How
did the Broad Trends Lead to Differences in How the Europeans Treated Africa
and the
|
Difference |
With Africa |
With North and South America |
Disease at the time of contact between the Europeans and the |
Killed Europeans—therefore the Europeans needed to stay on the coast. |
Killed Native Americans—with estimates at 90% plus. |
Gold, availability of |
Available for trade at the coast |
Available by conquest in the South’s coastal empires. |
Territories, access to entry at the coast¾that is, how do the Europeans get a foothold when they are few in number? |
Populated by organized states, with armies—thus a barrier to European entry |
In the North, relatively unpopulated and with many language groups, resulting in lack of centralization[1] In the South, vulnerable at the time of first contact because of civil war (Incas) and of attempts to tighten centralization (Aztecs) [2] |
Territories, access to the interior |
Mixed—much of territory considered unknown through end of 1700s and beyond |
In the North, Mississippi River network (comparatively easy to travel). In the South, Native American empires (Aztec and Inca) on the coast and comparatively easy to reach by European ships. |
Trade, access to |
At the coast, initially on the Africans’ terms |
In the interior, initially on the Native Americans’ terms |
Copyright C. J. Bibus, Ed.D. 2014 |
WCJC Department: |
History – Dr. Bibus |
Contact Information: |
281.239.1577 or mailto:cjb_classes@yahoo.com |
Last Updated: |
2014 |
WCJC Home: |