Transcript of How Europeans, Native Americans, and Africans Shaped Each Other [APUSH Review]

Okay, so we've got indigenous Americans, enslaved Africans, and Europeans all mixed together in the Americas like a stanky colonial stew. And I bet you're here to learn about how those interactions affected or changed the perspectives of all those involved. If that's true, then I hope you're ready to get them brain cows milked because I stand at the ready to milk them. Let's get to it. Okay, so if you've been paying attention for the last few videos, then it's not going to come as any surprise to hear that as the Spanish concistadored all over indigenous America, folks on both sides noticed that they were pretty different from each other. or to deploy the lexicon of our AP overlords. As contact between the Europeans and the various indigenous peoples of the Americas increased, they asserted divergent worldviews. Now, what in the fresh heck does that mean? Well, a worldview describes a people's constellation of cultural experiences, like their history and their belief systems and their language, etc. And all of that combined dictates how they make sense out of the world. For example, if you were born and raised here in the United States, then you likely believe that democracy is the best form of government. And let's not be too modest that every country on earth should also be a democracy. That's just part of the American worldview that lives all the way down in our guts, which is to say at the level of assumption. And if someone came along and disagreed with us and they said, for example, you know, like h I think communism is a better way to go. Well, then that dear interlocutor better hold on to his butt because we're about to sick a flock of bald eagles on that man's hind parts. Okay, I'm now getting word that this video will in fact be on the internet and that I'm obliged to tell you that I am not a communist and that I love democracy. My PR department apparently ran the numbers and it turned out there was an 84% chance that internet people would assume that I was persuading the delicate brain folds of America's youth to quote go full comm. So statement made disaster avert. Anyway, the whole point of me giving you this example is to show that world views are deeply embedded and for the undicern they just assume that their worldview is the best way to understand the world. And when those people encounter other people with a whole different set of assumptions for how the world should work, the instinct tends to be they're my enemy. And we happen to have a fun word for that reality, namely ethnosentris. Anyway, now that you understand that whole mess, let's compare the world views of the Europeans and the indigenous peoples with whom they interact. First, they had differing worldviews regarding land use. Europeans believed that land could be owned by individuals, but the dominant indigenous belief was that land contained spiritual qualities that bound all things together and thus belonged to all people communally. And so when the Europeans showed up, they looked at the way the indigenous people were handling their land and they were like, "No, I ain't doing this right. We'll show you how." Second, they held differing worldviews concerning belief systems or if you're sassy, religion. Now, Europeans were on the whole Christian and adhere to a complex set of dogmas and doctrines, most notably the doctrine of a single god. And although indigenous belief systems varied, many of them believed in multiple gods and did not separate the spiritual material realms as was common in European Christianity. Third, in terms of gender roles, Europeans tended to be patriarchal, where men have the power, whereas indigenous people tended to be more egalitarian, which is to say equal, even to the extent that some family and power structures were matrinal, meaning they passed through the mother's descendants. And finally, in terms of family structure, Europeans tended to emphasize the nuclear family as normative, whereas indigenous peoples lived together in extended families containing multiple generations. So, you can begin to see why the Spanish instinct toward indigenous groups was to patronize and subjugate them. They both held different world views and that felt like a threat. Now everything I just said is true. Most of the early years of contact between Europeans and the indigenous groups were full of misunderstandings. But eventually in some cases, Europeans and Native Americans adopted some useful aspects of each other's culture. For example, due to the Spanish effort to establish Christian missions in southwest North America, many indigenous peoples converted to Christianity or at least adopted some useful aspects of Christianity. Now, certainly arguable that these conversions occurred due to the heavy-handed and sometimes brutal tactics of the Spanish missionaries. Hey, you know how we just killed a bunch of y'all? Well, we just wanted to follow up on that and say that Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Who wants to pray? But, you know, being polytheist, indigenous people saw no conflict in adding the Christian God to the worship of other gods. And it might have been enticing for them to convert when they observed that the Spanish remained largely unaffected by the epidemics killing large portion of the indigenous population. But the problem showed up when those indigenous people who had converted to Christianity did not practice the faith in the way that satisfied the Spanish priest. In other words, according to the priest, these savages in front of them didn't seem to understand that Jesus would not abide any other gods to sit at the heavenly table with him. In fact, in the Spanish mind, what the primitive people could not understand was that Jesus wasn't the god just of the Europeans, but the god of the whole dang universe. And whatever gods the indigenous people worshiped were no gods at all and should be tossed on the metaphysical garbage. But even so, it turns out that some indigenous people who accepted Christianity also adapted it to their own worldview, which is what we call synretatism. For example, in the 16th century, a man of Aztec lineage began receiving visitations from the Virgin Mary, who's a central feature of Catholic Christianity. And in these visions, she instructed him to build a church in her honor on the side of a torn down Aztec temple. And she became known as the Virgin of Guadalupe. And notice that she is portrayed with brown skin, which is clearly not a choice made by the Spanish. Additionally, because indigenous belief systems in the area emphasized a mother goddess and a cult of fertility, many embraced her as worthy of veneration. So, out of this encounter with Christianity and indigenous belief systems, a blending occurred in which the indigenous people developed a form of Christianity that reflected their own worldview. On the other side, European settlers adopted many useful aspects of indigenous culture. For example, the English settlers in North America just about died before the natives of the region taught them local agricultural techniques. and French settlers, mostly interested in the robust American fur trade, often intermarried with indigenous women in order to firm up trade relations. But here's where I tell you that the mutuality between the two groups was for sure overshadowed by the tensions created by their encounter. You see, as European colonists continue to claim land for themselves and therefore challenge native sovereignty, conflicts occurred between the two groups. And those conflicts typically led to one of two outcomes. First, tensions could be settled through diplomacy. And I mentioned this earlier, but in some cases, Native Americans defended themselves from Europeans by allying with them against other native groups. This occurred when several groups under Aztec power allied with the Spanish in order to topple their oppressors. But then the second outcome was violence through military resistance. And the best example I know of in this period is the Tino Rebellion. So in 1511, the native people of modern day Puerto Rico rebelled against the Spanish intrusion. As it turned out, they had grown real tired of the brutal conditions of the Encomienda system and the threat to their cultural traditions as the Spanish attempted to convert them to Christianity. And so they decided to drive out the Spanish with force. Now, because the Tina were more numerous than the Spanish, they had some success at the beginning. But over time, the superior weaponry of the Spanish won the day and they suppressed the rebellion. And that whole event confused the Spanish because like weren't these people savages? And shouldn't they be grateful that we're bringing the glories of Western civilization to them? Well, apparently the Tino did not agree with that assessment. And so they tried to whip some Spanish butt. And that gets me thinking about the last section of this video. Namely, you need to know that as these groups encountered each other, their interaction sparked a debate back in Spain. And you know, I suppose to their credit as news of the brutality of the encoma system and African slavery reached Spain, they were like, "Is this okay?" And that question with respect to indigenous people sparked what's known as the viodal debates in Spain. On one side was Barthole Deascus, who was once himself a concistador in the Americas. Upon his arrival there, he owned land and indigenous slaves as an encomando and even fought in a war against indigenous groups. However, over time, he changed his mind and became one of their chief advocates in Spain. He argued that indigenous people were fully human and thus ought not to be subject to the inhumane ravages of systems like Incomienda. Now, to be fair, Lascasa still held a very paternalistic view of indigenous peoples. And what I mean is he advocated for them, but he still saw them as univilized compared to the Spanish and were therefore in need of European uh, you know, toutelage. But then on the other side of the debate was Juan Guin de Seepda who argued that indigenous people were in fact less than human and therefore the subjugation and brutality actually helped them along the way into their full humanity. Not surprisingly Sephveda's view won the day and that helped the Spanish to justify their harsh treatment of the indigenous peoples with whom they interacted. But then a similar prick of conscience hit the Europeans regarding their growing dependence on African slavery and all the brutality and horror that characterized that institution. But not to worry, the Bible scholars showed up and Pope explained it real nice for everybody. They pointed to an episode in the book of Genesis known as the curse of Ham. Now, Ham was one of the sons of Noah of Ark fame. And long story short, Noah went ahead and cursed Ham and said that he and his descendants will be servants all their days. And the Bible scholar said, "Look, Africans are the descendants of Ham, so we're justified in enslaving them. God says so." To which somebody in the back of the room responded, "Uh, where does it say that Ham's descendants were African?" To which the scholar said, "Hey, shut up." And this kind of argument became even more common as Europeans interacted with more and more Africans. And by the 16th century, they had developed a concrete concept of race and racial difference and combined that with all their religious arguments. And all that put together, boom, novel justifications for the brutal treatment of other races. Okay, you can click here to get my A pushheimler review guide, which is the fastest way to study for your exams. And you can click here to watch my other videos from unit one. I'll catch you on the flip-flop. I'm Lar.