European Colonization

History
1

“With the dawn of the 16th Century, there came together in Europe both a motivation and the means to explore and colonize territory across the seas”

This statement is in every respect true. At the beginning of the 16th century a variety of developing influences, such as the spirit of the Renaissance and the establishment of Prince Henry “the Navigator’s” institute for the studies of better seafaring technology and methods of exploration, helped to spur the interest and motivation of a wide and potent European population seeking to expand its boundaries and power to foreign lands. This was the age for expansion, for discovery, and daring to wander the unknown. Though it had been dreamt of and sought out for many decades, it was the commencement of the 16th century that finally opened up the doors of possibility to those that were willing to face the challenge.

We may rightfully say that the fuel or source of all this westward expansion was due primarily if not significantly to the effect of the Renaissance period in Europe. With commercial expansion, the flourish of trade and the spread of ideas, the Renaissance was born as a time to celebrate human possibility. “Possibility”, that was the fundamental premise behind it all. The people of Europe looked to the Atlantic Ocean with anxiety and dread created by the thousands of uneducated peoples who for so many centuries believed that the Earth was flat or that the Ocean led ships nowhere, but it was this specific point in time that inspired a widespread curiosity for the unknown and its many possible wonders. This very natural and human curiosity is what nurtured the future explorations of the Americas.

That may have been the basis for the motive, but the means came from a very different source. As I have mentioned already, the beginning of the 16th century was marked by a growing commerce, prosperous trade and a stable economy, all as an effect of the technological breakthroughs that had originated in the Middle Ages, strengthening the agricultural system as well as society as a whole. With all of these promising prospects, Prince Henry of Portugal felt compelled to unite the superior and talented minds of the world in an institute of scientific knowledge with innovative scientific goals and purposes. He assembled geographers, instrument makers, shipbuilders and other intellectuals and succeeded in producing the caravel, a new ship that would be faster, stronger and would be capable of lasting extensive and rigorous voyages.

Thus, with all of this at the disposal of several of the most powerful nations in the world at that time, it was only matter of time before the race for westward expansion would begin and bring along with it all of its amazing new discoveries. Spain was quite luckily the very first to attempt these feats but never imagining what a trip, intended to uncover safer and more efficient routes to the trading posts of India, would truly unfold for the rest of humanity. Consequently, though it could have been anybody else of any other European origin, Christopher Columbus made his way across the Atlantic and was miraculously intersected with what came to be known by all as the New World.

Therefore in retrospect to the aforementioned facts, it is clearly evident that the statement/quote above is indeed true, for it can be supported by innumerable evidence in history. There was a vast hope and anticipation with the dawning of the 16th century, for many knew that it held the promise of mane new things.

2

We may rightfully say that the fuel or source of all this westward expansion was due primarily if not significantly to the effect of the Renaissance period in Europe.

I have a few questions and comments on your description of the westward, transoceanic expansion of West Europeans. (Thank you for bringing up the subject.)

First, isn’t it true that Europeans were expanding in all directions, and long before the 16th Century? From about 1000, wasn’t there a sort of internal expansion – particularly the diaspora of the Normans to various places around the periphery of Europe – that followed the economic, social, and cultural recovery from the dark years of the 800s and 900s?

Second, I have often wondered why religiously motivated colonials seem to have headed toward North America, whereas others – motivated perhaps primarily by commerce – headed toward other continents. Were convenience and cost the main factors in leading the religiously motivated colonials to North America?

P. S. – I have found Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950-1350, to be a fascinating look at the Norman outpouring to eastern, southern and western Europe.

3

Second, I have often wondered why religiously motivated colonials seem to have headed toward North America, whereas others – motivated perhaps primarily by commerce – headed toward other continents. Were convenience and cost the main factors in leading the religiously motivated colonials to North America?

Britain never cared much about the Americas. They focused on India because it was a much more wealthy territory. Spices, silk, and other Indian cultural items were in high demand in Britain during that time. So that’s why commerce was focused around India.

As for religion, in India, Britain had this policy of trying to push their culture/religion on the locals. Given that sort of climate that might explain why persecuted people didn’t go to India. As far as why they chose America over Africa, I believe America was far more stable. South Africa was the only African colony that could really be considered “profitable.” And that is only because it was a waypoint to India. The vast majority of Britain’s other African colonies were acquired only for strategic reasons. For instance, they would be attacked by an African tribe from a specific area, so they would invade and annex that area. And so it went throughout Africa. Those territories were completely worthless and there was also a very high risk of disease. Europeans dropped like flies whenever they penetrated beyond the coastal territories.

At least in America, the disease issue was non-existent. And you are moving from one temperate zone to another, so there is also the climate issue.

So my personal theory is that America was just more livable than Africa. And India was pretty much just a part of Britain, so they probably would have been persecuted there as well.

4

So my personal theory is that America was just more livable than Africa.  And India was pretty much just a part of Britain, so they probably would have been persecuted there as well.

I think the failed and deadly colonization attempts, Indian attacks and horrible winters would suggest that America did not have a reputation for “safety.” What I’m sure it did have was distance and space. They were far enough to establish their own social orders, with enough land and resources for an innumerable amount of people.

5

I have a few questions and comments on your description of the westward, transoceanic expansion of West Europeans. (Thank you for bringing up the subject.)

First, isn’t it true that Europeans were expanding in all directions, and long before the 16th Century? From about 1000, wasn’t there a sort of internal expansion – particularly the diaspora of the Normans to various places around the periphery of Europe – that followed the economic, social, and cultural recovery from the dark years of the 800s and 900s?

Second, I have often wondered why religiously motivated colonials seem to have headed toward North America, whereas others – motivated perhaps primarily by commerce – headed toward other continents. Were convenience and cost the main factors in leading the religiously motivated colonials to North America?

P. S. – I have found Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950-1350, to be a fascinating look at the Norman outpouring to eastern, southern and western Europe.

I would be glad to answer these questions…if I knew the answers. Unfortunately, the United States has a tendency of teaching its youth primarily eternal analyses about itself and its history, disregarding an immense percentage of the outside world. Therefore, what I mean by all this is that in school, we were only taught about European intrests in North America, all the rest was simply left out. But I will try to learn more about it all just for my sake.

6

At least in America, the disease issue was non-existent.

Was that the experience of the settlers of Jamestown, Virginia – the first permanent English settlement in North America, c. 1607?

7

yes, it is true: disease from the side of the Natives was nearly nonexistent. Even in the Jamestown situation that you speak of, the settlers only suffred from harsh winters and starvation. It wasn’t disease. If there was any precedence of disease it was European diseases, not any from America. In fact, according to my text book, the only disease that has been traced back to the Native Indians and was carried beck to Europe was Syphilis.

8

yes, it is true: disease from the side of the Natives was nearly nonexistent. Even in the Jamestown situation that you speak of, the settlers only suffred from harsh winters and starvation. It wasn’t disease.

Are you kidding? They suffered greatly from disease. The colony was located right about where salt water and fresh water met in summertime, so the river was salty, stagnant and muddy. Human wastes weren’t disposed of far away from the fort either, but rather festered and contaminated the drinking supply, causing dysentery, typhus, and other delightful treats.