LECTURES AM3A
LECTURE 1
When you speak of ‘early America’, that’s kind of problematic, because what is considered ‘America’ (incl.
Canada, Mexico? Or just the US?) and early for who (very Eurocentric thought). This question of early is shown
in the fact that St. Augustine is considered the oldest town in America, because it was founded in the 1560s by
the Spaniards. But, Old Oraibi is a town founded by native Americans in the 12 th century. Because this town is
not made touristy, and because it is a town founded by non-colonizers, it’s not thought of as the oldest town in
public memory.
Where did the natives come from? There consists a debate about this question:
- Natives state they are from the Americas, that their origins lay there. It is important for them that they
have not been colonizers, because that would sort of equate them to the European colonizers.
- Scientists state natives arrived in the Americas about 5.000 years ago (Inuit), some 7.000 years ago
(Apaches & Navajos). Archaeological evidence states that the first natives arrived about 50.000 to
30.000 years ago. How did they get there? About 15.000 years ago, the Ice Age receded, which
facilitated the ‘walking thesis’: the natives walked over the ice to the Americas. Another idea is that
they came by boat, or a mix of seafaring and walking.
The first natives were the Paleo-Indians (meaning: Old Indians), they lived around 10.000 years ago. They
hunted big game (mammoth, buffalo) with big spears (the Clovis point). Later, you had the archaic Indians
(meso-Indians, meaning: Middle Indians). They were also hunters, living in the Americas between 10.000 and
2.500 years ago. They had a more diverse life, besides hunting they also grew plants. This meant that they had
to stay put in one place more. There is proof of sedentary life, like the man-made mounds at Poverty Point
(dated 1.350 BCE). The meso-Indians lived in small groups, there were about a million of them. They also
hunted smaller animals, not just big game. They didn’t grow crops, they really were hunters & gatherers; they
did participate in long distance trade, shown by archaeological proof (fishing plummets from a different
region). About 5.000 years ago, in meso-America (Central Mexico to Nicaragua), they started growing crops
(agriculture). This practice only came to North-America about a 1.000 years ago, only a few centuries before
the Europeans arrived.
The development of agriculture lead to:
- Sedentary life.
- Population growth, leading to:
o The formation of a society, like the development of class.
o Property and organisation (coordination).
o More illnesses.
o When the harvest failed, it meant famine, etc.
Because of the good climate, there was a spread of societies around the Mississippi area (the mound builders).
Within these societies, there existed human sacrifices. A lot of artefacts were found of these societies. Weirdly
enough, all the Mississippians experienced a crisis before 1500, which meant they were all disappeared when
the Europeans arrived in 1492. Everywhere in the Americas people had lived, but in North America the (urban,
civilized) societies had disappeared before 1492. When the Europeans came in this ‘after period’, the idea of
the uncivilized Indian developed.
There is less archaeological and documentary evidence and less clear estimates of North America dan of South
America, because the English (colonizing the North) arrived a century after 1492, while the Spaniards
(colonizing the South) did immediately arrive.
, LECTURE 2
It is wrong to think that the Spaniards were immediately and easily successful in there colonization, and the
successes that did happen were strongly due to the relations with natives. Merging with the natives was the
key to successful colonization. Proof of the limited success was the fact that, because there were no big
empires and cities in North America, the Spaniards didn’t find anything to latch onto, and colonization of that
region was no success. This shows the limits to their method of colonisation.
Everything (sort of) started with Christopher Columbus. For centuries, he was lauded as a hero, he is a symbol in
the US, with shouts of ‘Hail Columbia!’ and Columbus Day. Yet, right now, his image is changing: more and
more he is seen as an enemy, as a bad guy. More light is shone on his bad actions, like genocide and enslaving
peoples. Who was Columbus? Well, that is kind of a mystery, he was kind of shady about his past, kept it
hidden. He was from Genoa, not from a very wealthy family so he didn’t receive a lot of education. He quickly
took up seafaring, went to Portugal in his mid-twenties. The origins of Spanish colonization are thus to be
found in Portugal. Columbus got his seafarers experience from Portugal, so he was influenced by Portuguese
business in the Atlantic. He learned about stories of a Western land, and he had experience with the
peopling/conquering of islands, the founding of sugar plantations, the exploitation of natives. He also had slave
traders in his family.
It wasn’t
The idea of going westward to China (the Indies) was not new, it was already proposed in 1474. Columbus
thought the world was much smaller than it actually was. He also thought there were far more Atlantic islands,
so believed in the possibility to island hop. He went to Spain (meaning: Aragon & Castille), which as at that time
also at war with the Muslims of Granada, it was busy with the Reconquista. This process was finished in 1492,
which is why they say yes to Columbus. Partly, he was financed by the Spanish crown, the rest he had to
arrange for himself. While this kind of projects are always portrayed like big projects, organized by the state,
they are mostly private ventures. It was purely coincidental that the Spaniards were involved in the project at
all.
The first meeting was on the 12 th of October, 1492. The Spaniards spot land and Columbus names it San
Salvador (real name: Guanahani). The natives (the Tainos) he calls Indians, as in Asians, since he thinks he was
in Asia. He wasn’t waiting on these ‘primitives’ and takes some as prisoners to be interpreters and serve as
proof. He basically enslaved them. He sails around the Caribbean and makes Hispaniola (now, the island of Haiti
and the Dominican Republic) his base. Disaster strikes when one ship sinks and there is to little room on the
other boat. This is why a part (39) of his crew was left behind, while the others returned to Spain. All 39 were
murdered by the natives because they misbehaved, which initiated a cycle of violence. In november 1493 he
made his second voyage, a much more serious operation, involving much more people and money. Settlement
plays a big role (they took with them farmers and artisans), as did the exploitation of the natives. The Tainos
(people form Hispaniola) were considered ‘good’ Indians, while the Caribs (people from the Lesser Antilles)
were seen as ‘bad’ Indians. The last needed to be taken prisoner to be civilized or destroyed.
Plans for later journeys to Hispaniola and later other regions entailed the development of plantations and the
enslavement of the Caribs. There was nothing more to exploit than land and people, no goods of value. It takes
about 15 years for them to go further than Hispaniola, so again: no quick success. Especially Mexico and Peru
brought enormous wealth to the Spanish empire, because of the huge amounts of gold and silver to be found
there. This provided more money, to spend on a better army. Spain became a world power, but also suffered
from inflation.
In the early 1500s, they finally realised this wasn’t Asia.
