Primary source -Justification for colonialism?

[cathmom]

Hi, I've recently become interested in reading exactly how colonialism was justified by European nations. Does anyone have recommendations of something I could read?

 

Thanks!

[SarahW]

I once had a professor explain that Utopia laid the groundwork for colonialism, esp. re: land ownership and educating the "unenlightened." Might be a worthwhile bunny trail to travel down. Sorry I can't be more specific.

[misty.warden]

Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex have been used to justify the slavery aspect of colonialism. Are you looking more for "why should we" rather than "is it allowed?"

 

I got the feeling during this unit in high school that most of what they would have seen as modern justification would be propaganda to us, though you could argue that's always the case.

[cathmom]

I want to know what rationalizations they told themselves to make it ok to go take over land and rule the people who were already living there, rather than trading with them as equals. I mean, I can imagine many of the arguments, but I'd like to read some primary sources to see what they said then.

 

Thanks!

[Nan in Mass]

I want to know what rationalizations they told themselves to make it ok to go take over land and rule the people who were already living there, rather than trading with them as equals. I mean, I can imagine many of the arguments, but I'd like to read some primary sources to see what they said then.

 

Thanks!

 

In TWTM is a recommendation for a selection of Christopher Columbus's log. He talks about conversion to Christianity in the log. I didn't investigate further so I can't tell you whether this was the justification he offered to the crew or his backers while inside himself he knew he wanted riches, or whether it was what he really believed he was doing, but if you wanted a primary source, it was an easy one to read. And interesting. I think it might be a Dover book. It looked like a Dover colouring book.

 

I think people of any time will use their own survival to justify doing something awful that will either affect future generations or other areas of the world. They may use a good reason to sugar coat it (like creating jobs or keeping the economy going or converting the heathens, not that *I* think converting them is necessarily good, but many Christians do), but I think willful blindness combined with selfishness or greed accounts for most of it.

 

Nan

[Candid]

I agree with the Columbus log. Don't know if there are any diaries or other things published about Jamestown, but I'd look for those and I 'd also read Plymouth Plantation. Each of these three would have differing points of view.

 

Finally, you might spend some time researching the history of the Jesuits in the new world prior to their removal by the Spanish authorities: they were removed because they stood for the natives so records of theirs from that time period would give that point of view.

[Nan in Mass]

I agree with the Columbus log. Don't know if there are any diaries or other things published about Jamestown, but I'd look for those and I 'd also read Plymouth Plantation. Each of these three would have differing points of view.

 

Finally, you might spend some time researching the history of the Jesuits in the new world prior to their removal by the Spanish authorities: they were removed because they stood for the natives so records of theirs from that time period would give that point of view.

 

I seem to remember being taught that in general the English wanted the land (so wiped out the natives), the Spanish wanted gold (so enslaved the natives) and the French wanted furs (so worked and traded with the natives). Slaves, exploring, spices, and Christianizing all came in there someplace as well. You could look at it from an ecological perspective, too, probably - Europe was overpopulated and used up most of its resources? I suppose those wouldn't be "justifications", though.

 

The Plimoth plantation records are interesting. My mother has a giant tome of Bradford's writings? I think? They make interesting reading, at least in spots. The staff at Plimoth talk about the tension between the half of the colony that were there to make money and the half of the colony that were there because they didn't want their children to be assimilated into Dutch society. They also talk about the tension between the Native Americans and the colony. They say the lifestyles (but not the religions) were actually very similar and that caused tension, especially since the Christian half of the colonists didn't want any assimilation happening. That's their take on it, anyway.

 

I always wondered how the good Christians managed to justify things like slavery and genocide. Cathmom, will you share your findings?

 

Nan

[Candid]

 

I seem to remember being taught that in general the English wanted the land (so wiped out the natives), the Spanish wanted gold (so enslaved the natives) and the French wanted furs (so worked and traded with the natives). Slaves, exploring, spices, and Christianizing all came in there someplace as well. You could look at it from an ecological perspective, too, probably - Europe was overpopulated and used up most of its resources? I suppose those wouldn't be "justifications", though.

 

The Plimoth plantation records are interesting. My mother has a giant tome of Bradford's writings? I think? They make interesting reading, at least in spots. The staff at Plimoth talk about the tension between the half of the colony that were there to make money and the half of the colony that were there because they didn't want their children to be assimilated into Dutch society. They also talk about the tension between the Native Americans and the colony. They say the lifestyles (but not the religions) were actually very similar and that caused tension, especially since the Christian half of the colonists didn't want any assimilation happening. That's their take on it, anyway.

 

I always wondered how the good Christians managed to justify things like slavery and genocide. Cathmom, will you share your findings?

 

Nan

 

Your recollections are in my view too black and white, instead there was a complex interplay of variables in the early colonies.

 

In the case of Plymouth they lived peaceably with the natives for almost 60 years. Many natives had died because of previous contact with traders; they'd caught diseases that they had zero resistance to and it had wiped them out. If you read decent histories of this period, you'll learn that there had been a huge population drop on the east coast just prior to the first English arrivals which left the land pretty empty.

 

I believe the Dutch in NY also traded with the natives and did not wipe them out.

 

Further I think the natives of the north east were much more peaceable among themselves and this allowed for generally good beginnings. In the south, this was not the case, with a lot of tribal warfare and so first contact was mostly hostile due in part to negative native expectations of those who were not part of their tribe.

 

As populations grew things grew more adversarial. However, in some areas and with some settlements things were quite calm and peaceful. The Moravians in Pennsylvania and NC both had strong relationships with the natives of their area. The Cherokee in GA were on a track to eventually disappear in the overall southern culture of the area (owning slaves, etc.) until they found gold on their land, but that is a much later time period.

[Nan in Mass]

Your recollections are in my view too black and white, instead there was a complex interplay of variables in the early colonies.

 

In the case of Plymouth they lived peaceably with the natives for almost 60 years. Many natives had died because of previous contact with traders; they'd caught diseases that they had zero resistance to and it had wiped them out. If you read decent histories of this period, you'll learn that there had been a huge population drop on the east coast just prior to the first English arrivals which left the land pretty empty.

 

I believe the Dutch in NY also traded with the natives and did not wipe them out.

 

Further I think the natives of the north east were much more peaceable among themselves and this allowed for generally good beginnings. In the south, this was not the case, with a lot of tribal warfare and so first contact was mostly hostile due in part to negative native expectations of those who were not part of their tribe.

 

As populations grew things grew more adversarial. However, in some areas and with some settlements things were quite calm and peaceful. The Moravians in Pennsylvania and NC both had strong relationships with the natives of their area. The Cherokee in GA were on a track to eventually disappear in the overall southern culture of the area (owning slaves, etc.) until they found gold on their land, but that is a much later time period.

 

My recollections are from elementary school. I just offered them as evidence that even the oversimplified version contains a variety of reasons and that not all of them were necessarily devastating to the native population. I am totally unqualified to post in this thread lol. I just happened to remember noticing that bit in the Mayflower logs.

 

I'm still mad that we were taught that the Pilgrims were the first Europeans to come to New England. There is a tiny island off Maine that had a fishing colony on it that sent aid to the Pilgrims. If that is true, then there must have been Europeans all up and down the coast. The part about how peaceful or unpeaceful the Native Americans were makes sense. I know absolutely nothing about history outside of New England, and barely any New England history. And I find all the history that I was taught highly suspect. I sympathize (as a homeschooling mother) with the need to offer a simple version to children, but one can at least TELL the children that it is vastly simplified and try to make it so the simplification doesn't contain major errors. (I also sympathize with the need to have heros and not dwell on the fact that those heros were human beings with faults. That is a tricky teaching situation, too.) It is probably my own fault. I could have taken history classes in college. Instead, I took other things. I could now read lots of history and try to figure this out, but instead, I have put my time into doing and reading other things. Sigh.

 

Nan

[Julie in MN]

As far as colonization, I wouldn't think it would necessarily have been thought out. It's just the way people have been. Why did the Greeks colonize other areas? How about the Babylonians? Why did the Dakota Nations push down from Canada into Minnesota, sending the Ojibwa tribes to the west? Usually a society has needs -- not enough food, or too much food and the population is exploding, things like that. I just can't see folks arguing with themselves about why "not" to colonize, whether they were Europeans or any other nationality?

 

Also as far as the European colonization in particular, I think the whole science explosion was part of it. Folks were categorizing all the plants and animals in the world, mapping the world, etc., all very exciting, and there was enough of an economic base to support folks who weren't living for just survival. Then, when you run into other areas that look fairly sparse, and you want some more space or freedom or food, then there are always adventurous folks who say "why not?" -- or folks who are not getting along and want to get out of dodge. And if you come from an "advanced" civilization such as Rome or England or the Aztecs, maybe you figure you're doing the world a favor to spread your great inventions and such?

 

Maybe you'd find more conversation about colonization later, when it became more controversial, such as with India?

 

 

 

As far as the pilgrims, I've never heard them described as the first Europeans to set foot on this continent, but maybe Plimouth and Jamestown as the first successful settlers? Meaning that they brought their wives and children, they intended to settle and not just pick up fish or furs or new maps to bring back to their "home" elsewhere? And they didn't all die.

 

I think we often forget about the Spanish missions on the West Coast, too.

 

Julie

[Candid]

My recollections are from elementary school. I just offered them as evidence that even the oversimplified version contains a variety of reasons and that not all of them were necessarily devastating to the native population. I am totally unqualified to post in this thread lol. I just happened to remember noticing that bit in the Mayflower logs.

 

I'm still mad that we were taught that the Pilgrims were the first Europeans to come to New England. There is a tiny island off Maine that had a fishing colony on it that sent aid to the Pilgrims. If that is true, then there must have been Europeans all up and down the coast. The part about how peaceful or unpeaceful the Native Americans were makes sense. I know absolutely nothing about history outside of New England, and barely any New England history. And I find all the history that I was taught highly suspect. I sympathize (as a homeschooling mother) with the need to offer a simple version to children, but one can at least TELL the children that it is vastly simplified and try to make it so the simplification doesn't contain major errors. (I also sympathize with the need to have heros and not dwell on the fact that those heros were human beings with faults. That is a tricky teaching situation, too.) It is probably my own fault. I could have taken history classes in college. Instead, I took other things. I could now read lots of history and try to figure this out, but instead, I have put my time into doing and reading other things. Sigh.

 

Nan

 

I've been thinking about this and it bothers me. Not upset with you bother just makes me want to talk nonstop about how wonderful history is. But also how big and sprawling it is and how many details it has. How impossible it must be to write a one volume history of the US, let alone the world.

 

I use Tapestry of Grace and Marcia suggests the mom read the R lit, which is the lit of the time. I did that the first time we went through the four years. Because I was older it was eye-opening: people in the past do no think like us. It is astounding how different they think.

 

This time through I reading other things related to the time period we are studying, history, but usually pretty focused. I did a bit of that last time by reading a couple of books on the Civil War a buff suggested to me. I can't say how much I encourage you to do the same. Read from a variety of source, read current writers and historians. It doesn't have to be lots, just a few books a year. Don't sell yourself short on this.

[jhschool]

The Spanish had a very definite document (primary source).

 

I want to say it is the Encomienda. I read it recently.

 

I will look it up and get back to this thread.

[Nan in Mass]

I've been thinking about this and it bothers me. Not upset with you bother just makes me want to talk nonstop about how wonderful history is. But also how big and sprawling it is and how many details it has. How impossible it must be to write a one volume history of the US, let alone the world.

 

I use Tapestry of Grace and Marcia suggests the mom read the R lit, which is the lit of the time. I did that the first time we went through the four years. Because I was older it was eye-opening: people in the past do no think like us. It is astounding how different they think.

 

This time through I reading other things related to the time period we are studying, history, but usually pretty focused. I did a bit of that last time by reading a couple of books on the Civil War a buff suggested to me. I can't say how much I encourage you to do the same. Read from a variety of source, read current writers and historians. It doesn't have to be lots, just a few books a year. Don't sell yourself short on this.

 

 

Thank you, Candid, for the encouragement. I don't think I am selling myself short. I think I did, definately, before we started TWTM, but after blindly following the reading lists for a bit I realized that the reason great books are great is because they are understandable without a ton of esoteric knowledge. I know what I get out of them isn't the same as what a history professor or an English professor would, obviously, or even what I will get out of them rereading them when I am 80, but that doesn't mean I don't get anything out of them. I, too, have discovered the wonders of a quick internet search when it comes to turning up information, primary source information. Two days ago I learned how to play an Anglo-Saxon lyre, courtesy of youtube. How cool it that? There are even directions for making a reproduction lyre, should I want them. I understand about primary sources. My primary sources for the colonization of the US, at the moment, are some Native Americans, mostly involving the aftermath, horrid stuff that has happened during my lifetime. One of these days, I will read more background. I have read some, I guess. I have a limited amount of time, though, and the subject is emotionally draining. I need to read for escape, mostly, these days, to balance the more immediate, concrete emotional drains in my life. I find learning things to be very reviving, a great escape, but not if it is something like the history of slavery. Instead, I am learning languages, art, and music. What history I am getting, I am getting by reading my youngest's French history book, which is almost all primary sources. LOL Definately from the French point of view. Every once in awhile, my son will echo something that reminds me that his outlook isn't exactly 100% USA any more and I will wonder what I have done, but in general, I like this series very much because it approaches history through primary sources. There are just some rather major areas, like US history, that I haven't investigated and don't really think I'm going to get to for quite awhile, other than accidentally running across information while visiting places like Damariscove Island and taking refuge from a thunderstorm in their tiny museum. But anyway, I will keep in mind your encouragement to keep reading at least a few things a year. You are right. We all should read for ourselves.

 

Nan