a minor history note
9 May 2009 03:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigou(because I didn't realize the comm is members-only, so hell, I'll just post it here.)
To insert: the (rather shorthand) explanation I learned when studying anthropology was that you could generally classify the three major colonization efforts like so:
The Spanish attitude was basically, "take it and get out." They sent troops to strip all resources: slaves, gold, wood, food, etc, with intention of then coming home, leaving behind nothing. At outset, the # of priests was substantially lower compared to the other colonies. The Spanish weren't all that pressed about saving heathen souls; the priests who did go were not really part of the stated policy.
The English attitude was, "take it over." Between urban crowding and penal issues (even before religious issues) and a handful of learned men pushing the Age of Enlightenment (cf Oglethorpe et al), English families were encouraged, even paid(!) to set down roots. Sending resources back to England was an afterthought, and more of a way to demonstrate that even the unfortunate lower class could be contributing citizens, given an opportunity.
The French attitude was, "trade with it." The French, like the Spanish, did not send families, nor formally settle (outside the inevitable port town, that is). They did have a greater % of priests, whose closer-to-official policy was a combination of saving souls and recording information (such as traditions and languages). To the French, the land was already inhabited, and thus they were mimicking the Portuguese and Dutch patterns in the West Indies: set up a base, work with the locals, make a lot of money in trade -- all without hassle of producing it yourself (the English) or supervising constantly those who do (the Spanish).
In a nutshell: the Spanish wanted stuff. The French wanted business. The English wanted homes.
In response to whatever other post it was about French/Indian war, that's the American title because that -- in the eyes of the colonists -- was the other-side. It's a subtle reminder of what the colonists found so startling, even incomprehensible, about that war: the French were allies with the Indians. Outside a few tiny pockets here and there, like the (admittedly mostly French-Dutch) Huguenot settlements in upstate New York, the experience of the vast majority of English colonists was that Indians were more likely to slaughter them, than fight alongside them.
from a comment in this thread: It doesn't matter if a particular colony owned slaves or not: would that colony have survived if the other colonies (that did own slaves) wouldn't have existed?
Yes; the French certainly did. And, for the first hundred years or so of the British colonies, so did the Brits -- the political pressure and financing leaned hard on indenturing for cheap labor, not slavery. Yes, there were slaves, but I seem to recall the % of indentured labor was like 10 to 1 over slaves.
As one movie put it, "England's goal is to make the world British." An indentured servant will, at the end of his/her term, leave that homestead, buy land of his own, and begin a family; a slave will always remain under someone else's roof, thus never increasing the British holdings in any substantial manner. If your goal is to populate the world with your citizens, then you gain little from having an entire sub-class of effective dependents who will never become citizens in their own right. (Even ignoring the fact that by the mid-1700s there was already a growing anti-slavery movement in Britain, which really picked up in the 1780s -- incidentally as the American intake of slaves began to really climb -- and by 1833, the Brits had outlawed the slave trade.)
US independence halted the Brit (political, financial) investments that pushed this mindset, yet the need for cheap labor remained: so indentures dropped off and slavery began to rise.
That said, a glossy view like this is of limited use once you get into the particulars and realize just how messy and complex the history is...
To insert: the (rather shorthand) explanation I learned when studying anthropology was that you could generally classify the three major colonization efforts like so:
The Spanish attitude was basically, "take it and get out." They sent troops to strip all resources: slaves, gold, wood, food, etc, with intention of then coming home, leaving behind nothing. At outset, the # of priests was substantially lower compared to the other colonies. The Spanish weren't all that pressed about saving heathen souls; the priests who did go were not really part of the stated policy.
The English attitude was, "take it over." Between urban crowding and penal issues (even before religious issues) and a handful of learned men pushing the Age of Enlightenment (cf Oglethorpe et al), English families were encouraged, even paid(!) to set down roots. Sending resources back to England was an afterthought, and more of a way to demonstrate that even the unfortunate lower class could be contributing citizens, given an opportunity.
The French attitude was, "trade with it." The French, like the Spanish, did not send families, nor formally settle (outside the inevitable port town, that is). They did have a greater % of priests, whose closer-to-official policy was a combination of saving souls and recording information (such as traditions and languages). To the French, the land was already inhabited, and thus they were mimicking the Portuguese and Dutch patterns in the West Indies: set up a base, work with the locals, make a lot of money in trade -- all without hassle of producing it yourself (the English) or supervising constantly those who do (the Spanish).
In a nutshell: the Spanish wanted stuff. The French wanted business. The English wanted homes.
In response to whatever other post it was about French/Indian war, that's the American title because that -- in the eyes of the colonists -- was the other-side. It's a subtle reminder of what the colonists found so startling, even incomprehensible, about that war: the French were allies with the Indians. Outside a few tiny pockets here and there, like the (admittedly mostly French-Dutch) Huguenot settlements in upstate New York, the experience of the vast majority of English colonists was that Indians were more likely to slaughter them, than fight alongside them.
from a comment in this thread: It doesn't matter if a particular colony owned slaves or not: would that colony have survived if the other colonies (that did own slaves) wouldn't have existed?
Yes; the French certainly did. And, for the first hundred years or so of the British colonies, so did the Brits -- the political pressure and financing leaned hard on indenturing for cheap labor, not slavery. Yes, there were slaves, but I seem to recall the % of indentured labor was like 10 to 1 over slaves.
As one movie put it, "England's goal is to make the world British." An indentured servant will, at the end of his/her term, leave that homestead, buy land of his own, and begin a family; a slave will always remain under someone else's roof, thus never increasing the British holdings in any substantial manner. If your goal is to populate the world with your citizens, then you gain little from having an entire sub-class of effective dependents who will never become citizens in their own right. (Even ignoring the fact that by the mid-1700s there was already a growing anti-slavery movement in Britain, which really picked up in the 1780s -- incidentally as the American intake of slaves began to really climb -- and by 1833, the Brits had outlawed the slave trade.)
US independence halted the Brit (political, financial) investments that pushed this mindset, yet the need for cheap labor remained: so indentures dropped off and slavery began to rise.
That said, a glossy view like this is of limited use once you get into the particulars and realize just how messy and complex the history is...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 9 May 2009 09:49 pm (UTC)