Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More specifically is America the only instance of a major country colonizing a place abroad mostly for resources, and not planning a subjugation of a big population? Yes, they periodically slaughtered Indians, but it seems like other places (e.g. England in India, Spain in the Americas) were more focused on making use of the indigenous population.
Do you mean the westward expansion of the United States? That was not really an example of colonization as much as it was expansion and annexation. If you mean the English colonization along the Atlantic coast, it shouldn't really be seen as the settlement of one area. The development of the 13 colonies happened somewhat organically. England was overcrowded and the opportunity to own land was the draw for colonists who made the trek over. Indentured servitude and African slavery met the demands for cheap labor that supplied England with needed resources, so there was no real need to try to subjugate the native population for labor.
When the Spaniards encountered the Aztec and Incan empires, and when the British colonized India, they found, already in place, large numbers of indigenous people who already had their own respectable civilizations, and thus, were not so easily going to be conquered. Thus you either had to have an outright war against them to take over their territories, or just sort-of ease yourself into their midst and get whatever you could out of the local population.
In North America (north of Mexico, of course) the indigenous people were more sparsely populated, and not as advanced as either the Aztecs or Indians, so to the British it seemed more of a virgin, "uninhabited" territory they could fairly easily "take over" with just a few skirmishes now and then. Australia would be similar to the US and Canada. I think NZ is sort of an in-between case.
Basically, it all has to do with the size and state of advancement of the local indigenous population.
More specifically is America the only instance of a major country colonizing a place abroad mostly for resources, and not planning a subjugation of a big population? Yes, they periodically slaughtered Indians, but it seems like other places (e.g. England in India, Spain in the Americas) were more focused on making use of the indigenous population.
The US only obtained colonies in the early 20th Century and the main justification then was to obtain naval bases that can be used to protect its commercial interest. None of the US's colonies are particularly rich in resources.
Spain above all was interested only in precious metals and the indigenous people just happened to be available to do the mining work. None of the major colonizers in the Americas really focused on making use of the indigenous population. If they need more labor they tend to get them from Africa.
More specifically is America the only instance of a major country colonizing a place abroad mostly for resources, and not planning a subjugation of a big population? Yes, they periodically slaughtered Indians, but it seems like other places (e.g. England in India, Spain in the Americas) were more focused on making use of the indigenous population.
Slavery has existed throughout history of course, involving subjugated people and subjugated lands. Not only America and India, the list would be too extensive to mention here.
Slavery was prevalent, ironically, between Indian tribes before the arrival of Europeans, but Indians didn't make good slaves with the Europeans because they would simply die from disease upon contact with the Europeans. Spain certainly tried as they were more focused on exploiting the mineral worth of the new world. But the advance of the African trade was because Indian would simply die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschrief
Periodically? LMFAO.
Yes periodically.
"Slaughter" would be the incorrect term, it was not prevalent but intentional killing did occur of course as well as open warfare with Indian tribes that resulted in casualties on both sides (with mostly Indians ending up as the loser). However, the vast majority of the Indian population succumbed from disease upon contact with Europeans as they had no immunity to European diseases, it was not intentional although it did achieve the goal of aiding in colonization.
Do you mean the westward expansion of the United States? That was not really an example of colonization as much as it was expansion and annexation. If you mean the English colonization along the Atlantic coast, it shouldn't really be seen as the settlement of one area. The development of the 13 colonies happened somewhat organically. England was overcrowded and the opportunity to own land was the draw for colonists who made the trek over. Indentured servitude and African slavery met the demands for cheap labor that supplied England with needed resources, so there was no real need to try to subjugate the native population for labor.
What you are asking isn't really clear.
I agree. US colonialism involved taking over places like Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the Philippines (the later managed to get out of the situation), and other Pacific and Caribbean island nations. You're right, that they didn't enslave the Native peoples in those places. In fact, one wonders what the point of it all was, after all. Resources? Well...they used Hawaii as a giant plantation. But I think most of the US' colonial strategy was aimed more at geopolitics; maintaining outposts in strategic areas.
Slavery has existed throughout history of course, involving subjugated people and subjugated lands. Not only America and India, the list would be too extensive to mention here.
Slavery was prevalent, ironically, between Indian tribes before the arrival of Europeans, but Indians didn't make good slaves with the Europeans because they would simply die from disease upon contact with the Europeans. Spain certainly tried as they were more focused on exploiting the mineral worth of the new world. But the advance of the African trade was because Indian would simply die.
Yes periodically.
"Slaughter" would be the incorrect term, it was not prevalent but intentional killing did occur of course as well as open warfare with Indian tribes that resulted in casualties on both sides (with mostly Indians ending up as the loser). However, the vast majority of the Indian population succumbed from disease upon contact with Europeans as they had no immunity to European diseases, it was not intentional although it did achieve the goal of aiding in colonization.
How come the Spanish were able to make use of Indian slaves, then? Even in California, let alone places like the Andes and Mexico, they had slaves throughout their territory, as did the later Mexican governors and generals. When the US took over California, it didn't bother to use Native people for free labor. They had a rather "different" Indian policy....
How come the Spanish were able to make use of Indian slaves, then? Even in California, let alone places like the Andes and Mexico, they had slaves throughout their territory, as did the later Mexican governors and generals. When the US took over California, it didn't bother to use Native people for free labor. They had a rather "different" Indian policy....
As I said, the Spanish used Indian slaves at first and as their ranks were decimated from desiese they started importing African slaves. This is during the colonization period, you mention the US but most of this predates US existence as a nation. It's amazing that you guys forget Europeans were on this continent for almost 300 years before the US became independent.
Naturally, some Indian slaves remained through the 19th century and at that point they built up immunity to the European deseases.
As I said, the Spanish used Indian slaves at first and as their ranks were decimated from desiese they started importing African slaves. This is during the colonization period, you mention the US but most of this predates US existence as a nation. It's amazing that you guys forget Europeans were on this continent for almost 300 years before the US became independent.
Naturally, some Indian slaves remained through the 19th century and at that point they built up immunity to the European deseases.
No, I didn't forget other European powers were in the Americas. I misunderstood the OP's topic. Now I wonder what the OP means, by "less involved with": less involved with slavery? Less involved with intermarriage (in contrast to the French, say)? Less involved with trade? They traded, alright.More segregationist?
I wonder how clear the OP, himself, is, on the topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
