Impact of Native Americans on the Economy

pertain of infixed Americans on the EconomyAlec H everymanThe most popular narratives taught in our prevalent schools are that Native American economies were strictly hunter-gathering and bartering. While this was part of the truth, whatever Native American economies were utmostly certain prior to atomic number 63an colonization. Gary Nash remarks that thither were striking differences, mingled with the levels of economic development of different tribes1. The Pueblo raft in the southwest had established an almost urban social club, with apartments housing many people built into the cliff faces. Larger apartment complexes wouldnt exist in sum America until 19th century New York City2. In ensnare to sustain so many people in one area, the Pueblo had developed advanced sylvan techniques, similar to those found in Euro-Asian societies3. There in any case were trade net buy the farms greater than those found in Europe at the time, evidence by the wide variety of trade goods uncovered in the Native American City of Cahokia4. Democracy existed in Native American society prior to colonization, and was practiced, to great benefit, by the Iroquois tribe.Native Americans had a large bear upon on colonial economies, both positive and negative. The Europeans traded the Native Americans for skins and furs, which they would ship backwards to Europe for large profits5. The colonists were also reliant on the Natives for agricultural produce until they could become self-sufficient6. When war broke out between the colonists and the natives, it took a heavy toll on the population and economic developing of the colonies. In the end, the conflict turned in favor of the colonists as much immigrants arrived every month, and the Indian population was wasted by European diseases7. The high death tolls, from fighting, disease and starvation, caused a severe shortfall in the outwear force of the colonies. Many of the tribes that were not wiped out were enslaved and us ed as agricultural labor8.The colonial labor force was diverse and multifaceted. It was comprised of a miscellanea of European immigrants and Native Americans. There was labor demand for all ages and skills. In the north there was lumbering, fishing and shipbuilding. In the middle colonies, there was cultivation and trades like shoe-making, pottery and woodworking. In the south there was plantation land9.The labor force was segmented into 3 groups lay off labor, slaves and obligate servants. The drop by the wayside labor is self-explanatory, as free natives and Europeans were part of the labor force. Free sweat wages in the colonies were relatively high compared to Europe due to the probability cost that was afforded the colonists. It required high wages to entice workers to come work for your firm rather than enterprising on starting their own product line or owning their own land10. Slavery was practiced, especially in the south, in order to meet the high demand for agric ultural labor in the plantations. Defeated Native American tribes were enslaved to help meet this demand, as tumesce as Africans from the Caribbean11. The third, and most interesting part of the colonial labor force, was that of the indentured servants12. Indentured servants were colonists that had signed a written agreement prior to their in-migration that bought them passage to the new world. In return for the expenses of the journey, the immigrants would then be contract to work for a certain number of days. The length of the contract was dependent on how much value the person brought to the firm that was employing them. Men in their prime were worth to a greater extent than elders, literate more than the illiterate, and any new(prenominal) skills you had do your contract shorter. Women real had shorter contracts than men due to the greater shortage of female labor in the colonies.13 As wages in Europe began to rise, and the cost of transportation to the new world went down, indentured servants became more pricy to employ, and firms turned more to slavery to fill their labor needs.I value that the evidence points to the occurrence that the colonies were not economically exploited by the British prior to the American Revolution, despite the popular narrative to the contrary. The colonists may actually have been economically benefiting more from British rule than they were losing, and it was the ideology of existence under the thumb of the King, that caused them to revolt.One of the main points against the idea of British victimization of America is the simple fact that the standard of living was higher in the American colonies than it was in England at the time (determined by measurements of the leg mug up of Americans and Europeans)14. The British signed the Acts of Trade and Navigation in the 1660s which required all exports from the colonies to return through England and on British or colonial vessels. These restrictions caused increase shipping and handling costs for American firms, lowered the volume of exports and made imports more expensive15. The British side of the argument was that their subsidies for shipbuilding materials and free access to British ships and crew and their global trade network more than compensated for the extra fees and handling costs.Another argument against British developing is that of the military protection they afforded the colonies. The British fought the French and Indian War, which ended in 1763 in defense of the colonies. Both Thomas and McClilland have done studies that estimated that the valuate perfume of British rule, subtracting the costs of military protection, was close to 3% of income16. The British even reimbursed the colonies for 40% of the cost of the war, which was publicly financed in England. Considering that the tax burden on British citizens was 100% of income, and on the Irish was 26%17, the fact that the colonies paid 3% could hardly be called exploitation.Works Cit ed register.org The Colonial Williamsburg Foundations formalized History and Citizenship Website.Introduction to Colonial African American Life The Colonial Williamsburg authorised History Citizenship Site. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black The Peoples of Early America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1974. Print.King, M. (April 2014). economic science 456. Lecture. Portland, OR1Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black The Peoples of Early America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1974. Pg 112Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black The Peoples of Early America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1974. Pg 113Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black The Peoples of Early America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1974. Pg 124King, M. (April 9, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR5Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black The Peoples of Early America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1974. Pg 426Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black The Peoples of Early America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1974. Pg 767Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black The Peoples of Early America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1974. Pg 758King, M. (April 7, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR9King, M. (April 9, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR10King, M. (April 7, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR11History.org The Colonial Williamsburg Foundations Official History and Citizenship Website.12Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black The Peoples of Early America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall, 1974. Pg 6213King, M. (April 9, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR14King, M. (April 9, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR15King, M. (April 9, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR16King, M. (April 9, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR17King, M. (April 9, 2014). Economics 456. Lecture. Portland, OR