No King Philip's War. Do the English colonies become majority mixed race?

There is a theory, that, the reason, that, the English didn't mix with Natives, like the Spanish did, was because of King Philip's War, read two of the answers in https://history.stackexchange.com/q...ans-mix-in-south-america-but-not-in-north-ame. If this war had been prevented, would the English colonies have become majority mixed race?

Maybe a bit more in New England, but that's just it: New England isn't all (or even very much of) of North America. There's a couple answers in that thread that seem logical, and several others that make my blood boil over ("hurr-hurr, all English racist dicks, all Iberians racially-accepting horndogs" :mad::mad::mad:), but I'll grant the person mentioning King Philip's War as a contributing factor seems to be well-read and clear on his theory. The issue is, there's way more to Anglo-Indigenous dynamics than one conflict.

As brought up in the same thread, the Spanish had it relatively easy (not to mention bags of dumb luck) when they came upon the Aztecs and Incas; they were quite advanced societies even by European standards and well-populated even post-plagues, so there was pressure to incorporate larger numbers of said natives as conquered subjects given the lack of numbers of Spanish settlers (and that whole argument about Iberians being racially mixed already is both factually wrong and a non-sequitur, it wouldn't matter too much who did the conquering with the same race-gender imbalance). Portugal had an even smaller population than Spain, yet held a relatively huge stretch of South America to control; factor these two elements in, and you'd see why Brazil saw similar racial dynamics despite the lack of a "central society" as previously mentioned.

In England's case, the natives were largely tribal/sub-national in governance and political character, which set the stage for later massacres and conflicts to be conflated as "civilized vs savage" persons fighting over resources/land. On top of that, the English adopted a policy of sending whole families to New England due to its source as a religious colony (it took longer to show up in Virginia, which was mostly a resource-extraction colony for most of its history anyway). We also see this in other parts of North America (regardless whether under American or British charge). France had a policy of essentially "colonies without colonists" beyond a city or two, plus fur traders, so there'd be no pressure for conflict as much. Even if King Philip's War didn't happen, that wouldn't effect other colonies' dynamics (e.g. Bacon's Rebellion being very much focused against tribal groups in the Upper South). Not that you COULDN'T have such colonies develop more mixed-race populations, there's nothing inherently racist about England any more than the Spaniards in truth, but you'd need to see the colonies be established with less of a "whole families, whole communities" dynamic going back to the late 16th Century (early 17th Century at the latest).
 

Scaevola

Banned
I think the English came more as families and communities, intent on creating a new life, and not as mercenaries and treasure seekers like the earlier Iberians, or as lone hunters and frontiersmen like the French. From the beginning the English pattern was one of extermination, not integration, of the natives.
 
Maybe a bit more in New England, but that's just it: New England isn't all (or even very much of) of North America. There's a couple answers in that thread that seem logical, and several others that make my blood boil over ("hurr-hurr, all English racist dicks, all Iberians racially-accepting horndogs" :mad::mad::mad:), but I'll grant the person mentioning King Philip's War as a contributing factor seems to be well-read and clear on his theory. The issue is, there's way more to Anglo-Indigenous dynamics than one conflict.

As brought up in the same thread, the Spanish had it relatively easy (not to mention bags of dumb luck) when they came upon the Aztecs and Incas; they were quite advanced societies even by European standards and well-populated even post-plagues, so there was pressure to incorporate larger numbers of said natives as conquered subjects given the lack of numbers of Spanish settlers (and that whole argument about Iberians being racially mixed already is both factually wrong and a non-sequitur, it wouldn't matter too much who did the conquering with the same race-gender imbalance). Portugal had an even smaller population than Spain, yet held a relatively huge stretch of South America to control; factor these two elements in, and you'd see why Brazil saw similar racial dynamics despite the lack of a "central society" as previously mentioned.

In England's case, the natives were largely tribal/sub-national in governance and political character, which set the stage for later massacres and conflicts to be conflated as "civilized vs savage" persons fighting over resources/land. On top of that, the English adopted a policy of sending whole families to New England due to its source as a religious colony (it took longer to show up in Virginia, which was mostly a resource-extraction colony for most of its history anyway). We also see this in other parts of North America (regardless whether under American or British charge). France had a policy of essentially "colonies without colonists" beyond a city or two, plus fur traders, so there'd be no pressure for conflict as much. Even if King Philip's War didn't happen, that wouldn't effect other colonies' dynamics (e.g. Bacon's Rebellion being very much focused against tribal groups in the Upper South). Not that you COULDN'T have such colonies develop more mixed-race populations, there's nothing inherently racist about England any more than the Spaniards in truth, but you'd need to see the colonies be established with less of a "whole families, whole communities" dynamic going back to the late 16th Century (early 17th Century at the latest).
I think the English came more as families and communities, intent on creating a new life, and not as mercenaries and treasure seekers like the earlier Iberians, or as lone hunters and frontiersmen like the French. From the beginning the English pattern was one of extermination, not integration, of the natives.

A comment on another one of the answers said, that, there is some evidence, like shown in http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=las_hhfc, that, after the first military expeditions, the gender ratio among Spanish settlers wasn't much different from the gender ratio among English settlers.
Though, of course, we should keep in mind as that same commenter said, that, the Spanish were interested in intermarriage as part of their conversion and "integration" policy.
But the user, that, mentioned King Philip's War pointed out, that, before the war, relations between the English Pilgrims and the Natives were relatively good and, that, conversions and intermarriages were happening.
 
Last edited:
I would think that there are more surviving natives in Central and South America would be the factor influencing the prevalence of mixed race ancestry there relative to the English colonies.
 
A comment on another one of the answers said, that, there is some evidence, like shown in http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=las_hhfc, that, after the first military expeditions, the gender ratio among Spanish settlers wasn't much different from the gender ratio among English settlers.
Though, of course, we should keep in mind as that same commenter said, that, the Spanish were interested in intermarriage as part of their conversion and "integration" policy.
But the user, that, mentioned King Philip's War pointed out, that, before the war, relations between the English Pilgrims and the Natives were relatively good and, that, conversions and intermarriages were happening.

Um, I read through that paper, and unless I missed something, there's nothing that specifically mentions Spanish women moving to the New World in any significant numbers relative to the male demographic, nor provides statistical/genetic/etc data to support said unspoken conclusion :confused:

Methinks that said commenter either didn't read their own supporting source, or some little detail in the paper got misinterpreted. Either way, I'm not convinced sans other sources. Nothing against you of course! I do think the relatively heavy role of the Church did "lean" on Spanish practices regarding racial views, but the existence of groups like the Cape Coloureds shows that said religious element isn't essential for the establishment of a mixed race cohort*.

*Then again, the Reformed Church was a pretty big component of Dutch culture in South Africa too, so I guess there's that, but the same could also be said of the Anglican church in Virginia (to say nothing of Puritanism in NE). SO, maybe religion does play in as a general feature, but it still needn't be specifically Catholic.

@Legofan4 it does help to have decent numbers of another people to mingle with for such occurrences to happen ;)
 
Last edited:
Top