How were The Americas Colonized - The Entire History
video description
Date: 2025-08-02
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
komlat253
I mean it is a known fact that much of the native American people died by foreign sickness rather losing every battle they came into. I mean not for nothing but even we do use over simplified words when we talk about things like weapons and battles and technology.
During pre colonial America saber of metal and a musket was definitely was something they never seen but we kinda over play both the level of mystery and the level of effectiveness. For example a the natives never made metal swords but most native nations worked with not only copper for the most part but also silver and gold, softer metals and even i belive the Inca used platinum as well. But the difference is that native used metals in art, ceremony and jewelry rather than battle since heavy metals to pierce and protect would be very impractical. That being said we do see evidence of knifes of all metals but not swords but we know south America were more keen to blunt weaponry which to be fair the blunt weapons compared to a sword isn't really an advantage of if seen Aztec weapons. We are talking about weapons that all of which will quickly kill u in one good stick. .
But iron and steal are the 2 metals not used or made in the Americas yet the idea of a metal waste foreign to them.
Now when it comes to musket, I thought that was a well debuke myth that a musket was vastly superior to a bow. A bow from a strong tree and even just some metals was shooting at similar distances as a musket. Although technically a musket shoots further and faster, a bow shots further more reliably. I wouldn't call a musket the evolution of a bow because the musket basically solves no issues over a except i guesss eliminating one's need to draw back and fire. I mean even a avarge archer is shooting 10 times before a man with a musket gets to shoot a 2nd time. The environment they would be fighting in wouldn't even give a musket a real advantage like one would thing, its not like they had automatic rifles or guns with magazines. and let's be real, taking a gun shot or an arrow is basically death and its not like u really just dodging one other the other to say a bow is not a threat. these are still speeds that people are not realistically reacting too if fire directly at them.
Although obviously the European weaponry was more advanced in it creation and had the element of suprise, it not like weapons likes these at this time is really changing much. Like people know not to get poked by sharpe shit or stand in the direction someone has their sights trained on.
Id as alot of this is probably due to circumstance. U show up to a land u never been and u have people on a mission to take something while the other group is just curious about what u want. One has the element of suprise to plunder while on top of that taking the battle to their village and home. This is an advantage to be able to step in someone's home and stike 1st with your men who are trained for war agisnt a people who are probably not expecting it and also who's family and belongs are right there as well. One party needs only burn it down while the other needs to protect and fight. Its not really the same kinda fight. Like they are literally bringing a ready military to like a mixed group of people in which many of the warriors could be out fighting another war or hunting.
reply
I mean it is a known fact that much of the native American people died by foreign sickness rather losing every battle they came into. I mean not for nothing but even we do use over simplified words when we talk about things like weapons and battles and technology.
During pre colonial America saber of metal and a musket was definitely was something they never seen but we kinda over play both the level of mystery and the level of effectiveness. For example a the natives never made metal swords but most native nations worked with not only copper for the most part but also silver and gold, softer metals and even i belive the Inca used platinum as well. But the difference is that native used metals in art, ceremony and jewelry rather than battle since heavy metals to pierce and protect would be very impractical. That being said we do see evidence of knifes of all metals but not swords but we know south America were more keen to blunt weaponry which to be fair the blunt weapons compared to a sword isn't really an advantage of if seen Aztec weapons. We are talking about weapons that all of which will quickly kill u in one good stick. .
But iron and steal are the 2 metals not used or made in the Americas yet the idea of a metal waste foreign to them.
Now when it comes to musket, I thought that was a well debuke myth that a musket was vastly superior to a bow. A bow from a strong tree and even just some metals was shooting at similar distances as a musket. Although technically a musket shoots further and faster, a bow shots further more reliably. I wouldn't call a musket the evolution of a bow because the musket basically solves no issues over a except i guesss eliminating one's need to draw back and fire. I mean even a avarge archer is shooting 10 times before a man with a musket gets to shoot a 2nd time. The environment they would be fighting in wouldn't even give a musket a real advantage like one would thing, its not like they had automatic rifles or guns with magazines. and let's be real, taking a gun shot or an arrow is basically death and its not like u really just dodging one other the other to say a bow is not a threat. these are still speeds that people are not realistically reacting too if fire directly at them.
Although obviously the European weaponry was more advanced in it creation and had the element of suprise, it not like weapons likes these at this time is really changing much. Like people know not to get poked by sharpe shit or stand in the direction someone has their sights trained on.
Id as alot of this is probably due to circumstance. U show up to a land u never been and u have people on a mission to take something while the other group is just curious about what u want. One has the element of suprise to plunder while on top of that taking the battle to their village and home. This is an advantage to be able to step in someone's home and stike 1st with your men who are trained for war agisnt a people who are probably not expecting it and also who's family and belongs are right there as well. One party needs only burn it down while the other needs to protect and fight. Its not really the same kinda fight. Like they are literally bringing a ready military to like a mixed group of people in which many of the warriors could be out fighting another war or hunting.
reply
knowledgia
I LOVE stories about colonization that makes the stealing of land and people being raped and killed, seem only SLIGHTLY unpleasant.
Right before this the Moors (black people who helped feed the Spaniards by bringing agriculture and brought the colonizers out of the dark ages that killed their own people. Then crossed the pond to kill their own arborigines in what is now America after they stopped the pilgrims from starving to death by teaching them agriculture.
In fact Christopher Columbus was coming from the celebration of kicking out the last of the black natives to Europe on his way to get ships from king Ferdinand to kill the natives in America.
There’s a pattern of the killing natives and aborigines AFTER they save the lives of the invaders, share their land, and teach the colonizers to cultivate it.
It’s weird the killers of those who helped feed them, are celebrated as bringing civilization to the people they land and culture they steal from. The people who are still being killed off and STILL help are called savages and treated like invaders on their OWN land.
Fortunately this still continue. Theirs still slavery. The land stolen is kept. And when these people aren’t killing in the Middle East and taking land, they’re killing their own people by denying healthcare. Which is why poor countries in Cuba gave better outcomes than rich countries that make money off of sickness.
The privileged are able to quote lies and call it, HISTORY.
Telling the story of Christopher Columbus discovering a country he never sent foot on, IS A LIE! Based off the records of traveled there. It’s a common lie. But a LIE nonetheless. Spread by people like you. The foundation and results of that lie is bigoted and fascist. It teaches you to ignore known facts and go along with the herd.
reply
I LOVE stories about colonization that makes the stealing of land and people being raped and killed, seem only SLIGHTLY unpleasant.
Right before this the Moors (black people who helped feed the Spaniards by bringing agriculture and brought the colonizers out of the dark ages that killed their own people. Then crossed the pond to kill their own arborigines in what is now America after they stopped the pilgrims from starving to death by teaching them agriculture.
In fact Christopher Columbus was coming from the celebration of kicking out the last of the black natives to Europe on his way to get ships from king Ferdinand to kill the natives in America.
There’s a pattern of the killing natives and aborigines AFTER they save the lives of the invaders, share their land, and teach the colonizers to cultivate it.
It’s weird the killers of those who helped feed them, are celebrated as bringing civilization to the people they land and culture they steal from. The people who are still being killed off and STILL help are called savages and treated like invaders on their OWN land.
Fortunately this still continue. Theirs still slavery. The land stolen is kept. And when these people aren’t killing in the Middle East and taking land, they’re killing their own people by denying healthcare. Which is why poor countries in Cuba gave better outcomes than rich countries that make money off of sickness.
The privileged are able to quote lies and call it, HISTORY.
Telling the story of Christopher Columbus discovering a country he never sent foot on, IS A LIE! Based off the records of traveled there. It’s a common lie. But a LIE nonetheless. Spread by people like you. The foundation and results of that lie is bigoted and fascist. It teaches you to ignore known facts and go along with the herd.
reply
tommyg148
I still think there's a good possibility we lost the American Revolution but rather than Britain holding onto a rebellious colony through brute force they could allow independence but maintain economic, political, and cultural control behind the scenes. Basically the U. S. became an independent-looking extension of British influence. Economic ties Never really broke after the war, British banks financed a lot of American development. U. S. traded heavily with Britain and many of the elites still admired British culture and systems. American law and financial systems were placed in the hands of elite banking families many with European ties. The notion that a central banking system, separate from direct government control, could echo the Bank of England’s influence over its own state adds to my curiosity. The war itself wasn’t a total British commitment. Britain never sent the full force of its empire because the war was expensive and unpopular back home, and Britain had global priorities elsewhere they could afford to lose the war militarily, but win through softer power having shared elites with shared Interests.
Overtime, many American leaders especially in finance and foreign policy operated in lockstep with British global interests especially into the 20th century. Also unlike post-colonial nations that changed language, systems, or rebelled culturally, America kept English, British common law. I have thoughts that It’s possible the revolution was framed as a separation to appease the masses, while in reality it laid the groundwork for a symbiotic elite partnership. It might not be as much about winning or losing a war as it is about controlling the future through influence.
Britian said you can have the house we’ll own the mortgage.
reply
I still think there's a good possibility we lost the American Revolution but rather than Britain holding onto a rebellious colony through brute force they could allow independence but maintain economic, political, and cultural control behind the scenes. Basically the U. S. became an independent-looking extension of British influence. Economic ties Never really broke after the war, British banks financed a lot of American development. U. S. traded heavily with Britain and many of the elites still admired British culture and systems. American law and financial systems were placed in the hands of elite banking families many with European ties. The notion that a central banking system, separate from direct government control, could echo the Bank of England’s influence over its own state adds to my curiosity. The war itself wasn’t a total British commitment. Britain never sent the full force of its empire because the war was expensive and unpopular back home, and Britain had global priorities elsewhere they could afford to lose the war militarily, but win through softer power having shared elites with shared Interests.
Overtime, many American leaders especially in finance and foreign policy operated in lockstep with British global interests especially into the 20th century. Also unlike post-colonial nations that changed language, systems, or rebelled culturally, America kept English, British common law. I have thoughts that It’s possible the revolution was framed as a separation to appease the masses, while in reality it laid the groundwork for a symbiotic elite partnership. It might not be as much about winning or losing a war as it is about controlling the future through influence.
Britian said you can have the house we’ll own the mortgage.
reply
br2431
Spain NEVER colonized the Americas, Spain was born with the Americas, they were Viceroyalties with they same legal capacity that the peninsular Spain, everything was Spain - all
Citizens were considered Spanish and cathedral, universities and cities were erected, the legal marriage between Peninsular ( current Spain ) and American natives was allowed by the crown in 1504 approx 450 years before the USA. there is a huge difference between a colony and viceroyalties, one only extracts for instance a native in a british colony would not have legal capacity whilst a native in Hispanic America did, Spain however built and created the first university in the American continent, Spain left dozens and dozens of UNesco world sites wherever they went versus none from England, NO COLONIES,
reply
Spain NEVER colonized the Americas, Spain was born with the Americas, they were Viceroyalties with they same legal capacity that the peninsular Spain, everything was Spain - all
Citizens were considered Spanish and cathedral, universities and cities were erected, the legal marriage between Peninsular ( current Spain ) and American natives was allowed by the crown in 1504 approx 450 years before the USA. there is a huge difference between a colony and viceroyalties, one only extracts for instance a native in a british colony would not have legal capacity whilst a native in Hispanic America did, Spain however built and created the first university in the American continent, Spain left dozens and dozens of UNesco world sites wherever they went versus none from England, NO COLONIES,
reply
williamfluke75
This video doesnt follow colonial stories left behind or certified historical fact. So i call this more white supremacy bs nor true history and theres no colonial history of slaves from Africa just slaves from America and Caribbean area. Even the laws of the time show this the ship manifest left behind. And Spain didnt grow empire til moors taught them and they back stabbed moors and they left. This pushes fake history of slave trade. No colonial history of bringing slaves from africa filling america no history in Africa and Africa wasnt know as africa even by africans it was known by each country. That 12 million slaves been redacted to 92000 which is still a lie what boats they used This video bs lies no historical proof
reply
This video doesnt follow colonial stories left behind or certified historical fact. So i call this more white supremacy bs nor true history and theres no colonial history of slaves from Africa just slaves from America and Caribbean area. Even the laws of the time show this the ship manifest left behind. And Spain didnt grow empire til moors taught them and they back stabbed moors and they left. This pushes fake history of slave trade. No colonial history of bringing slaves from africa filling america no history in Africa and Africa wasnt know as africa even by africans it was known by each country. That 12 million slaves been redacted to 92000 which is still a lie what boats they used This video bs lies no historical proof
reply
bradcurtis5324
In 1619 slavery was illegal in the Viriginia colony. The raiders failed to sell them in the south and were heading back to England. The last stop was Virginia out of decency the slaves were bought and made endentured servants. After 8 years their contracts were up and they became citizens of the colony. In the census rolls they were listed as white. It was cultural. The difference was complection. Swarthy was a black skin and whites were light. Blacks from Europe were considered white. Until late 1700s when black was used to denigrate the slave population and show inferiority by plantation owners. Slavery did not start in the Colonies until the 1650s. I don't know who made this crap up about 1619.
reply
In 1619 slavery was illegal in the Viriginia colony. The raiders failed to sell them in the south and were heading back to England. The last stop was Virginia out of decency the slaves were bought and made endentured servants. After 8 years their contracts were up and they became citizens of the colony. In the census rolls they were listed as white. It was cultural. The difference was complection. Swarthy was a black skin and whites were light. Blacks from Europe were considered white. Until late 1700s when black was used to denigrate the slave population and show inferiority by plantation owners. Slavery did not start in the Colonies until the 1650s. I don't know who made this crap up about 1619.
reply
STX_LoneStar
Wait you make it sound like Cortez took over the Aztec solely with 500 men Utterly failed to mention the natives the Aztec conquered and were under the rule of the Aztec empire. They viewed the Aztec as foreign invaders who conquered them. So those natives were all too eager to join forces with Cortez, who they viewed as a gift from above, to rebel and overthrow the Aztec empire that had subjugated them. Otherwise I doubt they would have had the same level of success sparking a rebellion in the Aztec empire like they did. The Aztec were a foreign power that toppled the existing empire and was despised by the population they subjugated.
The Spanish did not do this via 500 men and disease alone.
reply
Wait you make it sound like Cortez took over the Aztec solely with 500 men Utterly failed to mention the natives the Aztec conquered and were under the rule of the Aztec empire. They viewed the Aztec as foreign invaders who conquered them. So those natives were all too eager to join forces with Cortez, who they viewed as a gift from above, to rebel and overthrow the Aztec empire that had subjugated them. Otherwise I doubt they would have had the same level of success sparking a rebellion in the Aztec empire like they did. The Aztec were a foreign power that toppled the existing empire and was despised by the population they subjugated.
The Spanish did not do this via 500 men and disease alone.
reply
haraldwitz3238
What I do see here is a lot of two-side-isms. Explaining a lot how Native tribes fought each other is distracting from the the strategy that the European Colonial powers used all over the world: divide and conquer. And in terms of the dehumanization of indigenious and African slaves, the guilt of Europeans and ) Americans is by far not stated hard enough.
When American presidents and founding fathers deem themselves humanists and enlightened, but at the same time reject urgent plees by real giants of science like Alexander von Humboldt, there is more to say.
reply
What I do see here is a lot of two-side-isms. Explaining a lot how Native tribes fought each other is distracting from the the strategy that the European Colonial powers used all over the world: divide and conquer. And in terms of the dehumanization of indigenious and African slaves, the guilt of Europeans and ) Americans is by far not stated hard enough.
When American presidents and founding fathers deem themselves humanists and enlightened, but at the same time reject urgent plees by real giants of science like Alexander von Humboldt, there is more to say.
reply
Hiphophiphophooray
They were able to sail around with armies on those ships I think not, not until like the 1700s. The early boats weren’t holding that many people. These fools just went into Mayan and Aztec territory and brought diseases. When they left they didn’t realize the diseases were doing a lot of damage. By the time they came back most of the Mayans and Aztecs died from diseases. It wasn’t a heroic overpowering battle. The entire grab of territory was specifically because of disease and plagues on the people of the Americas.
reply
They were able to sail around with armies on those ships I think not, not until like the 1700s. The early boats weren’t holding that many people. These fools just went into Mayan and Aztec territory and brought diseases. When they left they didn’t realize the diseases were doing a lot of damage. By the time they came back most of the Mayans and Aztecs died from diseases. It wasn’t a heroic overpowering battle. The entire grab of territory was specifically because of disease and plagues on the people of the Americas.
reply
williamfluke75
In colonial art even the first colonizers traded tobacco with the black natives in America who grew tobacco this is easily verifiable british museum has that history. All the ppl they traded with were black no light skin natives only blk and copper color ppl so this video dont even go by what the colonizers left in they journals u can look at early tobacco ads and drawings from 1600s and all they show is black ppl as the natives. I have a whole phone full of pics from british archives.
reply
In colonial art even the first colonizers traded tobacco with the black natives in America who grew tobacco this is easily verifiable british museum has that history. All the ppl they traded with were black no light skin natives only blk and copper color ppl so this video dont even go by what the colonizers left in they journals u can look at early tobacco ads and drawings from 1600s and all they show is black ppl as the natives. I have a whole phone full of pics from british archives.
reply
Cumby1744
The guy sounds knowledgeable, but I can't vet all of it, but certainly I can challenge the authors misinformation about eastern North America. The first Europeans were Viking, landing in Newfoundland. And John Cabot landed in Newfoundland in 1497 on behalf of Britain, way before Raleigh. and Sir Humphrey Gilbert came to the Americas. St. John's. two years before Raleigh in 1583 to settle the first permanent settlement for Britain.
So who knows what else this guy has wrong!
reply
The guy sounds knowledgeable, but I can't vet all of it, but certainly I can challenge the authors misinformation about eastern North America. The first Europeans were Viking, landing in Newfoundland. And John Cabot landed in Newfoundland in 1497 on behalf of Britain, way before Raleigh. and Sir Humphrey Gilbert came to the Americas. St. John's. two years before Raleigh in 1583 to settle the first permanent settlement for Britain.
So who knows what else this guy has wrong!
reply
Goaner89
Because OUR people could. most of us stayed here in europe, but this question is dumb as fkc
And not just because we could. birthrates in central europe, especially germany went trough the roof, so all these small farms would go to one son each and the other sons went to america. Thats why nearly every german family has close relatives who went to america. So we are all from the same branch. maybe not if u are spanish mixed with indians, but thats open for debatte
reply
Because OUR people could. most of us stayed here in europe, but this question is dumb as fkc
And not just because we could. birthrates in central europe, especially germany went trough the roof, so all these small farms would go to one son each and the other sons went to america. Thats why nearly every german family has close relatives who went to america. So we are all from the same branch. maybe not if u are spanish mixed with indians, but thats open for debatte
reply
Overitall805
Because every civilization, no matter how large or small, does it. It is called. migration. From a single person to entire tribes and even whole populations have moved from place to place. for the entire history of human beings.
This is how ALL of nature works. The interesting thing to take a look at, but doesn't seem to be, is the psychology behind why our modern affluent Western way of looking at this has been permeated by negative thought process.
reply
Because every civilization, no matter how large or small, does it. It is called. migration. From a single person to entire tribes and even whole populations have moved from place to place. for the entire history of human beings.
This is how ALL of nature works. The interesting thing to take a look at, but doesn't seem to be, is the psychology behind why our modern affluent Western way of looking at this has been permeated by negative thought process.
reply
knowledgia
Spain colonizers mixed with the locals built cathedrals universities schools and hospitals the monks created the quetchua and nahual languages the other idiots from Europe didn't by the way spain has no colonies to get slaves in west africa enough with the black legend the english the French the Dutch and the Portuguese are the real criminals and the pacific was a Spanish lake before anybody else get the history straight long live spain
reply
Spain colonizers mixed with the locals built cathedrals universities schools and hospitals the monks created the quetchua and nahual languages the other idiots from Europe didn't by the way spain has no colonies to get slaves in west africa enough with the black legend the english the French the Dutch and the Portuguese are the real criminals and the pacific was a Spanish lake before anybody else get the history straight long live spain
reply
Zwergel
And then one of those Europeans who has gone too far wants to explain to me that it's their country. Yes, you stole it after committing genocide against the indigenous people. Those who tragically survived this tragedy are now languishing in zoos created especially for them and have to watch as these criminals destroy their once beautiful country. and not only that. Eventually, it will catch up with you. I hope I get to enjoy the view.
reply
And then one of those Europeans who has gone too far wants to explain to me that it's their country. Yes, you stole it after committing genocide against the indigenous people. Those who tragically survived this tragedy are now languishing in zoos created especially for them and have to watch as these criminals destroy their once beautiful country. and not only that. Eventually, it will catch up with you. I hope I get to enjoy the view.
reply
richardnoegel275
Excellent graphics and maps. Excellent detail (with many mistakes. Incredible effort! OTOH, if you want to be accepted as serious historians, you'll need to learn the difference between secession and succession. That's inexcusable. And although the real human voice-over is much appreciated, you'll need to be more careful in future with the almost-unbelievable number of mispronunciations. All in all, thumbs up! Keep at it!
reply
Excellent graphics and maps. Excellent detail (with many mistakes. Incredible effort! OTOH, if you want to be accepted as serious historians, you'll need to learn the difference between secession and succession. That's inexcusable. And although the real human voice-over is much appreciated, you'll need to be more careful in future with the almost-unbelievable number of mispronunciations. All in all, thumbs up! Keep at it!
reply
jjt1881
Thank you for triggering my interest and quenching my thirst for knowledge. I thought I knew the history of the Americas but it turns out I had miss a lot of important points and intersections. I even learned about events I didn't know existed, for example, the history of the independent country of Quilombo dos Palmares in Brazil. Congratulations for such a colossal project. The whole topic is fascinating.
reply
Thank you for triggering my interest and quenching my thirst for knowledge. I thought I knew the history of the Americas but it turns out I had miss a lot of important points and intersections. I even learned about events I didn't know existed, for example, the history of the independent country of Quilombo dos Palmares in Brazil. Congratulations for such a colossal project. The whole topic is fascinating.
reply
anjinmiura6708
Nearly everything spoken about was from the context of slavery which was normal and common over a very long period of time. Slavery itself was NOT racist. And the comment about if you're a white male is actually VERY incorrect according to record of the day. Black men were both land owners AND slave owners according to records. How do you reconcile this while pushing your racial agenda
reply
Nearly everything spoken about was from the context of slavery which was normal and common over a very long period of time. Slavery itself was NOT racist. And the comment about if you're a white male is actually VERY incorrect according to record of the day. Black men were both land owners AND slave owners according to records. How do you reconcile this while pushing your racial agenda
reply
UnculturedAudacity
Columbus may have set out to explore although he had to leave Spain on that day, along with most of, if not all crew members had a more important reason to leave Spain. Spain had sent out an ultimatum amongst the populace that a specific people were being told to leave or face consequences. Spain had its own reasons, Columbus knew it was in his best interests to leave Spain,
reply
Columbus may have set out to explore although he had to leave Spain on that day, along with most of, if not all crew members had a more important reason to leave Spain. Spain had sent out an ultimatum amongst the populace that a specific people were being told to leave or face consequences. Spain had its own reasons, Columbus knew it was in his best interests to leave Spain,
reply
knowledgia
Most important fact and much oversean, most Americans have german ancestors, even more than from Britain. After the two World wars, german school and kindergartens kinder=child in gwrman, also all the german newspapers were forbidden. Many changed there surnames into English ones. The tipical Midwestern or Texan white families are to a very high percentage directly from germany.
reply
Most important fact and much oversean, most Americans have german ancestors, even more than from Britain. After the two World wars, german school and kindergartens kinder=child in gwrman, also all the german newspapers were forbidden. Many changed there surnames into English ones. The tipical Midwestern or Texan white families are to a very high percentage directly from germany.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
12:21
