Harris 1

Danielle Harris

May 5, 2017

History 411

Dr. Hardwick

The Nature of Colonial Encounters in Terms of Power Relationships

Colonization across the Americas in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were usually defined

by power relationships. This, above all other qualities, was what determined if the outcomes of

colonial encounters, and influenced whether or not they were similar or dissimilar. Power

relationships could be established in many different ways, and similarly the outcomes of colonial

encounters could have a set of similarities and differences depending on their situation. This can

be shown in a variety of different regions across time and country from the French encounters in

Anishaabewaki, to the Spanish encounters in New Mexico. Overall, no matter how they

compare, each of these encounters are defined by power relationships.

The most efficient way to explore the topic of power relationships in encounters and their

outcomes is to look at a variety of case studies. This is because while case studies are highly

situational, they can give important insight into themes and comparisons between events. In

doing this, I will mainly rely on case studies found a set of research literature focused on Indian

European relations.

The first case study I’m going to look at is in a book called Slavery in Indian Country:

The Changing face of Captivity by historian Christina Snyder. On the morning of January 21,

1802, a small Spanish colony near St. Augustine Florida was attacked by the Mikasukis, a tribe

that resided in northern central Florida. This was a retaliation attack for a lost warrior imprisoned

by the Spanish for aiding a rebel. In this raid, the Mikasukis took some of the Spanish colonist as
 Harris 2

captives for retribution. This had been going on for at least a year and a half, and by then the

Mikasukis had around 70 captives of diverse cultural backgrounds. The important part of this

tale, is that when the Spanish Floridians attempted to take back their missing captives they found

that they could not. The only way it seemed, to retrieve their fellow colonist was by paying

exorbitant prices. Even then, some important captives could not be taken back.1

This case study important because it tells a common trope about captive structure

between Europeans and the Native American everywhere in the continents. It shows that power

relations are essential to the outcome of captive taking. In 1802 the Spanish colony near St.

Augustine Florida could not risk an attack to recapture their comrades because they were

outnumbered and comparatively weaker. Those who had power, whether European or Native,

could take captives and keep them with relative ease. In this sense, colonial captive encounters

were very similar cross time and continent.

Another case study that highlights this similarity while stemming from an entirely

different set of circumstances is found in Captives and Cousins: Slavery, Kinship, and

Community in the Southern Borderlands, by historian James Brooks. In this case a Spanish

colony in New Mexico enacted a piece of legislation that the Navahos believed infringed on their

herds grazing territory. This was not entirely new as the Spanish colonist had infringed on their

territory before, just not their limited grazing land. When the Navaho tried to retaliate this

legislation, a Lieutenant Colonel by the name of Antonio Narbona led a campaign in their land.

In the end 115 Navajos were killed and 33 were taken captive and given to some of the soldiers.2

1
See chapter 5, of Christina Snyder’s book, Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing face of
Captivity.
2
See chapter 6, of James Brooks’ book, Captives and Cousins: Slavery, Kinship, and Community
in the Southern Borderlands.
 Harris 3

What this case study highlights, is that it does not matter much if it is a Native or

European group taking the captives in New Mexico or Florida, the outcome of the encounter

relies more on the power relations of the group than any other factor. In this way the outcomes of

captive encounters are actually very similar in different regions. Both groups holding less power,

the Spanish in Florida and the Navajo in New Mexico, were unable to protect and save their

captives. The stronger groups, were also able to take captives with little negative consequence.

As a result, the main argument for the outcomes of captive taken being dissimilar might be how

the captives are treated under different cultural ideas of captivity.

A different case study that highlights how power disparity between Europeans and Native

groups affects the outcomes of encounters is in a book by Daniel H. Usner, entitled Indians,

Settlers, & Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783.

In the beginnings of the book, a case is described where French colonist land on a beach in

Biloxi Bay, in the Mississippi river valley in 1699. The French had little trouble occupying some,

and assimilating in to the landscape. By 1700, the lower Mississippi Valley only had around

7,000 or so Native Americans living there, because the spread of European diseases wiped out a

lot of the native population. In fact, the nearest native populations were a few days away from

the original site of this French colony.3

This is significant, because the spread of European diseases was an important and

generally constant factor in how well primer colonies settled in new territory, and later how they

expanded. Strong native populations, as in the case of Anishaabewaki, were harder to assimilate

into, while populations affected by disease and slave raids like the lower Mississippi Valley had

3
See chapter 1, of Daniel Usner’s book, Indians, Settlers, & Slaves in a Frontier Exchange
Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783.
 Harris 4

less pressures on space and allowed for easier occupation. Moreover, disease was a rather similar

factor in colonial encounters and primer colonies across the Americas. This is mainly because

primer colonies were highly costal, regions that were most affected by these European diseases.

The difference in the outcomes of primer colonies can be mainly attributed to how the

surrounding nations decide to act at the colonies begging. In the case of the native groups facing

the French in 1699, they decided it was more important to ally with them then drive them out,

because their northern and British enemies. In doing so, they sealed the French colonies outcome

to one of survival. Some nations, who chose to give less allowances and help to European

colonizers like in the famous case of Roanoke, sealed primer colonies to a worse fate.

Another case study showcasing the outcomes of colonial encounters by power

relationships was through competition and conflicting groups, and impact they had on trade. One

good example of this was in Masters of Empire: Great Lakes Indians and the Making of America

by Dr. Michael Mc. Donnell. In this case study, the French established a trading post in

Mishilimakinac in 1683. Because of their low population in comparison to the strong nations that

surrounded them, they faced the outcome of being in a situation they could not control. The

purpose of this trading post was to originally help fix Iroquois-French relations, but instead it did

the opposite. The Odawa were emboldened by the heightened French presence to go heighten

aggression towards the Iroquois, making the French caught in the crossfire of a larger

international Indian conflict. Moreover, the French were being attacked by the Iroquois in

various locations such as the French post at St. Louis. This led to the French trading situation in

the area to be less than ideal, subject to the whims of the Odawa, and the conflict around them.4

4
See chapter 2, of Michael McDonnel’s book, Masters of Empire: Great Lakes Indians and the
Making of America
 Harris 5

This case study leads us to a variety of conclusions about, the outcomes of colonial

encounters by power relationships was through competition and conflicting groups. It is apparent

that a group with little power can have its society and livelihood (in this case trade), completely

influenced by dominate outside parties. We did see this, to some extent in the case of the Spanish

enacting legislation and controlling the Navahos by force, but the difference here is that the

control is a bit less direct. Additionally, unlike the French, these tribes were already established

and could work with their social groups to find solutions. In this case similar situations can have

a large arrange different outcomes, primarily because intent of the dominate parties matters a lot.

Another example similar to that of the Odawa, Iroquois, and French with a different

outcome appears again, in Daniel Usner’s book Indians, Settlers, & Slaves in a Frontier

Exchange Economy. In this case study, it is November 1762 and the French have just seeded

Louisiana to the Spanish King, the whole region, including the Native groups, are undergoing a

transitional period in which they have to adapt to a new presence. Like for the French, for the

native groups, this is the result of an external conflict between large outside parties.

What is different about this case study is that this conflict is less direct, and the party with

the lesser amount of power, the Native Americans, have more room to adapt and they are able

use the transition to their advantage. Tribes in the east of the Mississippi for example, traded

with the English but maintained relations with Louisiana in order to have access to the Spanish

government. Some tribes also chose to trade only with the Spanish to receive benefits through

their licensing program. Overall, conflicts between nations lead to immensely different outcomes

for third parties because of their inherent complexities. Some factors, like intent of the dominate
 Harris 6

parties, or the level of which your group is established, can change the outcome the challenges

the group faces.5

This is important because it shows that the outcomes of colonial encounters in terms of

competition, conflicting groups, and impact on trade are not very similar cross continent. They

have a variety of different outcomes, and these outcomes are not completely influenced by power

relations. On the whole, outside conflicts and their impacts on third party trading is incredibly

interesting in their uniqueness.

Another case study that highlights different outcomes colonial encounters by power

relationships is that of cultural interaction between the Europeans and the Native Americans.

This case study in particular is found in An Infinity of Nations: How the Native New World

Shaped Early North America by Michael Witgen. In this case study, in the late 17th century

French Jesuits and traders were few, and they wanted a way of establishing relationships with the

Native American groups in order to either grow wealth or spread their religion. Increasingly,

they began to realize that in order to establish relations with these groups they had to bind

themselves to the natives as relatives. This would make them inawemaagen, and link them to the

system of kinship that glues Native American social structure together.6

This is important because it shows that in order for the less populace European groups to

achieve their goals, whether it be wealth or spreading their religion in the new world, they must

first adapt themselves to the larger dominate groups that they want goods from. In doing so, they

exhibit a trend in that, when one group wants something from the other that they cannot receive

5 See chapter 4, of Daniel Usner’s book, Indians, Settlers, & Slaves in a Frontier Exchange
Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783.
6 See chapter 2, of Micheal Witgen’s, An Infinity of Nations: How the Native New World Shaped

Early North America

 Harris 7

in an ideal manner through conflict or overpowering, they have to compromise. This actually

happens rather frequently between native societies and European colonies and traders. A lot of

the time traders would marry into tribes, or small governments like those in the lower Mississippi

would exchange in gift giving. Overall, this trend is similar across the continent, so long as the

power structure is similar to the middle ground or the dominate group benefits.

The last case study I’m going to look at is from Daniel Richter’s The Ordeal of the

Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization. In this

case study the Iroquois become economically dependent with the Kristoni, or Dutch traders. This

attachment happened for a period of 50 years in the late 16th and early 17th century around the

Delaware Valley. Even though their relationship will be usually characterized as tense because of

costly demands of the Dutch, they will become strong trading partners if only because of

proximity and eagerness. The Iroquois would mainly trade pelts (like deer or beaver), for

everything from cloth to metals to guns. Objects they had no use for, like kettles, they would

rework into something of value to them like jewelry. When the Dutch leave in the mid 17th

century the Iroquois would face an economic crisis when the nearby tribes and other colonist

can’t support their economic demand.7

Now this case study is important because it shows, that much like the French Jesuits and

traders in the Delaware region, that power relationships can change over time and can sometimes

cause different a dependent or co-dependent relationship to occur. While not often do tribes

become as dependent as the Iroquois did with the Dutch, similar occurrences did happen on a

smaller scale. Overall, it is important to note that in the case of colonial encounters with one side

7See chapter 4, of Daniel Richter’s The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois
League in the Era of European Colonization.7
 Harris 8

becoming economically dependent there are usually different outcomes. Many times other

factors like the length of time they are economically dependent, play a large role in the outcome.

The Iroquois, for example, where economically dependent on the Dutch for around 50 years.

That is a full generation that has passed without the Iroquois needing to be completely self-

sufficient. Old techniques can sometimes be partially or completely forgotten. Either way their

economy would need time to heal from being dependent for so long.

In conclusion, while some outcomes of colonial encounters are similar or dissimilar

depending on their individual context, most are defined and influenced by their power

relationships. Whether its Spanish legislation concerning the Navajos, or primer colonies in the

Lower Mississippi Valley, power relationships play a large role in influencing outcomes. Some

case studies while they are more unique than others, are still interesting and worthwhile to study

in order to get a broader idea of the historical context.

 Harris 9

Works Cited

Brooks, James. Captives and cousins: slavery, kinship, and community in the southwest

borderlands. Readhowyouwant.com Ltd, 2011.

Snyder, Christina. Slavery in Indian country: the changing face of captivity in early America.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

McDonnell, Michael A. Masters of empire: Great Lakes Indians and the making of America.

New York: Hill and Wang, 2016.

Richter, Daniel. The Ordeal of the Long House: The People of the Iroquois League in the Era of

European Colonization. University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

Usner, Daniel H. Indians, settlers & slaves in a frontier exchange economy: the Lower Mississipi

Valley before 1783. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History

and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, by the University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

Witgen, Michael. Infinity of nations: how the native new world shaped early north america.

Place of publication not identified: Univ Of Pennsylvania Pr, 2013.