European Conquests and Colonizations

European explorers did non set sail with the intentions of reave and exploiting any natives that they came into contact with. Rather, they utilize nonviolent tactics and and when those failed did they allow frustration to inject its course and escalate affairs surrounded by the natives and the settlers. Matters would be frequently less complicated if the boundaries in the midst of good and evil were define and concrete, however the relationship between these groups of people was more questionable than that. Natives found themselves being rupture between two real different cultures, and regardless of its initial intention, European settlement was negative to the well being of cowcatcher people. Im not here to argue semantics, but seizing someone elses land and triggering massive amounts of casualties qualifies as a conquest, regardless of whether it was their original aim or not. \n opposed to popular belief, the Spanish conquistadors transit to New Spain was not a mis sion of violence and spite; rather it was a apparitional one, in which Friar Sahaguns goal was to convert the Nahua (Aztecs) to combine and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, the phantasmal man learned that the delegate at hand was not an insignificant one, when in 1576 a massive step to the forebreak of the smite crippled his 50-year effort. \nWar, slavery, overwork, and disease had wiped out huge numbers of original people, the very people Sahagun had hoped would study on the work of Christianization far into the future. Worse still, the linguistic and ethnographic work of Spanish Christians such as Sahagun revealed that Indians who had managed to survive Spanish domination had also bear their spiritual beliefs, despite the heraldic bearing of friars among them. (Overmyer-Velazquez, 74)\nThis passage makes it clear that the intentions of Spanish conquistadors werent as egotistic or materialistic as they were once perceived. It does not reassert the poor t reatment of the Nahua pe...