Answer:
To begin with, Colonel John Bradstreet starts his statement off by calling the American Indians "savages", the "less useful, and "greatest villains". You can infer that Bradstreet does not like or want a relationship with the American Indians at all. In his statement he emphasizes how the Indians are defenseless, and that they are raising jealousy. I can tell that Bradstreet does not like the encounters with the Indians, nor think they are helpful people. Williams Johnson starts his statement off with saying that the colonist had the wrong idea about the Indians and that they " greatly dispised them" without even knowing their power or knowledge of these lands. He wanted a bond with the Indians that were beneficial; he also believed that the Indians had their own way of living and that they were useful.
The two perceptions are completely different. Bradstreet has a negative perception of the Indians the whole throughout the whole statement. He believes that the Indians are not a ally, but more of an enemy. Johnson on the other hand believes that the colonist hasn't gave the Indians a chance to show them their knowledge. He also believes that the Indians could be allies, and not enemy's.
Explanation:
On Edge 2020.
Settlers and American Indians negotiated a treaty that gave settlers control of the land.
Answer:
Similarity--both the US and France went through periods of adjustment on their way to a permanent government.
Difference--the US was able to create a democratic government and make changes from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution without a complete revolution and extreme violence. France on the other hand established a tyrannical government and then a dictatorship under the rule of Napoleon. It took more time and stages for France to find a democratic balance they were hoping for.
Speeches, petitions and parades. For the second one btw
