Compare and contrast hunting- versus agricultural-based tribes. How did each respond to European incursions on their lands? Using specific details, which group was better suited to sustain this significant change?

Hunting tribes usually move from one place to another unlike the agricultural-based tribes that have established farms.

It should be noted that hunting tribes are typically nomadic which implies that they move from one place to another. The migration pattern of the animals is usually followed.

On the other hand, agricultural-based tribes have established farms. They have lands where they grow different crops. It should be noted that during the European invasion, several lands were taken. They were more affected than the hunting tribes.

Read related link on:

link

Hunting tribes are usually nomadic or semi-nomadic. This means that they do not stay in the same place most of the time. Instead, most hunting tribes follow the animals they hunt. This process is usually carried out by following the animals' migration patterns. On the other hand, agricultural-based tribes usually have established farms, which means they do not move as often, or even at all.

These two types of people reacted differently to the arrival of Europeans. Nomadic tribes were affected in two main ways. First, they often saw their hunting grounds reduced. Second, animals reduced in number due to the excessive hunting of Europeans. Agricultural communities, on the other hand, suffered as they saw their lands taken by Europeans. Moreover, many of these people were forced to engage in other activities, which meant they could no longer focus on their farm. Ultimately, hunting tribes were better suited to sustain such an invasion as their diet was more varied and they could move to different territories.

can you explain it better