History questions not worth their own thread II

[bombshoo]

Like Ajidica said, I think the Spanish tended to mix more as most of them didn't bring women with them since they came as soldiers and conquerors. Still needing to have sex, they took native wives or (probably more often) raped their slaves. Also, the areas the Spanish colonized were much more densely populated with Native Americans in the first place.

Canada actually has a fair population of mixed French and Natives. See the Metis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Métis_people_(Canada)

 

[Tee Kay]

According to Fernandez-Armesto, it's a combination of Indians being less numerous in North America, Indians being considered too poor to be exploited for tribute, and a general policy of genocide.

 

[LightSpectra]

Why didn't the colonists who colonized North America mix with the indigenous population except for the Spanish? If you look at the demographics for every American country today besides United States and Canada they have a large mestizo or mixed population.

Basically what I'm trying to ask is why did the British and french during colonial times never intermarry with the indigenous population like the Spanish did?

The Spanish were on different terms with the Natives than the English and French. The King of Castile-León & Aragon was essentially then the Emperor of Mexico, whereas the Kings of France and England & Scotland had distant relationships with their colonies, who were meant to be sort of an socio-economic experiment with the promise to benefit the home countries rather than a new dominion of the crown.

Which is to say that the indigenous peoples of Mexico and the mid-south of what we call the United States were considered subjects of Spain, whereas the Natives of the eastern U.S. and Canada were aliens that the colonists wanted to encroach upon. Also:

Like Ajidica said, I think the Spanish tended to mix more as most of them didn't bring women with them since they came as soldiers and conquerors. Still needing to have sex, they took native wives or (probably more often) raped their slaves. Also, the areas the Spanish colonized were much more densely populated with Native Americans in the first place.

This.

Another possible explanation is that the US is more rural, as a whole, than much of Europe, and rural areas cling on to old beliefs far more strongly than urban ones. Indeed it seems that the more rural parts of the US are more religious than the more urban ones. But again this is somewhat speculative, especially since it's hard to agree on what actually counts as "urban" in the first place.

I don't know about the causes of the US being more religious than other western countries. But it may not be all rural versus urban. One thing the US has that is not common in other nations is massive suburbanization. I don't know how that would play into it either. There are certainly churches everywhere in suburbia.

I would say that this is the case. It's almost entirely demonstrable that urbanization often results in political liberalisation, which results in an altered worldview that is incompatible with Christianity, even though mainline Protestantism (e.g. classical Lutheranism) has tried to make it so.

 

[say1988]

The French often married native women, especially among the poor and where there was a shortage of available white women. I assume the Spanish colonies were quite similar, with large garrisons and focusing on resources rather than colonization.

As for the British, you can see a clear example in the Hudson's Bay Company.
A great many of their people stationed in Rupert's Land "married" and fathered children with native women, simply because that was what was available. However, if they returned to Britain or any of their colonies, they would often abandon their native families and take up a white wife when they arrived.

Currently there are about 400,000 claiming Metis descent in Canada.

 

[Communisto]

What was the purpose/significance of the card style insignias on old American war helmets? (Spades, hearts etc) Why were they implemented and what did they represent?

 

[Ajidica]

Something to do with regimental identification. I can't say anything beyond that.

 

[Cutlass]

Ok another question!

Why didn't the colonists who colonized North America mix with the indigenous population except for the Spanish? If you look at the demographics for every American country today besides United States and Canada they have a large mestizo or mixed population.

Basically what I'm trying to ask is why did the British and french during colonial times never intermarry with the indigenous population like the Spanish did?

There was plenty of intermarriage. But there was also a constant stream of new white immigrants, men and women both. Many Americans have some Indian in their heritage. But it's also true that many of the Indians were driven out rather than having the white people live among them, which likely somewhat reduced the opportunities. And eventually many Indians were confined to reservations, and the segregation would reduce opportunities. It may also be a factor that the Spanish forced the Indians to convert, making them Christian, and maybe more acceptable that way. Where further north they were just considered savages.

 

[Agent327]

Not really relivant to the late 40's and 50's. Though when the US suffered the great depression they did enact the New Deal.

Indeed - though even that was higly controversial at the time and has remained so ever since. And the question was about (the seeming lack of) socialism in the US after WW I, not II.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

and a general policy of genocide.

Good Lord do I hate it when people repeat this mishmash.

 

[Tee Kay]

Good Lord do I hate it when people repeat this mishmash.

Quote: "Thoughout British America, the native peoples were a source of conflict between frontiersmen and the representatives of the Crown, who wanted the protection of Indian buffer states and the benefit of a relatively dense pool of white laboour, which frontier conquests would disperse. From the point of view of most colonial subjects, however, the Indians were mere impediments to landgrabbing. Genocide was the best means of dealing with them." Fernandez-Armesto The Americas. His words, not mine.

 

[sydhe]

I wouldn't say Thanksgiving in the US is an overly religious day. For some, yes. And it certainly has religion in its background. But for a great many people it isn't really religious any longer. Though it certainly is for many others. There are only 3 days a year in the US when virtually every business is closed. Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. That's certainly a religious heritage.

Businesses are more likely to be closed on New Years Day than Easter (except for those which are normally closed on Sunday anyway, in which case closing on Sunday is the religious heritage).

 

[Cutlass]

Businesses are more likely to be closed on New Years Day than Easter (except for those which are normally closed on Sunday anyway, in which case closing on Sunday is the religious heritage).

Not stores. Just as a quick google, this mall is open Saturday, January 1 Hours: 11am-6pm but closed Christmas, Thanksgiving, but appears to be open Easter, which I did not expect.

 

[say1988]

he "religious right" is really a phenomenon of the past thirty years - in other words, it largely postdates the divergence, if there has been a divergence, between the US and Europe on religious matters (which can be dated to the 1960s).

Yes there was some difference, but the difference became much greater with during this time. Of course there are pre-existing factors which allowed for the earlier differences and the rise of the current fundamentalist christianity.

The question then is why this happened in the US and not in Britain. If the US did react to the Cold War by stressing its own theism, why didn't the UK? There must have been pre-existent factors to explain that.

Maybe I am wrong, but everything I have seen indicates a much more fervent anti-communist push than in Europe, with the idea (which is still spouted my the far right) that any left-wing or athiest is automatically an evil Commie.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm not sure if this question should be in its own thread, but I'm erring on the side of caution.

I recently watched Sergei Eisensteins October. In the movie the big finale is the Storming of the Winter Palace. Now, the storming as depicted in the film never actualy happened. I'm assuming that there would have been a fairly large group that heard how the storming actualy happened, so did many people have their opinions changed after hearing the 'official' account of events? I guess I am asking: How effective was Soviet Historical rewriting?

 

[Agent327]

I would assume pretty effective. Like the Winter Palace was never stormed (there was no need to), and Stalin is still considered a great historical figure by many, both inside and outside the former Soviet Union. Having complete control of the press and holding a monopoly on propaganda is pretty effective - as Mr Putin indubitably knows.

Western law is built from liberal starting grounds. The conflict isn't law versus religion, it's the values these laws are built upon versus values espoused by religion, and whether the two can be mostly reconciled.

[...]

My contention is that industrialization and urbanization over the past three centuries is largely what has resulted in the change in priorities, because orthodox Christianity and political liberalism can only co-exist to a mild degree.

The inventors, or creators, of liberalism were often (devout) Christians themselves, like PM Thorbecke who instigated the liberal reform of 1848 in the Netherlands and was largely responsible for the subsequent liberal constitution. I don´t really see a conflict between having a (Christian) religious belief and a liberal political view. You may be right about orthodox though, if orthodox istaken to mean personal conviction as opposed to political view, or God as opposed to state, if you will. That would constitute a conflict (and indeed has).

 

[Lone Wolf]

The inventors, or creators, of liberalism were often (devout) Christians themselves, like PM Thorbecke who instigated the liberal reform of 1848 in the Netherlands and was largely responsible for the subsequent liberal constitution.

They were liberastic pinko fluffy bunnies "christians" - people who have absolutely nothing common with True Christians. Fluffy bunnies will burn in Hell

 

[Ajidica]

Question: What date would be more 'accurate' as the anniversary of the October Revolution? October 25th or November 7th?

EDIT: Lightspectra, what defines 'orthodox Christian ethics'?

 

[say1988]

In my opinion, in most cases I would say November 7. Unless you specify the use of Julian dates and use them consistently.

Since most dates given for events worldwide are Gregorian, so it alows for more comparability.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I too enjoy your Neo-Stalinist posts.

That one was not neo-stalinist, though.

On-topic, what, in short, are the reasons Siam never formally became a colony?

 

[Dachs]

That one was not neo-stalinist, though.

On-topic, what, in short, are the reasons Siam never formally became a colony?

It almost did in 1893. It proved to be too useful for the British as a buffer state against French Indochina, and insufficiently interesting for the French themselves. I dimly remember the French attempting some more subtle infiltration during the later Ayutthayan period, but contingency helped thwart that.