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.
Answer: Internal dissension or external pressure
To not be owned by England anymore
They are valuable for the appointive procedure. The two gatherings fill in as a quite decent method for getting similarly invested individuals together. In the event that they were not there, it would be substantially harder to distinguish great competitors, motivate them to keep running for office, bolster them.
They fill in as a contradicting element to the intrigue gatherings. In the event that it were not for parties, the intrigue gatherings would be unopposed. The gatherings attempt to pull individuals together in expansive coalitions. The intrigue bunches attempt to pull them separated on single issues.
