Imagine thinking the Europeans asked any of the natives what they thought about colonization during the Age of Expansion. We never would have accomplished anything.
Actually we did do this, many times. English settlers were always negotiating with natives all the way back to the Pilgrim era, and most of the land grabs and village burnings that people hear about were responses to the natives being hyperviolent and unreasonable.
In South America, you have a point. But looking at the results, one could easily argue that the North American approach was superior. After conquest, the Spaniards and Portuguese blended with the natives and that was that.
The Indian Wars of the 19th century are also a wild read. The High Plains tribes were in a permanent state of either raiding or smoking peace pipes at summits with the US Army.
All of Southern Ontario was purchased from the Mississauga at market value by the British and a prime piece was given to the Six Nations who fought with them during the American Revolution becaue they lost their territory south of lake Ontario.
Plus in South America it seems like the Spanish and Portuguese were really only there to stripmine it for gold, so they didn't put quite as much effort or emphasis on actual development, self-sustainability, etc.
I would argue you have that backwards. For the most part the Spanish/Portuguese didn't absorb the natives, the natives absorbed them. Hence why we have Hispanics now. There are still very white Hispanics that are basically European, but not a lot of them.
In the US, Native Americans are an endangered species by the numbers, and they keep declining year after year. The ones that got off the rez were actually absorbed into the white population. Native Americans have been completely neutralized since the end of the 19th century.
Actually we did do this, many times. English settlers were always negotiating with natives all the way back to the Pilgrim era, and most of the land grabs and village burnings that people hear about were responses to the natives being hyperviolent and unreasonable.
In South America, you have a point. But looking at the results, one could easily argue that the North American approach was superior. After conquest, the Spaniards and Portuguese blended with the natives and that was that.
The Indian Wars of the 19th century are also a wild read. The High Plains tribes were in a permanent state of either raiding or smoking peace pipes at summits with the US Army.
“On equal terms” is the obvious implication. We didn’t buy Manhattan island for its retail value.
The Dutch bought it for what the natives were willing to sell it for at the time. I don't think there's any evidence the deal was coerced.
All of Southern Ontario was purchased from the Mississauga at market value by the British and a prime piece was given to the Six Nations who fought with them during the American Revolution becaue they lost their territory south of lake Ontario.
Plus in South America it seems like the Spanish and Portuguese were really only there to stripmine it for gold, so they didn't put quite as much effort or emphasis on actual development, self-sustainability, etc.
We did better than the spanish did in central/south america?
We basically integrated them into our society where as the spanish just absorbed them.
I would argue you have that backwards. For the most part the Spanish/Portuguese didn't absorb the natives, the natives absorbed them. Hence why we have Hispanics now. There are still very white Hispanics that are basically European, but not a lot of them.
In the US, Native Americans are an endangered species by the numbers, and they keep declining year after year. The ones that got off the rez were actually absorbed into the white population. Native Americans have been completely neutralized since the end of the 19th century.