The process of successful negotiation is one that requires fluid communication and mutual understanding between parties. It is one that calls for give and take from all those involved. In the case of the negotiations between indigenous leaders, cross-cultural boundaries of language and negotiating standards hindered the fluidity of treatymaking and created misunderstanding between parties. Generally benefitting Europeans, these failures in communication created treaties and relationships that were perceived differently between the two groups. The skewed perceptions of these relationships built upon established disparities in power and societal constructs across cultures and further disadvantaged Native American tribes during the process of European immigration. Analyzing council transcripts of negotiations between Europeans and indigenous people sheds light on each party\u2019s motives and perceptions of the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The council minutes I analyzed spanned from 1754 \u2013 1814. The transcripts are first-hand accounts of deliberations between leaders and provide views from multiple European parties as well as various indigenous tribes. By examining exchanges between foreigners and Native Americans, we can discern biases in Eurocentric views toward indigenous people and disadvantages suffered by Native Americans throughout the treatymaking process. Unknown to the Native populations, the European process of negotiation was unclear and its basis in personal property and established Eurocentric understandings of the world presented an unapproachable concept for many Native Americans (Calloway, 36). Exemplified in the direct conversations and exchanges between indigenous and European leaders, the relationship between the two parties was an unequal and misconstrued one. The Native American effort aimed to conserve resourceful cultural homelands and protect their tribes from encroaching powers. Conversely, the European and American powers generally viewed alliances with tribes as means of gaining an edge on other imperial powers. During times of conflict between the organized powers of the Anglo-Americans and British, alliances with Native Americans became more valuable to the opposing forces (White, 366). As the American Revolution ran its course, the constant struggles for power between European powers and the incumbent Anglo-American force generated need for alliances with Native American tribes in lands that were highly contested among foreign powers. The demand for interaction and cooperation with Native tribes increased the frequency of negotiations and meetings between Native parties and foreigners seeking aid in their conquest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To analyze the relationships between indigenous leaders, tribespeople, and European officers I looked at the use of familial terms across speakers and councils. Utilizing the Contexts, Links, and Reader tools in Voyant Tools, I looked over the uses of the terms \u201cFather,\u201d \u201cchildren,\u201d \u201cbrothers,\u201d and \u201cbrethren.\u201d Viewing the terms within their various contexts highlights the connotations associated with terms. The terms\u2019 usage within the context of the councils displays attitudes of speakers toward those they are addressing as well as attitudes toward their allies and those that will be affected by negotiations. The most outstanding term was \u201cFather,\u201d and its use across European and Native American cultures. Across the full corpus, the only uses of \u201cFather\u201d were in reference to King of England or the general power of the American movement. The word was mainly used by Native American Chiefs when requesting mercy or favors, but it was also used by European representatives when attempting to establish a place of authority over the indigenous people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n