon. [Thomas Pichon], Genuine letters and memoirs, relating to the natural, civil, and commercial history of the Islands of Cape Breton, and Saint John: from the first settlement there, to the taking of Louisburg by the English, in 1758 (London, J. Norse, 1760), 56-97.
  
  William Bollan, The Importance and Advantage of Cape Breton, truly stated and impartially considered (London, 1746), 62-98.
  
  Earle Lockerby, "Maintaining the Alliance: A French Officer’s Account of the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet, and Kennebec at Louisbourg in 1757", Native Studies Review 18, 2 (2009), pp. 1–25.
  
  Thomas Jefferys, The Natural and Civil History of the French Dominions in North and South America (London, 1760), 119-124 [Cape Breton].

  • As Cartographer to the King (George III), Jefferys was Bellin's equivalent in Britain. While he had no direct role in Holland's work, his work, and his understanding of colonial geography, held great sway in Britain during the Seven Years War. Thus his account serves as a baseline for when Holland started his work.

  
  Secondary sources:
  
  You already bring a good background on the Seven Years War in general, and Louisbourg in particular, that you should bring to bear here. We've also seen the important place of the Wabanaki Confederacy in the northeast. But for some additional material here are two essays, one on the transition from French to British control, and another on critical cartography in northeastern North America. The first essay can help you think about how colonial administrators viewed the transition; the second can offer you an example of mapping and naming in one situation, as well some good critical questions to ask. Neither of these are required; both can very useful.
  
  Barry M. Moody, ˜Delivered from all your distresses: The Fall of Quebec and the Remaking of Nova Scotia", in Phillip A. Buckner and John, G. Reid,, eds, Revisiting 1759: The Conquest of Canada in Historical Perspective (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2012). 
  
  J.B. Harley, "New England Cartography and the Native Americans", in EmersonW. Baker, et al, eds., American Beginnings: Exploration, Culture, and Geography in the Land of Norumbega (Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 286-313.
  
  And this modern map may be helpful.

  Hint: the maps should be the focus of this essay. You should also discuss other things like context, the broader war, and so on, but the point of this exercise is to explore what the maps can tell us.

  2500 words, due July 7th