the answer is not part I think
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.
The two acts that did not include a new tax were the Quartering Act and the Coercive act. The Quartering Act was the act that was passed by the British parliament and was for the colonies to abide by it. This act forced the people of the colonies to provide housing and shelter to the British army’s whenever required. The Coercive act on the other hand was a series of acts passed by the British parliament in response to the Boston tea Party.
Answer:
bilateral
Explanation: if more than 2 its called multilateral
