We started right off with heated discussion probably because we had our own biases coming into it, especially getting into character of the different viewpoints. It was a lot of back and forth "no you started it" discussion but each claim was for the most part heavily fact based. It was a very realistic clashing of different points of view because some, like the wealthy promoters, would realistically ignore natives wishes and rights.
I thought the fishbowl was a great way of gathering ideas and visualizing each aspect of the same period in history. I think it was extremely fun to argue and have to come to some sort of compromise, whether it was historically accurate or not.
I believe that we the natives really had an edge over the colonists or the promoters when it came to presenting our points and backing it with evidence. I heard many specific dates mentioned and textual evidences stated and in the end it helped us to be the most reasonable and influential argument.
It was very interesting that the promoters clearly just wanted the land and could care less about taking it from the natives. It was also very important that we talked about the struggle that the colonists faced both in England and in the new world. This was very instrumental to the domino effect that included all of the issues that we fought about.