Compare and contrast the colonization styles of England, France, and Spain.?

Question

How did they approach colonizatiion(in the New World, America) differently. What similarities existed in their similarities?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

First a disclaimer:
My degree dealt mainly with Britsh colonisation, and i'm much more comfortable in that area than in dealing with french and spanish styles:

But there are some key words (ideas) you should pay attention to.
All colonising powers have ideas or values they want to see reflrcted in their colonies. Of course, since this happened under colonial conditions the values were usually adopted under duress.
The idea was to "civilise" peoples that europeans considered poor, backwards and inferior in asia, africa and latin america.
At least that was the spin put on it for general consumption.
In reality, colonisation was about extracting resources and building european economies, but while you did this you still had to maintain control and look after the territories you had acquired.
and each european power had a system, and a theory for colonial rule.

Spain focused a great deal on converting the peoples in their latin american empire to christianity. This is because f Queen Isabella's commitent to her catholic faith. While others concerned themselves with the potential raches of the new world, Isabella worried about the heathen indians and their souls. The result? an early penetration by the catholic church, and the establishment of missions in all of Spain's territories. The results of this can stilll be seen in the modern USA - Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Diego, etc., all started as catholic missions.
the church brought with it culture - music, literature, and academics, in the form of Univesities, and to this day, the oldest UNiversities in the western hemisphere are in Latin America, e.g. the University of Cordoba, etablished more than a century before Harvard.
But while the church "civilised" Latin America, the Spanish were poor adminstrators. The audencia system was far too bulky to rule the continent effectively. Also, the Spainish sysem of ruling their empire was not flexible - all major decisions were made in Spain, hundreds of thousands of miles away. When an official wrote for advice in the audencia of nueva espana (mexico honduras etc.,) the letter didn't reach Spain for four months! By that time, the crisis was over. But officials had no authority to take initiative, and therefore could not govern properly.

For France, the key word is always "assimilation". The french did not aim to simply to convert people to christianity. The aim was to export France - the culture, the food and the language. Therefore, the french dealt with their colonial subjects differently. They did their best make sure their colonies became outposts of france, educating their subjects and encouragin them to think of themselves as french but this was greatly expensive.

As for england - the british were always practical in their empire. therefore they allowed limited self -governance in some places Canada and Australia, local assemblies made up of white settlers in others, such as South africa and kenya, and direct rule in other places, such as india. Of course these decisions were racially motivated. The british did not try to export thier culture, but rather adopted specific aspects of it to help in the running of the empire, for example their british education system. Most commonwealth countries have an education system very similar to great britain. But the idea that colonists were "british" was not encouraged. The result was the development of strong national feeling in each colony, but not necessarily a dedication to the empire. Such sentiments eventually led to the American revoultution. Americans saw themselves as americans not british subjects and fought for their independence.
I

Answer 2

Spanish are the first European colonizers. In their propaganda (press release), they are after God, Gold, and Glory. It turns out that they are after gold and gory. The native american indians - Aztecs and Incans, did not benefit at all from their colonization. Their population was deciminated by diseases and slavery. Their culture and high civilization totally destroyed. It is also the spaniards who introduced captured black africans to the Americas forcing them to work as slaves. Judging from the impact the Spaniards created in colonizing the Americas, they are the worst colonizers.

The English followed the Spaniards to Americas, beginning with piracy, seajacking the spanish merchant fleets for their silvers and other valuable New World products. The English, like their European contemporaries, are after wealth, and would resort to the use of force to get it. But unlike the spaniards who tolerated and assimilated native american population to the spanish culture once the natives accepted Roman Catholism, the Englishmen has no cultural or religious assimilation in their agenda. The English colonist of North American exterminated and dislodged the native population from their soil. The English colonizers are after land, community, and their european institution uprooted from England and transferred to America that they can call their own.

The France have concentrated on commerce in lands north and west of the English colonist. Because of limited manpower (French colonist send to North America) and their preoccupation in the affairs of Europe - (the Bourbon consolidation and decadence, revolution, and Napoleonic wars), the French colonist had to co-exist with the natives to pursue their profitable fur trade. However, like the English colonist, the French maintain their policy of exclusivity and have not assimilated the indians to French "civilization".

Answer 3

Spain's attitude was, "outta my way." They killed, conqured or enslaved as they marched along. England was more subtle - left it to the colonists to remove the "Indians" while feighning shock at the methods they used. The French in Canada decided to live and let live. French businessmen saw that the natives could help them find places to trap furs. The French and Indians generally lived well and peacefully side by side, until the French and Indian War when England forced everyone to take sides. The French lost the war and were forced t cede Canada to England. The French then helped us win the revolutionary war but that was pretty much the last good thing they did for us. Other than that, the french hate us.

Answer 4

did u want it essay style or dot points? LOL

ENGLAND: Arrogant, poor treatment of natives - concerned only with commerce - mostly cotton, coffee and slave trade

FRANCE: Rather arrogant, however sought to make peaceful overtures to the Natives, commercial activities were limited due to sites of colonial territories

SPAIN: Religious fanatics, ruled/conquered for the sake of religion - little involvement in commerce until cocoa and sugar became profitable

Answer 5

In my personal point of view, the English people that came to America had in mind to build a new civilized Country, they set new rules for their government. They build a school in every town they populated, so people get educated. Civil people was in charge of ruling their towns/cities. Unfortunately they didn't see the value of the native Indians, and kill them all.

The Spanish they had in mind how to become rich as fast as possible. So they stole all they could from the native indians, they brought the Catholic Church, and instead of building a school in every town, many many churches were put all over, and indians were persecuted and summited. The Catholic Church and the Inquisition were very powerful. This first one is still very powerful today in Latin America. Also native Indians were left under ignorance, and we are still suffering it. Today we have a mixed racial culture and heritage.