What is the author's opinion about the parliaments?

What are the consequences of dealing with a conflict in a peaceful and in a violent way? Which of these alternatives do you think really solves the problems? Why?

That the parlamentos wasn’t necesary and the parlamentos work not that bad but not good

The opinion of the author was that even if the mapuches and Spaniards fought, they still interacted with each other

2:the opinion of the author is that the parliaments doesn’t work very well

2. The author Villalobos.S his opinión was the way they interacted.

The Autor opinion was that the parliament didn’t contribute so much Because some caciques oppose the Spaniards parliaments but some others no

And in any case that way they interacted[…]

2: the autor 's opinion is that, is that the parliament dont las because the casiques destroid them

The function was to solve problems between indigenous and spaniards.

Question 2.

The author’s opnion was that the agreements in the parlaments didn’t last forever.

2: The opinion of the author of the parlamients is that the agreements did not last

2 the author wanted to say that the parliaments were not useful because most of the indigenas broke them

2. The author's opinion was that the parliaments didn’t last very long.

   
   

2): The author’s opinion of the parliaments was, that some people respect the parliament but others didn’t want to be in peace.

2.the author opinion that even the caciques broke the agreements

2. The opinion of the autor is the parliaments dosen’t work

Yes Tanis fuction and benefíciate to spanirds to hace more lands

2. The author’s opinion about the parliaments was that some caciques respected them, but others broke them after a while.

2) The author’s opinion about the parliaments is that the parliaments don’t last because some caciques broke the parliaments.

2- the author’s opinion was that some caciques respect the parliaments

We talked with the miss and we did both ideas.

We could fight but with word instead of fighting hitting each other

So me dear that we will never fight again because we was 2 years old and we need to play so why fight

The problem with dealing with a conflict is that you can hurt the other person and if you fall crazy and punch your friend a really big problem

2.Villalobos the autor the opinion is that the parliament is interact.

A peaceful fighting it was more presentages to stop it

But a violent fighting is more percentages of bulling

They can solve it by by charging the original amount

If they try to solve it fighting it will get worse but if they try it in a Peaceful way it can get solved in a good way 😇

I think that we can solve it in a peaceful way because if we fight it are going to get worse.

That I fought with seba playing football and then I apologized to seba and now we are friend again⚽️ 🇨🇱

Question 4

Dealing in a violent way its bad because you can lose friendships and dealing in a peaceful way its good because violence is bad.

4): The consequences of a peaceful conflict are that we don’t hit each other. But the consequences in a violent conflict we kick each other, we push each other and we hit each other.

4-The consequence that they got fighting with the other person is that they don’t will have a good friendship and if they talk and solve the thing is better than fighting and I thing that the wave to solve it is talking because if you fight with a person you don’t have a good friendship

4) The consequences of a peacefull conflict are that we don’t hit each other, but the consequences in a violent conflict are that we push each other.