So says this video...

Seems like the YouTube title of the video wants to lead me to a conclusion far beyond the substance of the video.

One thing I found interesting about the video comes at the very end where it attempts to explain how the North American colonialism (British, French, etc.) differed from Iberian colonialism (Spanish/Portuguese) and how it lead to whether the populations mixing or not. Iberian colonialism sought to subjugate the existing populations whereas the North American colonist only wanted the land and existing populations were forced off. Thus after a few centuries of colonization, the Spanish and Portuguese colonies were 3/4 mixed, but not even close to the same in North America. One thing I wish it would go further in is WHY that was the case.

pmart said:

---

Seems like the YouTube title of the video wants to lead me to a conclusion far beyond the substance of the video.

One thing I found interesting about the video comes at the very end where it attempts to explain how the North American colonialism (British, French, etc.) differed from Iberian colonialism (Spanish/Portuguese) and how it lead to whether the populations mixing or not. Iberian colonialism sought to subjugate the existing populations whereas the North American colonist only wanted the land and existing populations were forced off. Thus after a few centuries of colonization, the Spanish and Portuguese colonies were 3/4 mixed, but not even close to the same in North America. One thing I wish it would go further in is WHY that was the case.

---

I'm not a prof historian but my understanding is that the Spanish and Portugese got first crack at the newly found lands and tended to choose areas where they could get rich from gold and silver - as part of that, and because in early times the Roman Catholic Church was stronger with more willingness to enslave and force natives than the churches in later North American times, there was less just outright taking of women to be concubines in the later settlements...moreover, by then it was generally believed that blacks made better slaves.
The North Americans did occasionally take AmInd wives, and squaws out in the wildlands...particularly in the South it is common for "whites" with several generations of Ameican heritage to claim at least some small amount of AmInd blood.

I don't know much about the Spanish and Portuguese settlement of the New World, but it's my impression that those countries gave huge tracts of land to individuals who then tried to rule that land like feudal lords. They didn't move the Native Americans off the land because they didn't care. Serfs are serfs. In other words, they were happy to have Native American serfs, so they didn't remove them from their lands.

In the British colonies, by contrast, land was sold or given to in small chunks to individuals who wanted to use the land themselves. And when the British did give a big chunk to an individual (Pennsylvania and William Penn come to mind), those individuals ended up selling off the land fairly quickly. Those individual landowners, who were going to farm the land themselves, obviously didn't want anyone else on their land.

What's also interesting is the difference in patterns of settlement. The United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, is probably the only example in world history of individuals and their families moving west to settle on their own. The Spanish, by contrast, would move an entire village at once. One of the reasons may have been religious. The Spanish didn't want to go anywhere without a priest being present, and a priest couldn't or wouldn't go unless there was a critical mass of people going. The Protestant (if that) English settlers didn't give a crap about a priest or any other religious figure.

Finally, the British were a really weird set of contrasts back in colonial days. In some ways, they were the most benevolent of the colonial powers, setting up school systems, local government, etc. However, they were also the most racist of the colonial overlords. Their racism may have been simply an extension of their strict class system. But it's interesting to note that any citizen of any French colony was and is a citizen of France itself. I don't believe that was true of the British colonies, but am not entirely sure.

pmart said:

---

Seems like the YouTube title of the video wants to lead me to a conclusion far beyond the substance of the video.

One thing I found interesting about the video comes at the very end where it attempts to explain how the North American colonialism (British, French, etc.) differed from Iberian colonialism (Spanish/Portuguese) and how it lead to whether the populations mixing or not. Iberian colonialism sought to subjugate the existing populations whereas the North American colonist only wanted the land and existing populations were forced off. Thus after a few centuries of colonization, the Spanish and Portuguese colonies were 3/4 mixed, but not even close to the same in North America. One thing I wish it would go further in is WHY that was the case.

---

Part of it was the population that colonized the region. English colonists, particularly in New England, came over as families, compared to heavily male dominated settlement in Iberian and French colonies. That doesn't quite explain everything, however, as Virginia and the South in general were male dominated for the first century or so of colonization and while they did, as a result, have higher rates of intermarriage, it was nothing equivalent to Spanish or French colonies. Culture had a bigger part to play. Particularly religion.

The mainland Catholic colonies were more amenable to allowing the natives some preservation of their traditions, culture, and society as they long as they converted to Catholicism. Especially French Canada and the Jesuit missionaries. English and Dutch colonies demanded not just conversion to their version of Protestantism, but complete acceptance of English culture and norms to demonstrate that their conversion was true and secure. "Praying Indians" in New England were expected to live in Puritan communities. Those who returned for any length of time to their families and home communities were viewed as suspect. There's more I could go into about constructions of race and notions of purity that emerged in this time. Even Praying Indians who abided by Puritan requirements were shipped off to Deer Island during King Philip's War, where they starved to death. But this is a quick overview.

I should also note that these trends don't work for the Caribbean islands. Once sugar emerges as a cash crop, it doesn't matter who owns the island, anyone who is not from the metropole is going to be either killed or enslaved.

I expect that the large civs like Aztecs and Incas had much larger cities and farms than found in the north of America and this also led to more use of that available labor (including making babies type labor) by the largely male conquistadores.
Also, because the conquistadors were so heavily outnumbered, they early on formed alliances with tribes that disliked the Aztecs/Incas etc. They had native armies help in conquering those native empires...as mentioned in the video above, people thought more in terms of smaller groups like tribes or family than race.

I always wonder how much influence Islam had on the Spain and Portuguese Catholic Church/Monarchy as it relates to the Americas. As pointed out it seems that their policies related to native tribes in regions conquered were much different than Britain and France.

I heard on the "History of Old Texas" podcast that the Spanish crown had a policy where only non-converted natives could be held in slavery. Seems somewhat in line with Islamic/Arab conquest policies.

Can anyone expand on that?

That was a very old Christian attitude towards slavery. The argument was that after the slave converted, they weren't to be held as slaves any longer. That was argued and legally changed in Virginia when they first codified slavery as a de jure rather than de facto state.

Sapper Redux said:

---

That was a very old Christian attitude towards slavery. The argument was that after the slave converted, they weren't to be held as slaves any longer. That was argued and legally changed in Virginia when they first codified slavery as a de jure rather than de facto state.

---

I hear you…but was it the policy of the English and French monarchies? This Virginia case you mentioned seems to be a one off instance. Not necessarily a formal policy endorsed by a State like Islamic influenced Spain

BillYeoman said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

That was a very old Christian attitude towards slavery. The argument was that after the slave converted, they weren't to be held as slaves any longer. That was argued and legally changed in Virginia when they first codified slavery as a de jure rather than de facto state.

---

I hear you…but was it the policy of the English and French monarchies? This Virginia case you mentioned seems to be a one off instance. Not necessarily a formal policy endorsed by a State like Islamic influenced Spain

---

It's not a one-off. It became the legal position of every English colony that slaves who converted to Christianity maintained their status as slaves and the status of their children as slaves.

Didn't the British have a policy for a long time, though, that every person was free on British soil? They extended the concept of British soil to include ships but did not extend it to their colonies.

The result was that any time a slave stepped on a British ship or on British soil, they were immediately emancipated. Again, though, that did not extend to the US colonies nor to the plantations in the Caribbean.

Jabin said:

---

Didn't the British have a policy for a long time, though, that every person was free on British soil? They extended the concept of British soil to include ships but did not extend it to their colonies.

The result was that any time a slave stepped on a British ship or on British soil, they were immediately emancipated. Again, though, that did not extend to the US colonies nor to the plantations in the Caribbean.

---

It wasn't a long standing policy, but one that emerged in the 18th century. There was the Cartwright case in Elizabeth I's reign, but the actual impact of it was negligible in Common Law and even the intent of the judgement is very contested. The tradition was still to free slaves who converted to Christianity, so slaves brought to Britain were legally changed to Indentured Servants, it just so happened that their indentures had no end. This legal fiction came to an end in the early nineteenth century.