3 ms·

We say that disease wiped out the natives in the US, but as soon as you get into Mexico there are native populations integrated into every part of society in ev

We say that disease wiped out the natives in the US, but as soon as you get into Mexico there are native populations integrated into every part of society in every city across Mexico with their cultures alive and well. I lived in Mexico City for a while and everything from the food to the art/crafts, clothing is heavily influenced by the native cultures.

wahern 5y ago
AFAIU, one of the most important differences is that the English were never particularly interested in assimilation, religious conversion, or even "conquering" native societies as such. The process of colonization was relatively decentralized and diffuse, and the colonizers had very little interest in the native peoples beyond figuring out how to push them ever further west. Alot of Native American culture in the U.S. simply evaporated over time as tribes were forcibly dislocated over and over. By contrast Spanish colonization heavily emphasized integration and assimilation of native societies into the empire. Spanish colonization and Catholicization were two sides of the same coin. This had the effect of directly and indirectly preserving much of the culture, at least of those nations which were assimilated. I'm less familiar with Portuguese colonization, but I'm guessing it proceeded more like English colonization. That's probably why the vast majority of slaves were brought to the Americas by the English/Americans and the Portuguese. This is true in absolute terms (about 3.5 million and 6 million respectively, out of a total of 12 million, AFAIU), but particularly in relative terms--the Spanish brought over only about 1 million slaves despite having massively more territory. (For the relatively tiny amount of land cultivated by slaves, France brought over 1 million.)
- mushbino 5y ago
  You make it sound very passive, as if the native population in the US just up and died. In California, they were paying a bounty for each native scalp collected: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/8/14/567667/- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/8/14/567667/-
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

wahern 5y ago

AFAIU, one of the most important differences is that the English were never particularly interested in assimilation, religious conversion, or even "conquering" native societies as such. The process of colonization was relatively decentralized and diffuse, and the colonizers had very little interest in the native peoples beyond figuring out how to push them ever further west. Alot of Native American culture in the U.S. simply evaporated over time as tribes were forcibly dislocated over and over. By contrast Spanish colonization heavily emphasized integration and assimilation of native societies into the empire. Spanish colonization and Catholicization were two sides of the same coin. This had the effect of directly and indirectly preserving much of the culture, at least of those nations which were assimilated. I'm less familiar with Portuguese colonization, but I'm guessing it proceeded more like English colonization. That's probably why the vast majority of slaves were brought to the Americas by the English/Americans and the Portuguese. This is true in absolute terms (about 3.5 million and 6 million respectively, out of a total of 12 million, AFAIU), but particularly in relative terms--the Spanish brought over only about 1 million slaves despite having massively more territory. (For the relatively tiny amount of land cultivated by slaves, France brought over 1 million.)

mushbino 5y ago
You make it sound very passive, as if the native population in the US just up and died. In California, they were paying a bounty for each native scalp collected: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/8/14/567667/- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/8/14/567667/-
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]