Skip to main content

Compare and contrast English, French, and Spanish colonies in the New World.

European colonies in the Americas varied in many important aspects. The only real similarity between the three countries colonial ambitions is that they were all done to make a profit for the motherland. The Spanish, as the first to breach the New World, attempted to loot the continent of its silver and gold. It did this by attempting to enslave the native populations and then conquering them. All three countries were able to weaken the Native Americans with a variety of germs for which the natives had not built up an immunity. After the Spanish conquered the lands from the indigenous people, they worked hard to acculturate and proselytize them to become Spanish. A complete new ethnic group of mixed Spanish-Indian descent emerged in Latin America as a result of this process (mestizo).  


The English attempted to establish colonies in the Americas that produced cash crops. A cash crop is generally a non-food item like cotton or tobacco and is marked by a lack of variety in farming. The English did not attempt to acculturate the Native populations and generally acquired their land and forced the Indians toward the frontiers. The Spanish and English were determined to build permanent colonies in the New World. The French, on the other hand, were not nearly as committed as the other two in building permanent colonies. Their numbers were much smaller and they were committed to trading with the Native Americans and had a much friendlier and symbiotic relationship with the Indians. The French, like the Spanish, had a missionary presence in the New World and attempted to 'Christianize' the native population.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more