purchasers of English goods
I think that an alternative to the Indian Removal Act would have been Jefferson's first thoughts about civilized Indians, although I myself, feel that the Indians way of life would have been more than fine even with the expansion of the U.S, letting them co exist if the Indians could adapt to agricultural lifestyles would have been better than eradicating them from their home land.
Columbus believed it would be easy to convert American Indians to Christianity because he viewed them as "gentle" and "naive," assuming their lack of exposure to European religions meant they would readily accept his faith. He also thought that their spiritual beliefs were primitive and that they would be eager to adopt a more "civilized" religion. Additionally, Columbus was motivated by a desire to spread Christianity as part of his mission, viewing conversion as a means to secure support for his voyages and endeavors.
The difference ebetween being civilized and uncivilized is manners. A civilized person would grow up in a nice home and be taught to do "appropriate" things and behave "human". As of being uncivilized though is that you would have grown up in a poor family, have no famous or rich person in your family, or have any way of life other than being yourself. These varied as different because civilized people went to the trouble of ignoring uncivilized people while uncivilized people didn't care.
yes very much so
He thought the Indians would turn him over to Montcalm.
The reason Hakluyt thinks the Indians of North America will welcome English colonizers as bearers of liberty is because they would be rescued from Spain's hold. Hakluyt believes that English colonization in America would have enough influence to compete with Spain on labor, goods, and religion. Knowing that the Indians would like to escape Spain's grip gives enough reason to believe they would think as the English colonizers as bearers of liberty.
Yes
Yes
He thought colonies would provide markets for England's goods.
I think that an alternative to the Indian Removal Act would have been Jefferson's first thoughts about civilized Indians, although I myself, feel that the Indians way of life would have been more than fine even with the expansion of the U.S, letting them co exist if the Indians could adapt to agricultural lifestyles would have been better than eradicating them from their home land.
Malthus would argue no. Henry George would argue yes.
Richard Hakluyt argued that colonization would provide opportunities for the poor to find better lives and escape poverty, rather than lose their freedom. He believed that through colonization, individuals could increase their wealth, social status, and improve their overall quality of life. Ultimately, Hakluyt saw colonization as a way for people to achieve greater economic and social freedom, rather than diminish it.
argue is the main verb. Can is an auxiliary verb
You can not make that argument since they are not alive. It would be like trying to argue that a bike is a space ship.
against it
It would depend on your definition of being civilized. At the time, yes, while it was compared to other countries, possibly up until about 1750~1900 AD. I could be wrong.
Some would argue that it is Dwayne Wade still others would argue that is Lebron James. My answer is Dwayne Wade.