The Other Side Of The Ledger Essays - Algonquian Peoples

The Other Side Of The Ledger Essays - Algonquian Peoples The Other Side Of The Ledger The other side of the ledger is an Indian view of the Hudsons Bay company. The Hudsons Bay companys 300th anniversary celebration where Queen Elizabeth II among the other guests was present, was no occasion for joy among the people whose lives were tied to the trading stores. During the past 300 years, the history has been written by white men. They have only focused on the generosity of the traders and the benefits brought to the Indians. However, there is a sharp contrasting view from what Indians have to say about their lot in the companys operations. At the time of the history, Hudsons Bay company was expended over 1 million square miles of land which is now known as Canada. The Ruperts Land at that time was occupied by the Indians. They (Indians) believed that the land belonged to all men and hence, the land owned by the individual was unknown. However, they failed to recognize that the white men had felt superiority to impose power over their identities. Hence, they just drifted bit by bit into white mens monopoly and never got out of it. Overall, I think, the film has covered up all the basic arguments of the Indians and has helped to understand the period and the people of that time. It has covered all the basic problems of Indians having with the Hudsons Bay Company. In the following, I have highlighted the main points covered in the film which illustrate the basic problems of Indians and to which I agree. As it is shown in the film, I too think that the introduction of the new weapons (i.e.: guns) was the beginning of the Indians revolution. All the other hunting methods were band. The distribution of weapons in Ruperts land was done by the H.B.C.. Since, company had established treading posts throughout the land and each post was run by the manager, raising up the cost for the weapons was in the hands of the post managers. Hence, they were continuously ripping off the Indians. During the 1869, when decision to sell Ruperts land was made, it was made by the company, not by the Indians. The land was sold to Canada at a very low price. Many treaties were written to compel Indians to give up their rights to their land. However, after the land was sold, Indian people became the responsibility of the govnt and the parliament. When the question of compensation was claimed, the govnt allowed the compensation of $3 a year and was only to those who signed the treaty to give up their right to the land. Such compensation I think, was not to provide financial support to the Indians but was a reminding of who owned the land, money, and most of all, the power. Further, the Indians culture was also being banished. Since Indians were living in the region which was cold and off the land, they were depended on the hunting and fishing. Some of the contemporary historians (loyalists) claim that since Canada was a free country, Indians could have proceeded further in success. Well, they had legal right to go to city just like other Canadian, but in order to do so they had to give up their hundreds years of culture and place. Hence, white mens place (city) seemed frightening, threatening and impersonal to them. Not only this, but since Indians were a minority, according to white men, they must learn to adopt their rules and regulation which were to stay away from the standard life style of the whites. If Indians didnt perform accordingly, they were to suffer the consequences. Thus, Indians stayed where they were. A glance on the economic position of the Indians to see how they were being swindled by the Hudsons Bay Company. Indians were the lower income earning groups in Canada. Their income was lower then $2000 a year. Company store was the only store where Indians could sell their fur. The prices for the fur were set by the company. Company not only set the prices for the fur but, also for the goods for which Indians traded their furs. Hence, they were paying double the price then what was being paid in the outside world. The cheques that Indians received from H.B.C. were only allowed to use in the company store. This lead to the deaths of the Indian people since they didnt have enough money to buy food. Now when

Chemical Definition - Chemistry Glossary

Chemical Definition - Chemistry Glossary There are two definitions of the word chemical as the term is used in chemistry and common usage: Chemical Definition (adjective) As an adjective, the term chemical indicates a relationship to chemistry or to the interaction between substances. Used in a sentence: She studied chemical reactions.They determined the chemical composition of the soil. Chemical  Definition (noun) Everything which has mass is a chemical. Anything consisting of matter is a chemical. Any liquid, solid, gas. A chemical includes any pure substance; any mixture. Because this definition of a chemical is so broad, most people consider a pure substance (element or compound) to be a chemical, particularly if it is prepared in a laboratory. Examples of Chemicals Examples of things which are chemicals or consist of them include  water, pencil, air, carpet, light bulb, copper, bubbles, baking soda, and salt. Of these examples, water, copper, baking soda, and salt are pure substances (elements or chemical compounds. A pencil, air, carpet, a light bulb, and bubbles consist of multiple chemicals. Examples of things which are not chemicals include light, heat, and emotions.