Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
European Colonization Of The Americas  
User currently offlineLuisde8cd From Pitcairn Islands, joined Aug 2004, 2571 posts, RR: 31
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

Hi guys,

Lets discuss the colonization of the Americas. In a thread in Civil Av I said that one important cause for Latin America "developing" status was that it was colonized by criminals freed from jails in the Iberian Peninsula and there were never families like what the British did in North America. Then a Spanish a.netter backfired saying that the USA was a penal colony for Great Britain... I don't think the USA was a penal colony.

My point is that the base of society is the family, if there's no family, then the society will have serious flaws like corruption, crime, etc. Here in Spanish America, the Conquistadores had sex with every female Native or African slave and then didn't recognize the children because they weren't 100% white. The racial divide sent those children into poverty and were excluded from political power and money income. So that's how poverty started in Spanish America in my opinion. In the USA, I don't think the British mixed themselves with the Natives or the slaves, I'm sure there were cases but it wasn't the majority like here in Spanish America.

Keep the replies coming!

Saludos desde Caracas,
Luis

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3928 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
saying that the USA was a penal colony for Great Britain

It wasnt, but many were more or less forced into exile because of religious laws for instance the pilgrims.

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
British did in North America.

There was also French colonization, Spanish, and in the northwest part of the continent the Russians set up trading posts etc with the Native Americans of the area. I have done quite a bit of research and in North America, the Russians were probably the most ruthless but least known of the colonial powers.
I am still a bit confused on what you are asking or wanting to discuss, please elaborate a bit further.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8961 posts, RR: 40
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3910 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
Lets discuss the colonization of the Americas. In a thread in Civil Av I said that one important cause for Latin America "developing" status was that it was colonized by criminals freed from jails in the Iberian Peninsula and there were never families like what the British did in North America. Then a Spanish a.netter backfired saying that the USA was a penal colony for Great Britain... I don't think the USA was a penal colony.

Australia was a penal colony as well, and they are a lot "younger" than us and doing just fine.

Cheers



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
My point is that the base of society is the family, if there's no family, then the society will have serious flaws like corruption, crime, etc. Here in Spanish America, the Conquistadores had sex with every female Native or African slave and then didn't recognize the children because they weren't 100% white. The racial divide sent those children into poverty and were excluded from political power and money income. So that's how poverty started in Spanish America in my opinion.

The racial divide might have a little bit to do with poverty allright, I doubt it very much it is the main reason for poverty. I also doubt that corruption, crime, etc., errupt because of a lack of family.

I believe the main reason for poverty in South America can be attributed to many years of dictatorial regimes. Dictator-ships and corruption often go hand in hand and it is when a minority of the people (the rich, the landowners, the corporations etc.) push policies which are beneficial for themselves, that poverty generally erupts. There's widespread examples of this, not limitted to South America alone, I'm affraid. A perfect present day example would be North Korea where a major part of the population lives in extreme poverty.


Just my two cents...



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3904 times:

Oh no, not this thread topic.

Bottom line, the British instilled a sense of mercantilism, self-reliance, and market to their colonies. The Spanish instead a sense of self-dependency. That was the major difference along with Britain having more money than Spain to 'build up' their colonies, which was a definitive help to places like the United States, Canada, Australia, etc.

However, many British colonies in Africa and Asia are DIRT poor, far poorer than the average former-Spanish colony, so before anyone brings out any other argument this fact should temper things. And former Spanish colonies like Argentina have proven to be able to become extremely wealthy, and if not that recently at least maintain high levels of development. That applies to Uruguay and Chile as well. Chile recently is showing good economic strength.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

European states that colonized the Americas:

1. Spain (western sections of South and North America; most of Central America; Greater Antilles and Florida peninsula)
2. England (eastern and northern sections of North America; West Indies; contemporary Belize)
3. France (northeastern sections of North America and the Mississippi/Missouri watershed)
4. Portugal (eastern section of South America)
5. Russia (Alaskan peninsula and northwestern coast of North America)
6. The Netherlands (Lesser Antilles and northern coastal areas of South America; southern area of contemporary New York)
7. Sweden (Delaware Bay to contemporary Philadelphia area)

Colonial immigrant populations that did not "hold colonies":
German (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey)
West African (generally slave populations throughout the 12 British colonies that became the U.S.)


Can anyone add more to these?

Interestingly enough, the Swedish presence in northern Delaware lives on through the "Christina River" which was named after a Swedish princess.



Up, up and away!
User currently offlinePdpsol From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3883 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
Here in Spanish America, the Conquistadores had sex with every female Native or African slave and then didn't recognize the children because they weren't 100% white. The racial divide sent those children into poverty and were excluded from political power and money income. So that's how poverty started in Spanish America in my opinion.

Luisde8cd, this quote is, I believe, the main point of your posting.

While not so convinced about your poverty theory, I want to focus on the racial element:

- Spain did not colonize its new world with families. Spanish colonizers relied on reproduction with Indian women and slaves from Africa.
- Societies in Spain's new world colonies were completely stratified by RACE. Only the Europeans from the fatherland enjoyed political or economic power.
- This racial stratification has not changed since the Europeans started arriving in the late 15th century

Today, individuals possessing economic and political power Spain's primary colonies, Alto Peru [Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia] and Mexico are of European descent [otherwise known as "white people"]. White people represent a small minority of these nations' population.

Very similar to South Africa. European minority ruling a native/mixed majority.

Yes, I know Bolivia's president, Morales is an Aymara indian and is an exception, but that only reinforces my point.

The big exceptions to this rule, of course, are Argentina and Uruguay.

These nations were of limited importance to the Empire and have "new" populations which emigrated in vast numbers from Europe to the River Plate.

[Edited 2006-03-18 04:39:50]

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3869 times:

Quoting Redngold (Reply 5):
1. Spain (western sections of South and North America; most of Central America; Greater Antilles and Florida peninsula)
2. England (eastern and northern sections of North America; West Indies; contemporary Belize)
3. France (northeastern sections of North America and the Mississippi/Missouri watershed)
4. Portugal (eastern section of South America)
5. Russia (Alaskan peninsula and northwestern coast of North America)
6. The Netherlands (Lesser Antilles and northern coastal areas of South America; southern area of contemporary New York)
7. Sweden (Delaware Bay to contemporary Philadelphia area)

Don't forget Denmark. They colonized what are now the Danish West Indies, now the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The US bought the islands from Denmark during WWI fearing that the Germans may try to capture them.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3855 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
Lets discuss the colonization of the Americas. In a thread in Civil Av I said that one important cause for Latin America "developing" status was that it was colonized by criminals freed from jails in the Iberian Peninsula and there were never families like what the British did in North America.

I don't think that's much of an excuse. Any "sins of the father" reference is pure fantasy. British prisoners were housed on the continent that is now Australia, but the modern Australian state was directed and goverened by free and patriotic men and women. Convicts, quite frankly - have little to do with what goes on in the world in 2006.

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
I don't think the USA was a penal colony.

It was't. The United States of America never received British convicts - but the British American colonies did. Same for Australia - Australia never received convicts but the British Australian colonies did.

QFF


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3844 times:

There are many complicated details, of course, but, I think the British influence is the single biggest factor explaining the differences between North and South America.

If you combine the history of the British empire with the United States, the record is absolutely incredible. The ships that roamed the world from the UK influenced the world like no one else and more positively than anyone else.

This site is based in Scandinavia somewhere and gets a worldwide audience...and we are speaking English.

Cairo


User currently offlineNorthwest_guy From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 217 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3838 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
I don't think the USA was a penal colony

The U.S never was a penal colony, but I believe that Georgia was originally a penal colony.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 9):
There are many complicated details, of course, but, I think the British influence is the single biggest factor explaining the differences between North and South America.

I agree with you.


User currently offlinePdpsol From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 9):
British influence

Agreed, but what specific characteristics of "British influence" were important for the development of its colonies in North America?

- Institutions based on Common Law
- Colonization with entire British communities, including families
- Little or no interaction or integration with Native Indian communities
- Complete elimination of Native Indian communities
- Homogeneous European population
- No imposition of mercantilist trade model centered on Britain
- Relative political independence [even BEFORE 1776 revolution] from Britain

The colonization of the Americas by Spain, Portugal and France stands in sharp contrast with the British colonization of North America.

- Spain kept tight, centralized control over its colonies
- Spain viewed its colonies as providers of resources to be exploited solely for the benefit of the Crown


User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14012 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3814 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 1):
Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
saying that the USA was a penal colony for Great Britain

It wasnt, but many were more or less forced into exile because of religious laws for instance the pilgrims.

Actually convicts were considered a cheap source of labour (apparently the colonists couldn't manage to get the native population to work for them as slaves). In 17th-18th century Britain many crimes for which today you would get a fine and a warning (e.g. petty theft etc.) were considered hanging offenses. Now in many cases the judge didn't want to sentence e.g. a hungry kid to death for having stolen a loaf of bread, so they used transportation as a slave to a colony as an alternative. Also deptors who could be arrested and sold as slaves for up to seven years (the money gained by selling them was used to pay off the creditors). Many of them ended up in the British colonies in Northern America, just before the war of independence there were probably as many white slaves as black slaves.
Then, affecting the former British colonies in the Caribean, after the Jacobite uprising against the English in Scotland was crushed in 1746 and during the following Highland Clearances, many Scots were sentenced to lifelong slavery for rebellion against the crown.


Concerning the Spanish, compared to the Spanish aristocracy, the British one was always rather Bourgois. Most people from former Spanish colonies (I'm connected through family ties to a former Spanish colony, the Philippines and spent some time as a child living in Spain) don't realise that well into the 20th century the Spanish upper class treated even their own peasants in Spain little better than slaves, one of the reason for the Spanish Civil war and the revolutionary radicalism.
Traditionally, the eldest son of a landowning family (and I'm talking about big areas, about county size), would inherit the land and own the villages within. The second son would e.g. become an officer in the Army (in 1936 the Spanish Army had the highest ratio of Generals worldwide) the third would go into conservative politics and the fourth would become a priest.
The priest would tell the illiterate peasants that to go to heaven they would have to obey their lords and work, the officer would lead detachments of soldiers or Guardia Civil to crush any rebelion (it also helped that traditionally in Spain conscript soldiers were sent to opposite corners of the country to prevent them from being to familar with the local population) and the politician son would make sure that the laws would always prefer the existing ruling class.
In the Philippines the Spanish were even stricter than in South America: Since the Philippines were a late colony, the Spanish tried to avoid the "mistakes" they made in South america, mainly to pavoid the appearance of a local elite which want to demand independence. So they tried a policy of deliberately dumbing down the population of the Philippines. Ethnic Filipinos were not allowed to become priests (leading to the creation of the Aglipayan Church, based on Roman-Catholic rites, but split off from the Catholic church to allow Filipinos to become priests) or to raise to senior posts in the colony's administration. Still, some richer families managed to send their children abroad (like Dr. Rizal), who then became the leaders in the fight for independence.

Jan


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13097 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3794 times:

As noted above, debtors could become 'slaves', that is contracted to work for someone for a set period of time to pay off that debt. This was also known as 'indentured servitude', and one of the issues that led to the Independence movement and creation of the USA.
The colony and later USA state of Georgia was under British rule in part a penal colony. The creation of the USA meant that a new place to send criminals to as penal colony had to be found - that would be Australia. The French operated penal coloines in northeastern South America well into the 20th century.
Don't forget too, that America was a 'colonial' power too. Almost all of American was 'taken' from native, pre-European settlers, including many wars, battles and other horrendous acts under the authority of the USA government. The Spanish-American war of 1898 resulted in our getting as 'spoils of war', Cuba (granted independence in about 1926), Puerto Rico (still a part of the USA) and The Phillipines (granted independence after WWII) from Spain. We would take in the late 19th and early 20th Century, Hawaii and various South Pacific islands (Marianas, Guam, etc.) which are still part of the USA today. We purchased part of the Virgin Islands.
The UK and other Europeans had and still have 'colonies' or terrirories in the Americas today. For the UK, they controlled Jamaica and many other Carribbean islands and still have territories there, including the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and others in the Carribbean, as well as The Faulklands. The Dutch and French still control various Carribbean Islands (and share St. Maartin/Martin). The French still have 2 small islands off the coast of Newfoundland.
There was slight degrees of difference of the parctice of Slavery between the Spanish and other Europeans. In Spanish held Florida for example, some slaves were allowed to have their own animals and crops, have relatively decent housing, intermarrige occured, and families were generally allowed to kept intact, but they were still 'property' and slaves. Slavery established by others in the Americas was usually more brutal. This led to the rise of independence movements including the first real 'African' led independence in Haiti in the early 1800's, Mexico in the very early 1800's (and it would take them until the 1870's to get rid of the French occupiers), the independence movements led by Simon Bolivier (Bolivia is named after him) in South America. In the USA, while our civil war (1861-1865) would end enslavement in our country, ex-slaves and their decendents would end up being subect to a 2nd class citizenship well into the mid-1960's when real civil rights laws were passed.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3785 times:

Quoting Redngold (Reply 5):
European states that colonized the Americas:

1. Spain (western sections of South and North America; most of Central America; Greater Antilles and Florida peninsula)
2. England (eastern and northern sections of North America; West Indies; contemporary Belize)
3. France (northeastern sections of North America and the Mississippi/Missouri watershed)
4. Portugal (eastern section of South America)
5. Russia (Alaskan peninsula and northwestern coast of North America)
6. The Netherlands (Lesser Antilles and northern coastal areas of South America; southern area of contemporary New York)
7. Sweden (Delaware Bay to contemporary Philadelphia area)

Colonial immigrant populations that did not "hold colonies":
German (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey)
West African (generally slave populations throughout the 12 British colonies that became the U.S.)


Can anyone add more to these?

Interestingly enough, the Swedish presence in northern Delaware lives on through the "Christina River" which was named after a Swedish princess.

Netherlands, had a lot of colonies and still have territory in the region, like Sint Marten.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4008 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

Quoting Luisde8cd (Thread starter):
it was colonized by criminals freed from jails in the Iberian Peninsula

I honestly don't know about Spain but to my knowledge Portugal never used criminals to colonize anything (that is not to say some criminals weren't exiled to some places of the Empire but it was never a concerted effort).



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDETA737 From Portugal, joined Oct 2000, 612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3726 times:

I have heard criticism of the Spanish and Portuguese rule of South America and it seems that sometimes some of the citizens of these countries blame being colonised by these powers for their current socioeconomic problems. Often they wish that their countries had been colonised by the English or Dutch instead. However, they often fail to realise they have Guyana and Suriname right in their own backyards as examples of British and Dutch colonisation in tropical climates.

The places such as Canada, the U.S. or Australia that are held up as paradigms of exemplary British colonisation vis a vis Latin America all share common traits. First of all, the indigenous populations were wiped out by disease and reduced to insignificant minorities. These colonies essentially became large pieces of empty real estate that absorbed huge numbers of immigrants who for the most part became self reliant farmers. Secondly, temperate climates precluded labour-intensive plantation agriculture that became the norm throughout much of Latin America. Therefore a different, more middle class economic model developed (the southern US being an exception).

Unlike British North America, the native population in the Spanish colonies was in many areas was more resistant to disease and didn't die off. Like the British colonies, land was partitioned and granted to European settlers, however this in effect left a large landless lower class since there were large numbers of natives present. However, because of this fewer Europeans were attracted to these areas since in British North America or Australia Europeans did for the most part even the most menial jobs, here the natives or African slaves filled that role. For that reason, after 300 years of Spanish rule there were only around 300,000 whites in Mexico at the time of independence. Contrast that with the British who flooded North America with thousands of settlers per year, simply because they were needed.

Another factor was the labour intensive mining going on in Spanish America. Silver and gold mines did not exist in British America. By the time they were found in Australia in the mid-19th century whites were willing to work as miners, since no one else would do the work (contrast this with South Africa where because of the large number of natives and therefore did the manual labour).

Also, the labour intensive agriculture in Latin America was another factor that shaped the future of these countries. By importing large numbers of African slaves into certain regions, the Spanish and Portuguese added another group that would add to the lower classes once emancipation began. This is what happened in Brazil, once slavery ended in 1888 there were all the sudden a huge amount of people with literally nothing. The problem was also much bigger in Brazil and the former Spanish colonies since in many the black to white ratio was much higher, making the white elite tiny even by southern US standards. Just look at some statistics: North America only received 5% of the 8 million African slaves imported to the Americas, contrast this with Brazil which received 45%.

The British, Dutch or the French would have not colonised these regions in a way that would have dramatically altered the socioeconomic model. The Dutch captured the Northeast of Brazil for a while in the 17th century and if they had stayed there would have been an even smaller white minority since the Dutch managed to attract emigrants to their colonies. South Africa is a good model for what would have developed. The British too would have not sent large numbers of whites to Cuba, Guatemala or Venezuela. Again the model here is Jamaica, Barbados, Belize, Guyana or any of their other former colonies. A small white minority with power and privelege and a large indigenous and or African population with few rights and with just as little wealth.

I think the only major difference would have been that the British would have probably given self rule to the white minorities in this region (as in Rhodesia). Also racial discrimination would be institutionalised, whereas under Iberian influence it was present but not as explicit. Common law and Westminster style government would be a fact, but probably only benefitting a minority. If anything this region would have become a powder keg waiting to erupt in the second half of the 20th century.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15):
I honestly don't know about Spain but to my knowledge Portugal never used criminals to colonize anything (that is not to say some criminals weren't exiled to some places of the Empire but it was never a concerted effort).

Actually Angola was a penal colony until the early 20th century. Penal colonies were quite common for the European powers. Florida while it was under British rule (1763 to 1783) was also used as a penal colony. Louisiana under the French. Even New France (Quebec) received penal colonists. This was quite a common practice as in the early years the new world was seen as a dangerous and uncivilised. The penal colonies were generally areas where it was thought no one would ever want to settle willingly. This was what the British thought of Australia early on due to its remoteness.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3718 times:

Quoting DETA737 (Reply 16):
I think the only major difference would have been that the British would have probably given self rule to the white minorities in this region (as in Rhodesia). Also racial discrimination would be institutionalised, whereas under Iberian influence it was present but not as explicit. Common law and Westminster style government would be a fact, but probably only benefitting a minority. If anything this region would have become a powder keg waiting to erupt in the second half of the 20th century.

You have to be careful not to view this kind of thing with 21st century eyes. Although there are many negative things about British policy that can be highlighted, by the standards of the day, the British were relatively enlightened. To take one small example, there was a Royal Navy post-captain on the West Indies station who not only had never even been to Britain, but was black, certainly the son of a slave, and probably an escaped slave himself. Nor was he alone. The RN of the day wasn't a meritocracy, but it was nearer to it than most careers, and such an occurrence is unthinkable in virtually any other nation of the time.

As for the abolition of the slave trade, that was arguably the first occasion in modern history that a nation deliberately acted against its economic interests on moral grounds. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the British imposed their opposition of the slave trade on an extremely unwilling rest of Europe, and actively policed it. Less than 20 years later, they abolished slavery completely. Most importantly, the British imposed their moral rectitude on the rest of the world.

No, the British record is far from perfect, and later events in India and elsewhere were reprehensible. But in some areas of equality they were true pioneers, and should be recognised as such.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3698 times:

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 14):
Netherlands, had a lot of colonies and still have territory in the region, like Sint Marten.

See #6 on the list.  Wink

Quoting BA (Reply 7):
Don't forget Denmark.

Thanks for adding that.



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3672 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 13):
This was also known as 'indentured servitude', and one of the issues that led to the Independence movement and creation of the USA.

This is another trait that the USA shares with Australia. Some of the earliest republicans in the 1800s formed the Anti-Transportation League, a precurser to both the creation of the Australian Federation, and later the various Australian Republican organisations. They were a potent force and were vehemently opposed to the continued practice of transportation. They are often credited in-part with stopping transportation in the colony of New South Wales.

QFF


User currently offlinePdpsol From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3622 times:

Quoting DETA737 (Reply 16):
Unlike British North America, the native population in the Spanish colonies was in many areas was more resistant to disease and didn't die off.

No.

The Native Indians found in the colonies controlled by Spain were just as vulnerable to smallpox and other European diseases as the Native Indians found in the North American colonies run by Britain.

The main reason explaining how only 300 thousand Europeans come to rule all of Mexico by the end of Spanish rule in the 19th century [and similar small numbers of Europeans ruled Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Caribbean colonies, etc.] is only alluded to in your post.

It wasn't just disease that eliminated the Native Indian population in North America. They were pushed out and wiped out by the British.

The British had no use for the Native Indians in North America. They were, largely, nomadic, their labor could not be used; they had no cities, no mineral wealth that could be exploited; no Indian empire and political system that Britain could simply replace with its own leaders.

This was, obviously, not the case with the Native Indian populations found in the new world colonies run by Spain. Spain simply replaced every Indian social and political institution with a European version, run by a small European bureaucracy, controlled by the Crown in Madrid.

However, the Indians remained [the ones not killed-off by disease], they simply replaced their allegiance from an Indian king to a king in Spain and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Of course, African slaves were also brought in to work.

These colonial societies were completely stratified by race.

The descendants of those Indians form the vast majority of the populations in most ex-colonies of Spain [the exception, of course, being Argentina and Uruguay].

These Indians now realize how really happened five centuries ago.

The British colonies in North America experienced a completely different version of colonization.

However, I completely AGREE with you that, had the British colonized what we now know as "Latin America", the outcome would be, essentially, the SAME.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3607 times:

Quoting Pdpsol (Reply 20):
It wasn't just disease that eliminated the Native Indian population in North America. They were pushed out and wiped out by the British.

Not remotely true. The British settlers largely traded with the native population. There were undoubtedly incidents, but the British colonies were trading settlements, not symobls of conquest. It was the Americans who pushed west and "wiped out" the tribes as you put it.

Britain's history contains many items of culpability. Don't try and push your own history onto us.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlinePdpsol From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3594 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 21):
It was the Americans who pushed west and "wiped out" the tribes as you put it.

Of course, the expansion of the US from its original 13 states to the "lower-48" by the 19th century was riddled with wipe-out after wipe-out of Native Indian communities.

However, do you really believe the original 13 colonies [VT-to-GA] lived in peaceful, symbiotic "trading" relationships with East Coast Native Indians until the US declared independence from Britain in 1776?

Of course not.

All the lands from East Coast tribes, from the Montauk in L.I., the Pequot in CT, Mohegans, etc. etc. were taken away by the British settlers and their descendants well before the US was even an idea in the minds of our Founding Fathers.

My original point is, whether British settler or "American" patriot, the colonization of North America by Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries bore little resemblance to the experience of the western hemisphere colonies ruled by Spain.

Spain simply replaced existing Native Indian social, religious and political institutions with its own European version and sent over a small number of European MEN [not families] to mind the shop and run the bureaucracy. The Native Indian population worked for [and continues to work for] the benefit of a small European minority.

Britain did no such thing. It replicated its British society in its new world colonies with entire British families. Other than the "trading" you mention [which, frankly, entailed buying large tracts of land for trinkets from Native Indian communities] there was little-to-no interaction, let alone INTEGRATION of Native Indian communities with the British colonies.


User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3568 times:

Regarding the question of the early British colonies in North America and the existence of convicts there, this makes interesting reading:

http://dinsdoc.com/butler-1.htm

QFF


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3541 times:

Quoting Pdpsol (Reply 22):
However, do you really believe the original 13 colonies [VT-to-GA] lived in peaceful, symbiotic "trading" relationships with East Coast Native Indians until the US declared independence from Britain in 1776?

It depends. By the standards of the time, pretty much, yes. There was no organised removal of the tribes in the way that you imply. The two groups actually got on relatively well, and by the standards of the time extraordinarily well.

Quoting Pdpsol (Reply 22):
there was little-to-no interaction, let alone INTEGRATION of Native Indian communities with the British colonies.

Given that "integration" in the Spanish sense generally meant militarily crushing them and wiping out huge numbers of people in deliberate and vicious campaign, why on earth would you advocate it? The British attitude towards colonisation at that point was largely to ignore the indigenous peoples except in terms of trade. If you're talking about 21st century attitudes, then yes, some land confiscation went on, but if you're talking about 16th and 17th century attitudes, then it's a very different matter.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
25 Pdpsol : What makes you think I would advocate Spain's model of colonization of its new world colonies? I have described the differences between the experienc
26 Post contains images JGPH1A : Yes it was. Until the American Revolution that is, the sentence of "Transportation for Life" to Virginia or the Carolinas was the norm for just about
27 VC10 : If we are talking about "indentured Labour " to America then they were not all criminals or debtors, as many people wanted to emigrate from Britain bu
28 Banco : Apologies, I misread you. No, that's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that whilst British actions did lead to some of what you say, it wasn't a
29 Flyingbabydoc : Eastern when defined by the Tordesilla's treaty from 1494. Afterwards it was actually most of South America. Actually France invaded Rio de Janeiro a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
This Will Be The European Car Of The Year! posted Thu Nov 18 2004 14:44:32 by UTA_flyingHIGH
Center Of The Americas In Miami posted Mon Aug 4 2003 03:58:14 by Flymia
English Of The European Union posted Sat Jun 25 2005 03:47:21 by KiwiNanday
Hilarious Game: Attack Of The Sprouts! posted Sun Nov 26 2006 10:31:03 by Dazbo5
Friday's Stupid Thread - On What Side Of The Bed.. posted Fri Nov 24 2006 08:20:36 by UTA_flyinghigh
What Branch Of The Military Are You? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 23:09:19 by Gkirk
New 7 Wonders Of The World - Vote NOW! posted Wed Nov 22 2006 09:23:08 by L410Turbolet
New Member Of The Family posted Sat Nov 18 2006 23:23:55 by 777DadandJr
Enron's Skilling Coming To My Neck Of The Woods posted Fri Nov 17 2006 22:06:54 by KaiGywer
One Of The Best Soccer Players Ever R.I.P posted Fri Nov 17 2006 19:01:56 by RootsAir