One major pattern repeats itself throughout history. The search for power transcends time period, culture, and language. Sometimes the way in which power is sought changes, because power comes in many forms. Knowledge is power, but so is money, influence, and superior technology. Sometimes, people seek to destroy the power of others by eradicating or stealing knowledge, money, or superior technology. Other times, to gain influence, they will take advantage of religion, or the resentment harbored by those oppressed, and lead a group of otherwise powerless people towards power. The odd thing about predominance is that rarely does any group want to give it up, because giving up this ability to rule over others is giving up the ability to choose,
…show more content…
timber and fish). Spain, in particular, wanted gold and silver for its dense value, and got it through the encomienda system. They also needed slaves to facilitate labor intensive colonization (35–38 in outline). Slavery was an integral part of each of the four major powers’ economies, especially in the West Indies (128 in outline). The Dutch, who had the best sugar refineries, couldn’t produce enough sugar cane themselves, so provided slave labor at generous prices to the English and French sugar plantation owners (127 in outline). Even those countries whose economies weren’t as heavily based on slavery required captive drudges for their labor intensive crops. Sugar was a huge source of wealth, especially to the British, who imported £586,528 worth of sugar into London in 1686 alone (124 in outline). The fur trade was also of significance, especially to the French and Dutch (64 in outline, 147 in outline). Again, furs were a wonderful export because of the scarcity of pelts in Europe as well as the dense value (ease of shipping) of the fur. This made it imperative that New France and New Netherland be far enough north to trade with natives for thickest, most valuable furs. Canada and the mouth of the Hudson River became New France and New Amsterdam respectively (249 in text). The French were …show more content…
Their goals were tangible gains, whether in terms of economics or geography. Productive land has often been synonymous to profit, and when that was not the case, the land could be used for its natural resources or even as a bargaining chip in peace negotiations. Not all of the colonizing countries were equally successful, but each country had its own unique way of approaching colonization, its colonists, and the colonies that belonged to other European countries. Every decision made concerning the colonies had one goal in mind; shifting the balance of power (whatever form it might take) in favor of the mother country. Power in the colonies tended to take the form of money, native allies, and location, and so each country did its best to obtain advantages over the others by any means necessary; creating a conflict that was almost always resolved by a redistribution of power. This power typically took the form of land, because that was the most efficient, concrete way to reassign wealth. The colonies completely redesigned what form power was most likely to take. In Europe, power almost exclusively belonged to those with inherited lands. The aristocracy was the only group with power, and they had it in almost all its forms. In the colonies, that wasn’t the case. It was
timber and fish). Spain, in particular, wanted gold and silver for its dense value, and got it through the encomienda system. They also needed slaves to facilitate labor intensive colonization (35–38 in outline). Slavery was an integral part of each of the four major powers’ economies, especially in the West Indies (128 in outline). The Dutch, who had the best sugar refineries, couldn’t produce enough sugar cane themselves, so provided slave labor at generous prices to the English and French sugar plantation owners (127 in outline). Even those countries whose economies weren’t as heavily based on slavery required captive drudges for their labor intensive crops. Sugar was a huge source of wealth, especially to the British, who imported £586,528 worth of sugar into London in 1686 alone (124 in outline). The fur trade was also of significance, especially to the French and Dutch (64 in outline, 147 in outline). Again, furs were a wonderful export because of the scarcity of pelts in Europe as well as the dense value (ease of shipping) of the fur. This made it imperative that New France and New Netherland be far enough north to trade with natives for thickest, most valuable furs. Canada and the mouth of the Hudson River became New France and New Amsterdam respectively (249 in text). The French were …show more content…
Their goals were tangible gains, whether in terms of economics or geography. Productive land has often been synonymous to profit, and when that was not the case, the land could be used for its natural resources or even as a bargaining chip in peace negotiations. Not all of the colonizing countries were equally successful, but each country had its own unique way of approaching colonization, its colonists, and the colonies that belonged to other European countries. Every decision made concerning the colonies had one goal in mind; shifting the balance of power (whatever form it might take) in favor of the mother country. Power in the colonies tended to take the form of money, native allies, and location, and so each country did its best to obtain advantages over the others by any means necessary; creating a conflict that was almost always resolved by a redistribution of power. This power typically took the form of land, because that was the most efficient, concrete way to reassign wealth. The colonies completely redesigned what form power was most likely to take. In Europe, power almost exclusively belonged to those with inherited lands. The aristocracy was the only group with power, and they had it in almost all its forms. In the colonies, that wasn’t the case. It was