The fur trade allowed for Indigenous people and Europeans to have a mutual relationship that when it was prospering benefitted both parties. I found the fur trade to be a type of middle ground due to the amount of Europeans that would come to the Indigenous people looking to trade goods. The alliances that Indigenous people had with Europeans allowed for the trade to happen for so long of a period. There was an agreement that they did not want settlers in the area because that would disrupt the trade relationships that they had created in the West. Negotiations for goods seemed to break down the once very close relationship the Indigenous people had with the land. Instead, goods were exchanged between Indigenous peoples and the Europeans and supplies were met when needed. Before this trade the Indigenous people did not take as freely from the land but with the increase in demand they had to meet the quota. The middle ground of trade was also met because both parties wanted something from the other. I felt that both Indigenous peoples and Europeans knew that trade came before the relationship. The more successful the trade procured over time allowed for kinship relationships.
When it comes to materials as historical documents I saw them as unbiased pieces that held the raw history of the cultures involved. The shoulder bag that was talked about in the video for Monday is a snapshot of the history at the time due to the materials used on the bag as well as who the bag was created for. The bags bring in pieces from all the areas that the English were located as well as their copying of styles. Beads from Asia were used on the bags but in the style of the Indigenous people. These pieces were meant to show the success of the English around the world. I feel that other pieces of history that are written want to show this same success but tend to be biased with the way that history has occurred whereas the bag is proof without the need for flowery language. Materials that have been preserved are good representations of history that are not injected with the bias of authors.