Europeans and America - DBQ

Europeans traveled to America to discover and claim the vast New World for their mother countries, and along the way, meeting the indigenous people of the Americas. They observe, trade, and convert with these indigenous people, and the transmitting of diseases, precious metals, ideas, and weapons (for better or for worse) result.

The first category is based on religion, since it was a big deal at the time. If someone wasn't of the same religion as you, there was a good chance neither of you would get along. When Amerigo Vespucci traveled to America in 1497 (Doc#1) based his first impressions, negative as he was an Italian of strong faith, and was disturbed when he discovered the people he met worshipped no God. Next, in 1500, Dr. Diego Alverez Chanca, part of Columbus' crew, (Doc#2), made no mention of religion as he described in distaste of the Caribe Indians, as they were vile and so grossly unlike the Europeans, who himself is probably used to a wealthy life as he used to be the physician with the Spanish Royalty. Then, in 1520, Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Doc#3) arrives in Mexico. He was peaceful and had a positive view of the Mexicans, because he was hopeful they would be able to convert them to Catholicism and saw them as (relative) equals. The native chiefs willingly (and enthusiastically) converted to the Spanish religion. After that, in 1632, French explorer Samuel de Champlain (Doc#4), doesn't base his views on any religion, although its apparent he is scornful of the natives, for their apparent lack of respectable clothing and thieving ways, which is general crime in Europe.

ortant in understanding the lives of the Native Americans. Amerigo Vespucci (Doc#1) describes the Indians naivete when they trade their bow and arrows for some shiny buttons, and show little interest in the things that the Europeans find important. Dr. Chanca is disgusted when describing their cannibalism and enslavement of women for sex, calling them bestial. Hernando Cortes (Doc#3), was immediately welcomed, quite warmly, when he arrived in Mexico and met the natives, who were gracious and open-minded, and were impressed by the European goods. This is most likely the reason why Cortes is the only one who has a positive view on the natives, especially since they were peaceful, converted, and like the Europeans stuff. Champlain (Doc#4), however, was apprehensive about the natives he encountered. While those natives were willing to barter, they were thieves and hard to trust, and had a scanty clothing. He described them as savages, which was probably true because the natives were not very well developed in technology or any forms of government or rule. As for the Natives themselves, throughout the 16th century (Doc#5), mostly had it worse than the Europeans. Not only did they got the visitors and all the good they brought with them, but the diseases that they had no immunity to (small pox, measles, etc.). There were different reactions among the natives to the Europeans and there goods: some were open and welcome, some were hostile and stubbornly close-minded, and others were neutral to their arrival. It really depended on their own religion and cultures.

Throughout the 16th century, Europeans generally got the shinier side of the coin, and even that was a little rusty. While the Americas got diseases and were terribly outmatched by European prowess, the Europeans received foods like potatoes and corn, and plantations of sugar and tobacco, enslaving the natives for their darker skin color and pagan religons. To add to this essay, a document from England would be helpful. After all, England was a major country in Europe, who had their own personal view on things, who also had access to ships and crossed the Atlantic.

Chapter 16 - The World Economy - Notes in Wordle Form