Tell about the failures of the New World.
by Sam Green
1. What insights do you gain from comparing the French and Spanish accounts of the 1565 attack?
2. How do they decide what is ethically and politically acceptable in their actions and in the actions of their enemies?
3. What do the settlers see as the strengths and weaknesses of their colonies?
4. Which do they ascribe to external factors? To themselves?
5. Evaluate the colonists' planning for the settlements. How do they adapt to unforeseen problems?
6.How did colonists' relationships with the Indians affect their fate?
7. How did their perception of the natural environment affect their fate?
8. How did the leadership in each colony affect its fate?
9. What is critical for a successful colony?
10. To what extent did the colonists prepare for failure?
11. How did the colonies end?
12. How might these accounts differ from those of successful colonies?
13. What might have saved these colonies?
14. What might a prospective settler learn from these documents?
15. How did European rivalries affect the fate of these colonies?
1. While the Spanish victors wrote it as something that was glorious and wonderful, the losers, i.e. the French, brushed it off as luck, citing the fact that they were ill prepared and whatnot.
2. They used God to justify their actions. Seeing as how the French were mostly Catholic then, anyone who was French and Catholic would die. No exceptions.
3. While the Spanish possessed a great, strong Armada, the French were known for being economically stable. Both societies suffered from famine.
4. All strengths were usually ascribed to themselves, but when things went wrong, whether they were natural or due to themselves, they usually contributed it to external factors.
5. The planning of the settlers was poor. The food storage was performed poorly, and eventually, they had to request help from the Amerindians to get by.
6. They had a highly strained relationship, but the colonists depended on the natives, so they tried to do everything possible to keep on good terms with Amerindians, until one screw up sent the natives over the edge.
7. Their expectations of the environment were so poor. The beliefs they possessed ended up actually killing some due to their not being ready for it.
8. The French leader was too trusting of the Spanish, which got most of his colony killed. The Spanish were too "rude," if that is a word that can be used here, which led to the natives cutting ties with the Spanish.
9. A successful relationship with natives, a good economy, great leadership, and knowledge of the land all contribute to a successful colony.
10. There was no preparation whatsoever. People usually resorted to evacuating the colony when the knew of its imminent failure.
11. The colonies would end either through native rebellion, evacuation, the taking of the colonies by other countries, or, in rare cases, with no explanation at all.
12. The countries with successful colonies made said colonies top priority, unlike the countries of the colonies that failed.
13. If colonies had been better prepared for European enemies, native enemies, new climates and such, and had better leadership and planning, they could have been successful.
14. They would have learned that storing food is more important that the supposed minerals the New World holds.
15. If the countries had chosen to work together via their colonies instead of against each other, they possibly would have thrived much sooner than they actually did.
No comments:
Post a Comment