Question

please answers the following five questions.

History

Hist-7A August 25, 2019 Answer the following five chapter questions in listed in the Module: Compare the cultures that could be found in the "New World" prior to the Europeans region? 1. Why were some groups more advanced than others throughout the same Describe the effect of European exploration and colonization on African and Native American cultures. How did each group react to confrontations of societies? Describe the social, economic, and political changes, which occurred in Europe and led to exploration and colonization of the "New World. 3 England later than the rest of Europe in colonizing the "new world? 4 Why was In what ways did the English colonization of North America differ from Spanish 5. colonization of Mexico and South America?

Answer 1

Question No.1

Compare the culture that could be found in the'New World' prior to the Europeans.

The Europeans often paid Indians to work for them. Both groups found this relationship to be successful. On several occasions, different groups of fishermen tried to establish a permanent settlement on the coast. The severe winters, however, made it impossible, so the camps were only temporary.

The first permanent European settlers in New England began arriving in sixteen twenty. They wanted to live in peace with the Indians. They needed to trade with them for food. The settlers also knew that because they were so few in number, a battle with the Indians would result in their own quick defeat.

Yet problems began almost immediately.

Perhaps the most serious was the difference in the way that the Indians and the Europeans thought about land. This difference created problems that would not be solved during the next several hundred years.

Owning land was extremely important to the European settlers. In England, and most other countries, land meant wealth. Owning large amounts of land meant that a person had great wealth and political power.

Many of the settlers who came to North America could never have owned land back home in Europe. They were too poor. And they belonged to religious minorities.

When they arrived in the new world, they discovered that no one seemed to own the huge amounts of land.

Companies in England needed to find people willing to settle in North America. So they offered land to anyone who would take the chance of crossing the Atlantic. For many, it was a dream come true. It was a way to improve their lives. The land gave the European settlers a chance to become wealthy and powerful.

On the other hand, the Indians believed that no one could own land. They believed, however, that anyone could use it. Anyone who wanted to live on a piece of land and grow crops could do so.

The American Indians lived with nature. They understood the land and the environment. They did not try to change it. They might grow crops in an area for a few years. Then they would move on. They would allow the land on which they had farmed to become wild again.

They might hunt on one area of land for some time, but again they would move on. They hunted only what they could eat, so populations of animals could continue to increase. The Indians understood nature and were at peace with it.

The first Europeans to settle in the New England area of the Northeast wanted land. The Indians did not fear them. There were not many settlers and there was enough land for everyone to use and plant crops. It was easy to live together. The Indians helped the settlers by teaching them how to plant crops and survive on the land.

But the Indians did not understand that the settlers were going to keep the land. This idea was foreign to the Indians. To them, it was like trying to own the air, or the clouds.

As the years passed, more and more settlers arrived, and took more and more land. They cut down trees. They built fences to keep people and animals out. They demanded that the Indians stay off their land.

Another problem between the settlers and the Indians involved religion. The settlers in New England thought Christianity was the one true faith, and that all people should believe in it. They soon learned that the Indians were satisfied with their own spiritual beliefs and were not interested in changing them.

As a result, many settlers came to believe that the Native Americans could not be trusted because they were not Christians. They began to fear the Indians and think of them as evil.

The European settlers failed to understand that the Indians were an extremely spiritual people with a strong belief in unseen powers. The Indians lived very close to nature. They believed that all things in the universe depend on each other. All native tribes had ceremonies that honored a creator of nature. They recognized the creator's work in their everyday lives.

Other events also led to serious problems between the Native Americans and the newcomers. One problem was disease. For example, some of the settlers carried the bacteria that caused smallpox, although they themselves did not get sick. Smallpox had caused deadly epidemics in Europe, but it was unknown to the Indians. Their immune systems had developed no protection against the disease. It killed whole tribes. And smallpox was only one disease brought from Europe. There were others that also infected the Indians.

The first meetings between settlers and Native Americans would follow the same course in almost every European settlement along the East Coast. The two groups would meet as friends. They would begin by trading for food and other goods.

In time, however, something would happen to cause a crisis. Perhaps a settler would demand that an Indian stay off the settler's land. Perhaps someone was killed. Fear would replace friendship.

One side or the other would react to what they believed was an attack. A good example of this was the conflict known as King Philip's War.

Metacom, also known as Metacomet, was a leader of the Wampanoag tribe. He was the son of Chief Massasoit. Without the help of Massasoit and his tribe, the first European settlers in the northernmost colonies might not have survived their first winter. The Wampanoag Indians provided them with food. They taught the settlers how to plant corn and other crops. The two groups were very friendly for several years. Massasoit and his court attended the first harvest feast, which became known as Thanksgiving.

As the years passed, however, fear and mistrust replaced friendliness. Metacom 's brother died of a European disease. Metacom, who was known to the English as King Philip, blamed the colonists. He also saw how the increasing numbers of settlers were changing the land. He believed they were destroying it.

One small crisis after another finally led to the killing of a Christian Indian who lived with the settlers. The settlers retaliated by killing three Indians. King Phillip’s War quickly followed. It began in sixteen seventy-five and continued for almost two years. Men, women and children on both sides were killed. Historians say as many as three thousand Native Americans died in the violence. More than six hundred settlers are believed to have been killed.

Historians say the tribe of Indians called the Narraganset were innocent victims of King Philip's War. The Narraganset were not involved in the war. They did not support one group or the other. However, the settlers had come to fear all Indians and killed almost all the members of the Narraganset tribe.
This fear and the failure to compromise were not unusual. They would strongly influence relations between the European settlers and the American Indians in all areas of the new country.
These clashes of cultures would continue as more and more Europeans arrived. The Puritans from England landed in Massachusetts. The Dutch settled what would become New York State. And the Quakers, unwelcome in England, settled in Pennsylvania.

Question No. 2

Effect on African and American culture:

The European imperialist designs and pressures of the late nineteenth century provoked African political and diplomatic responses and eventually military resistance. During and after the Berlin Conference various European countries sent out agents to sign so-called treaties of protection with the leaders of African societies, states, kingdoms, decentralized societies, and empires. The differential interpretation of these treaties by the contending forces often led to conflict between both parties and eventually to military encounters. For Europeans, these treaties meant that Africans had signed away their sovereignties to European powers; but for Africans, the treaties were merely diplomatic and commercial friendship treaties. After discovering that they had in effect been defrauded and that the European powers now wanted to impose and exercise political authority in their lands, African rulers organized militarily to resist the seizure of their lands and the imposition of colonial domination.

This situation was compounded by commercial conflicts between Europeans and Africans. During the early phase of the rise of primary commodity commerce (erroneously referred to in the literature as "Legitimate Trade or Commerce"), Europeans got their supplies of trade goods like palm oil, cotton, palm kernel, rubber, and groundnut from African intermediaries, but as the scramble intensified, they wanted to bypass the African intermediaries and trade directly with sources of the trade goods. Naturally Africans resisted and insisted on the maintenance of a system of commercial interaction with foreigners which expressed their sovereignties as autonomous political and economic entities and actors. For their part, the European merchants and trading companies called on their home governments to intervene and impose "free trade," by force if necessary. It was these political, diplomatic, and commercial factors and contentions that led to the military conflicts and organized African resistance to European imperialism.

African military resistance took two main forms: guerrilla warfare and direct military engagement. While these were used as needed by African forces, the dominant type used depended on the political, social, and military organizations of the societies concerned. In general, small-scale societies, the decentralized societies (erroneously known as "stateless" societies), used guerrilla warfare because of their size and the absence of standing or professional armies. Instead of professional soldiers, small groups of organized fighters with a mastery of the terrain mounted resistance by using the classical guerrilla tactic of hit-and-run raids against stationary enemy forces. This was the approach used by the Igbo of southeastern Nigeria against the British. Even though the British imperialists swept through Igboland in three years, between 1900 and 1902, and despite the small scale of the societies, the Igbo put up protracted resistance. The resistance was diffuse and piecemeal, and therefore it was difficult to conquer them completely and declare absolute victory. Long after the British formally colonized Igboland, they had not fully mastered the territory.

Direct military engagement was most commonly organized by the centralized state systems, such as chiefdoms, city-states, kingdoms, and empires, which often had standing or professional armies and could therefore tackle the European forces with massed troops. This was the case with the resistance actions of the Ethiopians, the Zulu, the Mandinka leadership, and numerous other centralized states. In the case of Ethiopia, the imperialist intruder was Italy. It confronted a determined and sagacious military leader in the Ethiopian emperor Menelik II. As Italy intensified pressure in the 1890s to impose its rule over Ethiopia, the Ethiopians organized to resist. In the famous battle of Adwa in 1896, one hundred thousand Ethiopian troops confronted the Italians and inflicted a decisive defeat. Thereafter, Ethiopia was able to maintain its independence for much of the colonial period, except for a brief interlude of Italian oversight between 1936 and 1941.

Another example of resistance was the one organized by Samory Touré of the emergent Mandinka empire in West Africa. As this new empire spread and Touré attempted to forge a new political order he ran up against the French imperialists who were also trying extend their territories inland from their base in Dakar, Senegal. This brought the parties into conflict. Touré organized military and diplomatic resistance between 1882 and 1898. During this sixteen-year period, he used a variety of strategies, including guerrilla warfare, scorched-earth programs, and direct military engagement. For this last tactic he acquired arms, especially quick-firing rifles, from European merchant and traders in Sierra Leone and Senegal. He also established engineering workshops where weapons were repaired and parts were fabricated. With these resources and his well-trained forces and the motivation of national defense he provided his protracted resistance to the French. Eventually he was captured and, in 1898, exiled to Gabon, where he died in 1900.

It was quite clear that most African societies fought fiercely and bravely to retain control over their countries and societies against European imperialist designs and military invasions. But the African societies eventually lost out. This was partly for political and technological reasons. The nineteenth century was a period of profound and even revolutionary changes in the political geography of Africa, characterized by the demise of old African kingdoms and empires and their reconfiguration into different political entities. Some of the old societies were reconstructed and new African societies were founded on different ideological and social premises. Consequently, African societies were in a state of flux, and many were organizationally weak and politically unstable. They were therefore unable to put up effective resistance against the European invaders.

The technological factor was expressed in the radical disparity between the technologies of warfare deployed by the contending European and African forces. African forces in general fought with bows, arrows, spears, swords, old rifles, and cavalries; the European forces, beneficiaries of the technical fruits of the Industrial Revolution, fought with more deadly firearms, machines guns, new rifles, and artillery guns. Thus in direct encounters European forces often won the day. But as the length of some resistance struggles amply demonstrates, Africans put up the best resistance with the resources they had.

By 1900 much of Africa had been colonized by seven European powers—Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. After the conquest of African decentralized and centralized states, the European powers set about establishing colonial state systems. The colonial state was the machinery of administrative domination established to facilitate effective control and exploitation of the colonized societies. Partly as a result of their origins in military conquest and partly because of the racist ideology of the imperialist enterprise, the colonial states were authoritarian, bureaucratic systems. Because they were imposed and maintained by force, without the consent of the governed, the colonial states never had the effective legitimacy of normal governments. Second, they were bureaucratic because they were administered by military officers and civil servants who were appointees of the colonial power. While they were all authoritarian, bureaucratic state systems, their forms of administration varied, partly due to the different national administrative traditions and specific imperialist ideologies of the colonizers and partly because of the political conditions in the various territories that they conquered.

A basic element of the mythology Europeans created about both the African and Native American cultures was that these people, before European contact was made, were basically "savages" and lived in a primitive, non-civilized condition. This then justified whatever kind of exploitation and mistreatment that was carried out, from 1492 on. It is a good idea to look at Thomas Paine's essay "African Slavery in America," written in 1774. Paine states,

The managers of that trade [i.e., the slave trade] themselves, and others, testify that many of these African nations inhabit fertile countries, are industrious farmers, enjoy plenty, and lived quietly, averse to war, before the Europeans debauched them with liquors, and bribing them against one another; and that these inoffensive people are brought into slavery, by stealing them, tempting kings to sell subjects, which they can have no right to do, and hiring one tribe to war against another, in order to catch prisoners.

The European slave-trade destabilized the economy of western Africa and inhibited it from benefiting from the technological advancements which were made possible in Europe at least partly by the exploitation of resources and people from non-European lands.

The situation was somewhat different with the Native Americans, but similarly, their existing civilization was dismissed by the Europeans as a form of savagery. In addition, huge numbers of the indigenous Americans were wiped out when they came in contact with Europeans because they had no natural immunity to diseases such as smallpox, which the Europeans carried. The coming of the Europeans was seen as an apocalyptic, almost supernatural event by many Native Americans. The Europeans' weapons, body armor, and horses, all of which had never been seen before on the American continent, made the Europeans appear superhuman or even godlike to some. Two books which are worth consulting for an analysis of the contact between Europeans and the indigenous people of America are American Colonies, by Alan Taylor, and The Invasion Within, by James Axtell.

An aspect of the differing reactions by these two continents to the Europeans is rooted in the fact that Europe did not at first send its own people to "colonize" Africa as it did America. Only later, in South Africa, parts of North Africa such as Algeria, and a few other areas did this happen on a more limited scale. One might consider whether this is the only reason that eventually the African countries were able to form independent nation-states as they are today, while the indigenous Americans were not. The latter were largely the victims of either unintentional (because of the diseases alluded to) genocide, or in fact deliberate genocide, with the relatively few remaining people dispersed, placed on "reservations" or "reserves," or intermarried with people of European and African descent.

Question No.3

Answer:

Overall, European countries wanted more wealth and power, and colonization helped in attaining those goals. For instance, countries could import/obtain more resources by colonizing a land rich in industrial materials, as well as gain a wider market for exporting mainland resources. Having more land also gave a country more power, especially in terms of an expanded military throughout the world.

There were several reasons why the European countries wanted to have colonies. One reason was to gain resources. The Europeans needed raw materials to make products in their factories. They knew they could get these raw materials cheaper from their colonies than they could if they bought them from other countries. Also, mineral resources, such as gold and silver, could help make their countries wealthier. These factors helped spur European colonization.

Another factor was the desire for land and power. The Europeans were competing with each other for land and power. By having colonies around the world, the European countries could increase their status as hegemonic nations. By having colonies, the Europeans would have places where their ships could stop and get resupplied. These colonies could also serve as military bases in case of war.

A third reason for colonization was the desire to convert the people in these colonies to Christianity. For example, Spain believed that people who were not Christian were inferior. The Spanish hoped to convert people to Christianity and to show them how to live properly. This included practicing Christianity.

Question No.4

Answer:

The English expansion began relatively late compared to other European nations, like Spain and France. In fact, when the British founded the first permanent colony in Jamestown 1607, the French had already settled in Canada. One reason for that was the late development of the necessary navigation skills. Colonization was started not necessarily for expansion but rather for trade. Finding new products was a motivation. Another one was the search for freedom of religious minorities which could not be achieved in Britain. Also emigrants were looking for a general better live when the population as well as the unemployment was increasing in Britain. Religious minorities founded important colonies in America like the Pilgrims in Plymouth 1620, the Catholics in Maryland 1632 or the Quakers in Pennsylvania 1681. In other parts of the world expansion started as well. In 1599/1600 the East India Trading Company was founded. Here the first motivation was again trade. India was viewed as the door to Far East. During the 16th century the British managed to expand over the Indian continent even though they started with only a few trading posts. So they established a dominating position and fought back the Portuguese and the Dutch. They founded the City of Madras in 1639, purchased Bombay from the Portuguese in 1661 and in 1690 founded the City of Calcutta. Through the 18th century the main enemy was France, but in 1757 Robert Clive achieved a victory which gained the British the rule over Bengal. The French influence decreased and a few years later their position was reduced to a few trading posts and therefore soon became meaningless.
In the 18th century the population in the British colonies in North America quickly increased from 260000 to 2-3 million within a few decades (1700-1770). Also, 3 to 4 million slaves were brought to the British colonies from Africa between 1162 and 1807. The settlers in the colonies were mostly self-governed while still under rule of the English Crown. But conflicts started. Additional taxes on tea or legal documents led to discrepancies. The settlers rejected any sort of taxation ("no taxation without representation", meaning the settlers did not want to pay taxes for a country where they did not live).The confrontation tightened up through the Townshend Acts or the Boston Massacre.The reaction of the settlers was for instance the Boston Tea Party in 1773. First battles started in 1775.In 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed. In the North American Independence War (1776-1783) Britain had to admit defeat and with the Peace of Paris in 1783 acknowledged the independence of the colonies.
After the Independence of America Britain began to concentrate on India as the centre-piece of their empire. Of course the type of imperialism in India was different to the one in America. The Indian people had already developed a system of religion, society and also a massive population. The British came to rule over this country as opposed to settlement in other parts of the world like mentioned America. The settlers in these countries were looking for a new beginning while the conquerors of India were looking for power. After losing America the British had to expand their power in India to maintain their position of the leading nation in the world.So the focus was on the East. The conquest of the Indian continent moved forward.