European Conquests and Colonizations

European explorers did not set sail with the intentions of strip and exploiting any natives that they came into contact with. Rather, they occupied nonviolent tactics and solitary(prenominal) when those failed did they allow frustration to channelise its course and escalate personal matters among the natives and the settlers. Matters would be more less complicated if the boundaries between good and evil were defined and concrete, solely the relationship between these groups of people was more double than that. Natives found themselves being bust between two actually different cultures, and regardless of its sign intention, European settlement was noxious to the well being of natural 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 victor aim or not. \nreversal to popular belief, the Spanish conquistadors expedition to New Spain was not a missi on of violence and malignancy; rather it was a ghostly one, in which Friar Sahaguns goal was to convert the Nahua (Aztecs) to bring and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, the sacred man learned that the job at hand was not an insignificant one, when in 1576 a massive go forthbreak of the blighter crippled his 50-year effort. \nWar, slavery, overwork, and disease had wiped out huge numbers of autochthonic people, the very people Sahagun had hoped would take away on the work of Christianization far into the future. Worse still, the linguistic and ethnographical work of Spanish Christians such as Sahagun revealed that Indians who had managed to survive Spanish domination had also carry their spiritual beliefs, despite the armorial bearing of friars among them. (Overmyer-Velazquez, 74)\nThis passage makes it clear that the intentions of Spanish conquistadors werent as ungenerous or materialistic as they were once perceived. It does not unloosen the poor treatm ent of the Nahua pe...