I'm near the Missouri River, not too far from Cahokia Mounds, and there are Indian Burial Mounds on every hilltop overlooking the river. If you owned land with a burial mound, how would you treat the area? I used to own such land, the previous owners had dug half of it up with a bulldozer looking for artifacts.

An opening gambit for the panel:

In your field(s), what recent approach has changed the study of the colonial period, or of colonization and/or of its long-term effects? What has the approach brought to the table?

How much of the native social and institutional structures were kept by Spaniards, at least in the aftermath of the conquest?
Could their relative failure to dominate native peripheries in northern Mexico, southern United States and southern Andine region be partially explained by the lack of strong, diversely centralized states the conquerors could took over and rely on their remaining structure to quickly impose their rule?

Hey guys I just found out about you today and I’m so excited to read your answers. So I have one question that’s been bothering me for quite awhile.

Both the colonial United States and colonial New Spain were highly hierarchical, race based societies. Yeah looking back on it now we see things in New Spain that, on paper at least, suggest that racial lines were more fluid than him the colonial United States. It seems like in the US there was a binary choice. You were either white or black, free or slave. In New Spain it seems there were way more complicated caste system with a degree of fluidity that contrasts sharply with the U.S. like the gracias al sacar.

Anyways with that long windup in mind, my question is, what accounts for those differences and why?

What is our best guess in 2019 as to the population size of indigenous peoples of Central America in 1519?

What about 50 years before that and 50 years after?

Any hope that any recent scientific advancements might make these numbers more certain?

Amazing AMA.

I have got two questions to ask :

Where does this whole idea that Native Americans are "one with the nature" come from? Is this invented entirely by Hollywood or is there some historical roots?

​

What about the idea that Native Americans were "Noble Savages"? Where does this come from?

In the earliest years of Spanish colonisation, did being under Spanish 'rule' offer some local societies any advantage over being ruled by indigenous empires? The way I would (speculatively) frame it is that Spain was a initially at least a very distant master, and took generations (centuries?) to build much in the way of centralised authority or project actual control over many existing native societies, compared to the more immediate demands that might be made by a more proximate empire for tribute, resources and so on.

In case it isn't clear, I am trying to approach this in a way that questions the narrative of "hey, look how much of the Americas a handful of Spaniards conquered in such a short time!" rather than "colonisation wasn't so bad after all really".

One thing that has always made me curious is the language barrier and how the colonizers first managed to understand Classical Nahuatl, with it being so different (not only in vocabulary but in grammar) compared to spanish

When did they start to understand each other, and did the colonizers/natives actually try to learn each others languages for political reasons?

Just how much do you think the 'Leyenda Negra' about the Spanish Empire still prevails? (For people who don't know, it is the Black Legend about the Spanish Empire, a revisionist, biased approach towards the history of Spanish colonisation and the Inquisition that started during Charles I of Spain's rule by Protestants and Italians).

Mods, are we exempt from the no-tagging rule in this thread? It would be helpful to direct questions to specific panelists.

If so, u/hannahstohelit can you tell us about the first Jewish communities in North America? Did the expulsion from Spain only apply to Iberia, or also to their overseas territories?

Broader question for /u/Snapshot52 /u/DarthNetflix and /u/PartyMoses: how should we think of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois/ Five/Six Nations) during the 1600s and 1700s. Were they a nation state, an expansionist empire, a group of tribes clinging together against European expansion, a tool for the British and French to get the rest of the region in line, or something else entirely? I feel like given their size and power they should have played a larger role in early colonial history, but the books I've read (Thundersticks, Crucible of War, 1493) kind of brush over them.

Everyone else, I find the topic really interesting but I've read so many of your answers over the years I don't have anything specific right now.

I've heard that internal Spanish debates on how to treat the indigenous South Americans helped form the concept of universal human rights. How true is that, and what do you know about that process?

I've always been curious about how different societies evolve, and the European colonization of the Americas is a time in history we rarely get to see - different groups of humans living in isolation from each other for millennia suddenly meeting, making it easier to compare the two groups. Why were the civilizations of Eurasia able to advance "further" than the civilizations of the Americas by the time of colonization? What factors led to the disparity that existed when the two groups met?

I apologize if my questions are ignorant - i.e. the civilizations in America were probably far more advanced than I realize given that my education is Euro-centric, but I am referring to inventions like gunpowder/guns, the ability to sail across the Atlantic, and widespread complex farming societies that the indigenous groups of the Americas didn't possess. I also realize this is a huge question and would love any recommendations for books I could read on the topic.

During the period of conquest of Mesoamerica, did the Spanish have a method of "vetting" the conquistadors in order to ensure that they were able to survive the long trip and their service?

Also, did the Spanish government have a method of ensuring the conquistadors remained loyal to the government?

I've always appreciated stories of people who interacted with different cultures in ways you wouldn't expect for the time period, like Christopher and Cosmas, the Japanese men who went to Mexico and England in the 1580s, or Tisquantum, who was kidnapped from Massachusetts by the English, sold as a slave in Spain, travelled to England and learned English, then returned to find that his entire tribe had died, and ended up becoming the "native guide" for the pilgrims. Do you know of any similar interesting people?

I asked this earlier this morning, but here it goes; Aztec sources claim Montezuma II was killed by the Spanish, while the Spanish claim the Aztec Emperor was killed by his own people. What does modern scholarship have to say on the matter?

I grew up being told that American horses had gone extinct thousands of years ago, and then were re-introduced from European sources post-Columbus. Recently I've been told by Native American activists that this is untrue, that there was an indigenous stock of North American horses pre-Columbus. I've seen citations based on oral tradition, genetic evidence, and some VERY limited archaeological finds.

I'm simultaneously not an expert on horses, genetics, or North America, so I don't feel that qualified to evaluate these claims. Is this a plausible set of claims, or are people using hope as evidence?

The fur trade was a huge deal up in Canada, but did it extend much further south? For example, was anyone hunting for certain furs in South or Central America?

For more in North America, other then wide spread burning, what kind of environmental/landscape change did Native American tribes in the Great Lakes region do around the time of colonialism?

Who is the expert on the "Republica de Indios"? Information about their control in the frontiers of Nuevo Espana would be very helpful. Particularly the California area. How they exercised control and records of tribes that were considered under "Indios rule".

Who is the expert on the Asian presence? I would like to know the extant of recorded trade they may have been doing 1600-1800 in New Spain, particularly the California Area.

Who is the expert on North American Plains trade in the 1700s? Does anyone have any info on the commodities that were being traded across the plains?

I think u/darthnetflix u/drylaw and u/partymoses can help.

Towards the end of his book 1491 Charles Mann hypothesizes that one reason that democracy developed so strongly in the US was the proximity to the Haudenosaunee, which was a society with a strong emphasis on freedom and democracy. Is there any evidence to this point?

Many local peoples joined the Spaniards in their fight against the Aztecs and much like the famed Eastern front battle in WWII, I have heard the fight between the Spanish crown and the Aztecs be considered as a "bad guy vs bad guy" conflict. What exactly made the Aztecs so bad? And why were their neighbors eager to join the Spanish in their conquest.

In your opinion(s) what are some good Marxist-lens book for learning about the colonization of the Americas? Something like How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney but for the Americas. I'm reading The Open Veins of Latin America by Galeano and this topic interests me more, plus I'm a communist. Books focused on any time period or region are acceptable to me, but I'm particularly interested in the American Southwest because I live there.

/u/611131 /u/aquatermain

I was briefly in Paraguay in December and found it a fascinating place. It's really interesting how indigenous guaraníes and other tribes have mixed with European immigrants to produce what seems a very unique demographic. I've read this demographic homogenization began with de Francia's decree of obligatory mixed-race marriage; what were Paraguay's demographics like before, and was the Spanish caste system as strict and ingrained as in most other colonies? I've also been left with the impression that Paraguay was a sort of frontier backwater colony, given its relative remoteness and sparse population. Is this an accurate impression, or was Paraguay more relevant as a colony than I imagine? What was the extent of effective colonial administration over the whole territory vs. merely nominal control? What was its reputation in the rest of the empire?

Thanks!

As the OP said, we're now taking the voices of the colonized peoples into account. How do you guard against painting the colonizing powers in such a way as to suggest that they're bad or evil, as in the past the colonized were painted as savages?

Is there a repository of oral tradition? How can I learn about the First Nations from a First Nations' perspective? I identify as colonized metis (grandfather's grandmother) and am sad that I have no idea how to begin to learn about this aspect of my (and their) history. Every other facet of my ancestry is easily found and learned. My First Nations ancestry feels gone in the wind, but it feels even more important now than ever.

In the immediate aftermath of the conquest of Mexico and Peru, how much actual control did the Spanish hold over these territories considering their heavy dependence on allies like the Tlaxcala? Did Spanish control deepen into a proper empire over the decades at the expense of the Native Allies? If so, was this because of a tipping in the power balance thanks to horrible epidemics that rampaged among Native populations?

Also, you hear so much about the controversies over the role of technology and various innovations in the Spanish conquest. But for cavalry in particular how useful was it in their campaigns, and did it overall give them an important edge? One of the reasons I ask is because it often seemed like the Spanish had the worst luck when they couldn't use their cavalry very well, either because the natives had effectively adopted it themselves (ie the Mapuche) or because the terrain wasn't very conductive towards it (ie, against various Mayan societies).

In Richard White's It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own": A New History of the American West, he describes the importance of the native "wives" of fur trappers in protecting them from assaults from natives, assisting in communication and commerce and helping their trapper mates with geographic and other environmental information. In my own research I have found native women were extremely important in assisting Norther California Indians in leaving the reservation and reestablishing their place in their traditional lands. What can you tell me about the role of native women in the indigenous response to colonization?

Ok, regarding indigenous peoples relaimation of their cultural heritage, are there any efforts to bring back some of the many tribes clearly evidenced traditions of facial tattoos?

I know of a similar movement within the Maori peoples ta moko and was curious if there are similar ones in US?

History museums in my area have vanishingly little information about indigenous people, focusing entirely on either geology, or history of white settlers. When native peoples are mentioned at all, disease is blamed for their decline. - which got me to wondering, how much weight should be given, historically speaking, to an "innocent" spread of disease? (as opposed to deliberate infections with smallpox laced blankets and more conventional genocide)

If I want to challange these museums to do a better job with their history, are there particular museums I could point to that are doing it right? (I live in Portland, OR)

Why is there comparatively little syncretism of African religions with Christianity in the US, but quite a bit in the Caribbean and South America?

In Australia, body parts of famous individuals were often sent to Europe as museum pieces - was this the case in early American colonial history as well?

If so, how fortunate have First Nations people been in reclaiming their ancestors' remains?

Why didn't contact with Vikings trigger the epidemics triggered by conquest? Are there signs of any pre conquest epidemics in the material culture? Also, what accounts for variation in survival rates across the Americas?

I love this panel idea, thanks for doing it!

The rumor: English fishing ships were catching fish off of Newfoundland/Eastern Canada around or before 1492, but they kept it secret to keep away competitors.

I wanted to get that out of the way before writing out this part, wherein I admit that I don't remember where I read or heard this, and it may have even been a reddit comment I got it from.

This may not be the appropriate place to ask, if so I'm sorry.

How did Slavery Change Grendel roles in the Spainish Borderlands?

The America’s are almost alien like to us today. Birds of bright colors, various different fruits and almost magical: frogs that can kill you with their mere touch, Jaguars that are deadly, crocodiles, enormous snakes that strangle you, fish packs that clean meat right off the bone, snakes that rattle and kill, coral snakes, enournous tarantulas, lamas, etc...

To the amazing landscapes: the city of tenochitlan, the highlands of Mexico, the rainforests, the peaks of the Andes and the mountaintop deserts, the huge amazon, the dunes of Brazil that have water in them, the salt flat that turns into a mirror with rain, the never ending storms of catatumbo and much more

To finally the people from the Aztecs to the Incas with all various cultures. South America resembles south east Asia and India rather than Spain.

So the question is: did any Portuguese or Spanish conquistadors or explorers ever remark on the exoticness of the lands they conquered? Did any spaniard/Portuguese remark afterwards? Where the uniqueness of the territory ever used to Spain’s or Portugal’s advantage?

Why did the Colonizers Burn Various Indigenous “Books” I’m putting “Books” in Quotes because it includes the Inca Quipus

https://www.savacations.com/quipu-ancient-writing-system-used-incas/

What were the habits and philosophy of small mesoamerican communities outside of the great cities like and how did those aspects change in the first years of colonnialism?

This is a huge question; feel free to approach it through whichever lens you prefer.

We often hear of Indigenous peoples as having a distinct and unique connection to their land, one which is completely foreign to European/Colonial modes of thinking regarding ownership, stewardship, spirituality, etc. Can someone speak more on this subject? How universal was/is this indigenous worldview (as understood by scholars)? Can we really generalize across two continents and thousands of different languages and groups?

Was this always the case? Would a European peasant in the 15th century really have a view of their land which fundamentally differed from what an indigenous American thought? Or is it a more recent product of industrialism and modernity?

I still encounter these narratives to this day; how much of this is just a more preferable re-packaging of “Noble Savagery”?

How did the Hudson's Bay Company, a private organisation, end up 'owning' so much of North America?

The Incan empire is nowadays viewed as a source of pride in Peru and many other areas where they (The Inca) conquered. Did their colonization by the Spanish affect/create this or was the empire well loved at the time?

I remember reading in “History of private life vol 1.” Something like (words to this effect) “Rome was, much like colonial Portugal, a miscegenated empire”.

Were the Portuguese colonies more mixed and less divided (on racial lines) than say the Spanish ones? Was there an encouragement to mix with natives? Was it in any way more acceptable for a man to marry an African descendant slave or a Native American woman?

Hi guys! I’m probably gonna bombard this thread with questions so be forewarned lol. I’m curious as to the adaptation and syncretization of native beliefs and Catholicism. How long after colonization do we begin to see this happen? What did it look like? What was the reaction of the catholic establishment at the time?

What book(s) do you recommend to a non-historian to give the best understanding of current knowledge of the Spanish and Portuguese colonization process?

I’ve read that the vast majority of the army that took Tenochtitlan was Tlaxcalan — why didn’t the Tlaxcala succeed in attacking the Aztec up until they joined the Spanish?

As a historian, how do you balance the "long perspective" and "the short perspective" in regards to colonization? Its easy when reading about the colonization of America to, in the long term, basically describe it as an unbroken wave of european genocide, theft, displacementap and mariginalization of native americans, which... Isnt wrong, per se, but also tends to somewhat obfuscate the time scales and the particular contexts, especially with regards to individuals, where particular native communities might spend decades, or even generations, interacting in relative peace with the colonizers.

How does one keep both of those things in mind? Both the fact that interpersonal or even communal relationships might very well be fairly good for what in human terms are long period of times, yet are parts of a longer historical process of exploitation, violence and genocide?

Europeans and european-americans, over the course of the colonial era, developed an idea of "race" that hadn't existed before, do we have documentation about native people's developing the same thing?

Follow-up, I remember reading that Europeans didn't really have an idea of "race" like we think of it today, before the colonial era, did any native peoples in the US?
I know this is broad, asking about all native groups, but there are so many flairs, I didn't know what to ask about in particular.

Did the indigenous cultures of the Caribbean see the early Spanish invaders as anything special or were they treated just like any other violent tribe trying to take what wasn't theirs?

The Spanish conquest of large swathes of the Americas seems like it was extremely brutal, but it also seems like there is a lot of English-language historiography exaggerating it further, something called the "Black Legend." However, even the revisionist idea of "The Black Legend" is decades old (older?), so I want to know what the historiographic consensus is now? Were the crimes of the Spaniards exaggerated for English propaganda? Does this diminish the crimes the Spanish actually committed? What do people think of this now?

I'm currently writing and researching for a history podcast covering American colonization. What sources would you recommend?

Also, here's a freebie. Pick a question you wish someone had asked you and answer it here.

The conquest of the Inca and Aztec empires was particular brutal and devastating, reducing these mighty empires to rubble seemingly in the blink of an eye. Were the conquering Spanish amazed at all with what they found? Did they have any sort of respect for these complex societies that formed on the other side of the world? Did they ever envisage coexisting with them? Or do we overstate their significance today?

Also, the Muisca were another civilisation that is held in the same light as the Inca and Aztec but there is not as much information/interest about them. Why is this so and was there conquest similar to the aforementioned?

Follow up to my first question: In 1491 Mann also brings up the idea that the Mississippian societies had a much strong tradition of slavery than did the native nations of the Northern US, and that this may have influenced the comparative improtance of slaveholding in the north vs. south US, is there any research on this?

How was life for the colonizers that arrived at south american beaches? The Atlantic jungle is a brutal environment, there were diseases, indigenous attacks and they had kust spent months inside a boat eating very poorly. So how did people survive and established settlements? How did the early settlers view their situation?

How was their relationship with the local tribes?

Also, there were mapping expeditions organized by companies or the Portuguese crown, if I am not mistaken, how did were they organized? How long did they last?

Were there expeditions looking for gold and the like?

Did what would become Argentina and Brazil had any kind of trade or relationship that could justify their posterior animosity? Besides Sacramento colony.

I spent some years living on Northern Vancouver Island, although I’m from Ontario originally.

I found that native culture is heavily interwoven into the fabric of British Columbia life in general, and aboriginals and non-aboriginals worked alongside each other and hung out quite a bit, whereas in Ontario it’s rare to know a single person of aboriginal descent and many people hold strong negative views of First Nations peoples.

I read a few books while out west, and particularly enjoyed The White Slave of Maquinna. It seems west coast natives had a completely different culture than other tribes, and were a lot like the Vikings, swarming down the coast in long boats, raiding other native villages and seizing slaves, etc.

My question is, did the Spanish and British authorities treat with these Pacific Northwest aboriginals differently than the others, and if so, how and why?

*edit - because iPhone autoincorrect

I've heard a lot of people question the idea that disease killed 95% of natives, with someone on the forums claiming that this is an unreasonable extrapolation from a comprehensive study in central mexico, where the 90-95% number comes from. At least in central mexico, is this estimate still considered valid?

Following up on my last question, I've heard that the reason the native peoples were so vulnerable to diseases was because they had a relatively homogenous HLA profile, is this true?

Speaking of diseases, is there any consensus now as to whether or not syphilis is from the Americas or was it present in pre-Colombian Europe? I remember reading a book that syphilis caused catastrophically deadly outbreaks in the early 1500's, far more violent and deadly than syphilis today, but that there is controversy over this, what is the current state of research on this?

How common was it around the 16th century for adventurers to attempt the trip to the New World without express permission granted by Spanish royalty? We’re there successful pirate conquistadors? What was their relationship with sanctioned explorers once on the continent?

I'm really interested in learning how the Spanish war dogs were used and how much they contribute to the war effort against the natives . Also I have never been able to find anything on how they were trained

When the European arrived, they looked down on the natives as barbarians etc., did the same apply to the New World’s crops and animals?

How common were Arquebuses among the conquistadors? Were crossbows also present? Was either favored over the other?

This might be too broad of a question, but how did native societies organize to deal with massive natural disaster? Did different clans come together to offer help after a particularly bad earthquake hit the Huu-ay-aht First Nation? Or how would clans survive after terrifying hurricanes in what is now Texas and Louisiana?

Prior to Columbus' expedition, were there debates over what might be in the place that the Americas are? Did anyone ever intend on making any expeditions for the sake of exploration?

At the time of the colonists conquering of the Mexica capital, it was a fairly influential location was it not? At least regionally. How far would word of these events have spread within say 3-5 years? Could the native american tribes further to the north have heard about the early colonization to the south? If they had heard, would it have given them some context for the later arrival of other European colonists?

What Columbian exchange goods from the Americas that were quickly popular in the Old World when they're introduced and why?

As a young tribal person in the NW Coast, I’ve had a problem accepting the term ‘Settlers’ as accurately referring to the Europeans that immigrated to/invaded the Americas. This land was already ‘settled’ by my ancestors and other proud peoples throughout the Americas. Words matter to me, and calling the European immigrants, ‘settlers’, ignores the long history of my own people in our land.

Columbus believed that he had reached either India or China, both existing trading partners of Europeans. Nevertheless, he proceeded to enslave, capture, and otherwise brutalize the people beginning on his second voyage. This doesn't seem like good business.

Did he or any of his colleagues consider the repercussions of their actions on Europeans' existing trade partnerships?

Nice AMA

My question would be why did the French deal with the natives kindly and breed with them resulting in the Metis ethnic group as opposed to the English clearing them away from their ancestral lands?

I know that this is early in terms of colonization, but I was always curious about the circumstances surrounding the death of Moctezuma II regarding the different sides of the story. I’m only aware of Spanish sources on this event, are there any surviving Aztec sources and recollections of it?

I have a question: I’ve seen many accounts of the Conquistadors and their remarks on how wonderful and amazing they found the Mesoamerican cities they set out to conquer. I know that they brought back to Spain native Mesoamericans to show off at court. Are there any surviving accounts of what these native Mesoamericans thought about Spain?

I imagine some of them must have converted to Catholicism and learned Spanish - have any such ‘reverse contact’ accounts survived?

When the castas were designed for Latin America, how conscious was the decision made to keep political power among the elites and not allow the local population to rise? Are there writings from the time the system was designed where the purpose was spelled out? Was there any precedent in Spain for this type of system?

What are some ways we can help promote preservation of native languages? Something I think is a real loss is how so many native languages to the americas are dying. There is only once school i know of where I live that teaches the native language of the region I live in. I support them by buying their books and going to a class every now and then.

How did Cortes' native allies suffer from European brought diseases ?

Do we have a good clue how many people lived in the Americas when colonization began ?

Was there ever a explicit or implicit policy of extermination of Native peoples anywhere in the Americas ?

What were native and colonized peoples' response to the Haitian Revolution? Was it common knowledge throughout Latin America?

Following the John Cabot Project, have we learned any new things about the career of That Other 1490s Transatlantic Explorer?

Did Bristol sailors really know about a western landmass before him?

Did he ever think that the place that he’d discovered was not in fact Asia?

Did he survive his final voyage?

How accurate are the recent claims that the culture and political/territorial organisation of the Muiscas and other indigenous tribes which inhabited the planicias cundiboyacences and nearby territories were massively overblown by contemporary chronists who, after listening to fellow chronists from the Mexica and Incan conquests, became jealous of those discoveries and decided to embellish what they had found (and were able to do so thanks to the gold, silver and emerald craftsmanship found int said territories)?

(sorry for the spanglish, I have no pissing idea how to translate that)

I asked a relevant question a few days ago, and it seems to have been missed, so I'll ask it again here in the hopes someone sees it:

It's a popular trope in fiction to depict native peoples encountering early colonists seeing guns as utterly magical "thunder-sticks." How true to actual history is this perception, and how long did it last? It seems intuitive that, even before they started gaining access to guns through trade or mercenary work, a significant number of them would have figured out at least a handful of concepts related to them (they launch pieces of metal, they carry a limited number of pieces, they're useless if they get wet, etc.) Obviously, different groups of people would have differing reactions, and obviously firearms would be outright remarkable to people who'd never had contact with them before, but it seems intuitive that even those (if any) who did think they were outright magical would be able to figure out that they're just complex machines at some point.

What is known about the state of technological development of indigenous groups of the Caribbean during the early phases of Spanish colonization (1500-1550), such as the Taíno, Caribs and Ciboney?

Which of the fortified harbors of the Spanish Empire around the Caribbean basin saw the most combat action against privateers and armadas from its rivals France, England/Britain and the Netherlands?

Hi. I have a question regarding the role of (Spanish) Basques of America.

While a substantial part of the sailors that were with colon in its first trip to America were Basques (mostly from Lekeitio). At that time the foral system was making difficult to enlist Basques in the army. (it is unclear if they simply couldn't be enlisted or if just they had to be paid double or triple).

So it is safe to say that Basques played a minor role in the colonization of America?

This might be more “post-colonial” but here it goes. What happened to Colombia((Gran Colombia, nueva Granada, etc) after gaining independence. It seems like they gained their independence around 1819 and by the time Bolivar died around 1830 everyone split up. Was there anything in place before hand that led to this? Was any of this caused by the Spanish or any of their structures? Any clarity on this would be GREATLY appreciated because everyone you ask down here in Colombia has a different answer.

Thank you for the panel! I haven’t yet managed to read through all replies, so I hope I am not replicating questions.

I am curious about the impact of disease on North American tribes between 1500 and arrival of colonists at the various points of first described contact. Did a wave of disease move north and west from the Spanish settlements in Florida and the explorers who started North from the Gulf of Mexico in the hope of finding gold?

My kids learned that the Mayflower colonists brought back a young Native American who had been captured a few years prior, and was now to act as translator. He found his village empty with few survivors about, implying that the boat that abducted him left disease behind. So the pilgrims didn’t take over forest but villages where corn had been grown just a few years prior. True?

Colonialism is often tied in with economic systems and economic motivations. However, colonization actually occurred under a series of very different economic systems, sometimes even within the same country or colonial empire. To give one example, as France moved to a state-controlled command economy in the 17th and 18th centuries England was moving towards a freer and freer market.

Despite this, it seems like a lot of accounts I read compress the Europeans into one general economic mass with some notion that colonies were meant to create wealth. This is too vague to be useful though. The colonizers, from stepping foot in America till independence, undoubtedly existed in a complex melange of native economic practices, adaptations from exchange, their own notions of economics, the way they wished to set up the colony, the way the home country wished them to set up the colony, the imperial policies of the home country, and finally the policies of the home country itself. And this seems to have widely disparate effects: colonies had wildly different outcomes in terms of general wealth, the wealth of the new elite colonizers, and the wealth transferred back home.

I'd be interested in hearing about how the economic systems in the colonizing countries or in the colonies created these different outcomes. How they created relative levels of exploitation both within the colony and in regards to the home country exploiting the colony. Also, anything else about how these economic systems interacted and worked. Or didn't.

I've heard it argued that part of the reason Cortes and his allies defeated the Aztecs was because the Spanish way of war was so much more unscrupulous, vicious, and deadly than that of the Aztecs, even disregarding 'flower war' restraint. Unlike the Aztecs, supposedly, Spanish don't hesitate to kill the enemy outright, they target enemy captains with cavalry charges and missile weapons, they slaughter defenseless people (whether assembled nobles like at Cholula and Tenochtitlan or outlying villages), and so on. Going further, Inga Clendinnen in "A Fierce and Unnatural Cruelty" presents the native peoples are more culturally fatalistic, compared to the more enterprising Spanish. To what extent is this distinction an accurate characterization, and if so, was it significant in the downfall of the Aztecs? At first blush, it smacks a bit of 'noble savage' mythmaking and possibly some weird muscular West-is-Best-ism (not to mention the marginalization of native allies), but I'm not well acquainted enough with the sources or historiography to make a call on my own.

My question is about Central America, why did Central America divide into several nations? We're the native peoples culturally different from each other or did Spain arbitrally divide the area?

Was the chimayo rebellion of 1837 a native rebellion?

I've read that the chimayo residents were described as having braided hair and using bows and arrows.

At what point did identity shift in the genizaro people from native to spanish?

say you’re a group of English colonists who have just setup a new village in the early days of colonisation. how high does defence rank on your priorities? was there a fear of attack in general or were raids quite rare?

As far as I understand, when the city of Tenōchtitlan was taken by Cortez he briefly ruled from there. More importantly though, he started filling in canals and making the city into a proper Spanish city. To what degree did the city retain it's mexica culture? Could you find Nahuatl speakers in the streets long after Western Texcoco was filled? Or did the incoming Spanish deport and kill enough of the population to ensure that Spanish was the linga Franca within a few generations?

I have heard it argued that Europeans negative attitudes towards Native Americans started when the Spainards saw the Aztecs' tradition of human sacrifice. It goes without saying that this theory is incorrect: the Spainards famously mistreated Caribs and the population of the Canary Islands. But is there any truth to the idea that the human sacrifices of the Aztecs and other Mezoamerican groups negatively influenced European thought?

This is a reminder that the panel AMA is not generally on the Americas in pre-colonial times, but rather on the European colonisation efforts and their effects. Please keep this in mind and be sure to read the announcement and flair infos before asking a question.

You are of course free to ask such questions on the pre-Hispanic period anytime as standalone questions on r/AskHistorians.

I've heard that disunity in central America played a big role in the conquest of the region. What about south America? How did the unity/disunity played a role there?

How were the colonizers trips to and in south America? Their lifes in the jungles and in the ships?

Pre-Columbian trade networks encompassed massive systems. How did the arrival of Europeans immediately affect these trade networks? /u/Commodorecoco or /u/PartyMoses might know how to answer this.