On my 65 birthday with a friend I took a cruise trip with Fred Olsen Cruise lines on MV ( Motor Vessel ) Boudicca.
Boudicca left from Southampton via Madeira, Canaries , Cape Verde onto Salvador in Brazil. The trip took us down to Argentina, Chile, around to Peru, Ecuador, Panama, Porto Rico, Cuba ,Bahamas, Bermuda and finally the Azores and back to Southampton.
To be fair I’m not cruise ship type of person being small boat sailor but it was an interesting trip the Chilean Fjords were breath taking with magnificent scenery beautiful, and amazing glaziers.
What it did highlight was the difference in the various ethnic peoples that inhabit South America. Which for me was quite a stark differences in the ethnic groups.,
For some reason I felt throughout that trip the very negative influences of Spanish colonisation of South America and the legacy of inequality it’s left on that continent.
Columbus was probably one if not the first colonisers of central and partiality southern part of the North America continent.
But we British like the Dutch and Portuguese and Spanish created empires through are nautical wondering around the globe, looking for people,, lands and natural resources to exploit that produced tremendous wealth for all these European colonisers of peoples and their lands.
I remember as young soldier when we still had many British colonies most of them were becoming independent from us some still remained part of the so called common wealth. Common wealth is misnomer expression? Why? When I sailed to Caribbean and visited the old British Caribbean islands, such as Antigua, Nevis even the British Virgin Islands who are still a British Oversea Territory I didn’t see lots of common wealth there.
When I sailed to Guadeloupe still part of the French West Indies it was like being in Europe was much more affluent . The French still subsides their French territories were us Brits set up “offshore financial centres tax heavens” in our oversea territories were the money is repatriated back to mainly British banks or other western financial centres. Don’t get me wrong we’re not unique in the plunder of any resource natural or human we can lay our hands on.
Colonisation has left an awful legacy especially in South America but especially so on the continent of Africa.
What was the driving force of colonisation? Certainly wasn’t to improve the lot of the indigenous peoples. They were used in many cases as force Labour and enslaved to plunder their own natural resources. What natural resources; silver, gold, diamonds, copper, cobalt, nickel, chrome, iron, coal, oil, cotton, rubber, sugar, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, tea and on and on, lets not forget narcotics!
The European nations subjected the indigenous peoples all over the world to hardship and servitude to extract as much wealth as they could possible squeeze out of each of the colonised countries. But not only did they have to work for a pittance they were taxed by the colonisers as well!. Controlled them psychologically through the colonisers religion and hierarchical class system based upon hereditary, colour (white ) or slightly less white and social standing. They the indigenous people became second class and subjugated in their own lands. Isn’t understandable every so often they had uprising against their persecutors and were put down with sheer violence from the ruling colonisers.
The modern capitalism is still based upon this system of exploitation of financial wealth and ownership. Why are so many of the old colonised countries still poor even when they still have wonderful natural resources? It’s through the colonisers legacy of corrupting the tribal leaders for the colonisers financial gain. I mean who runs the IMF International Monetary Fund and the World bank but the old European colonisers.
I think we should remember plunder and colonisation was sanctions by the aristocracy of each of those colonisers nations. Most were headed by royalty or kings and queens in the case of the U.K. the Queen of England Elizabeth First.
But this colonisation of the world needed adventurers and military men to go and take these lands by force of arms.
It was men who carried out these invasions (and not women) there were many, but for me, one man stood out for his sheer audacity and single mindedness to achieve wealth and fame by any means it was the Conquistador Hernan Cortes.
Who was Hernan Cortes and how did he manoeuvre himself to be the conqueror or as the Spanish say Conquistador supreme. Who did he conquer and why?
The Spanish used the model they’d developed in the conquering of the fortune islands or as we called them today the Canaries. They used the same military model when they conquered the indigenous Guanches. Gran Canaria is so called because it took the Spanish many years to conquer the Guanches on that island through the Spanish gaul and subterfuge!
The towns they built in the new world were based upon grid pattern of Sen Sebastian De La Gomera.
Let’s go back to the conquistadors extraordinaire Henan Cortes, who was he where did come from?
Cortes started from fairly humble beginnings born in Medellin in Castile Spain in 1485. His father was an infantry captain of distinguished ancestry but with out much money. He went to study Latin at 14 with his uncle and learnt to understand legal documents. Later on it gave him the knowledge of the legal codes of Castile that he applied to help justify his unauthorised conquest of Mexico.
Cortés was described by Gómara a biographer as a ruthless, haughty, and mischievous.The 16-year-old youth had returned home to feel constrained life in his small provincial town. However from his later exploits he used all his extraordinary powers of daring, audacity, courage and leadership to overcome setbacks in his invasion of Mexico with his small band of soldier adventures who fought in hand to hand combat against many thousands of indigenous Mexicans.
Hard for us today to envision men like Cortes and his small band of Conquistadors but they were all restless men looking for fame and glory. Cortes was no different to his band of men but what made him especially different he didn’t obey orders he was maverick leader he was a opportunist he made his own rules.
This story of hardship, brutality and utter endurance as there was no turning back as he burnt his ships to make his men fight to the bitter end. With Cortes is was shit or bust! Let me tell the story of the Conquest and Colonisation of Mexico!
The soldier adventures had finest steel armour, swords from Telado Salamanca, catapults and rudimentary firearms and horses. More importantly wills of steel. Nothing was going to stop them achieve their aims of financial riches. South America was rich in silver and gold!
Professor Micheal Wood I think tells the story of Cortes beautifully from his humble beginnings to his time in Hispaniola and Cuba then his audacious conquest of the Aztec empire and his double crossing of the Aztec king Montezuma 11.
Like all the stories there are two sides one with an empire built on tribal and deep religious believes. Some of those believes and tradition we would call gruesome but remember we are talking about 500 years ago different worlds.
But it’s fascinating story and was repeated in other parts of the world to a greater and lesser degree.
Finally I’ve always thought why we have an insidious nature of racism it pervades everywhere where white people abide. Why because it was white Europeans who colonised indigenous population who just happen to be a different colour. Simply because nature had evolved to give indigenous peoples a pigment to naturally protect their skin from the sun.
So why is racism so insidious? It goes back to colonisation of coloured peoples of the world who were controlled by white Europeans for plunder and exploration of their lands. In most cases they were put into servitude and slavery. That’s why white Europeans have in built racism and it still exists to this very day. No matter what people say to the contrary!