Justification of Genocide?

I've been thinking about the comparison between British and Spanish settlements in the new world, particularly the British settlement of Roanoke Island and the Spanish settlement of Cuba. I wrote a paper on this around two years ago for university, and I've started to process the whole scenario even more lately. Please keep in mind that what follows is just myself trying to get inside the head of the Spanish hierarchy. This is purely from an practical expansionist perspective. So essentially it's not personal: It's business.

In settling the new world, the British took some measure to coexist peacefully with the Native Americans. On the other hand, the Spanish Empire had no intention of coexisting with the local population. When Sebastian de Ocampo returned from his eight month circumnavigation of Cuba and recommended Havana bay as a site for settlement, the conquest of the island was quickly planned and executed in just under one year. The treatment of the natives of Cuba was deplorable, but was justified to the Spanish nobles and public by the reports of the living practices of Carib peoples. The reports written by Dr Alvarez Chanca concerning the alleged cannibalistic lifestyle of the Caribs and the skirmishes with Cuban natives during the exploration led by Christopher Columbus (whose conduct during the exploration of Cuba was less than commendable by the way), were seemingly proof enough to justify the poor treatment of the prisoners of war. Nevertheless, once the island was conquered, the colony had the opportunity to flourish without the distractions of conflict with natives. This pattern of conquest, which was clearly used to get the native populations right out of the picture, can be seen in future expeditions by the Spanish while Cuba and in particular the colony of Havana became a major trading hub. By the time Britain had established it’s first successful colony in the Americas (Jamestown), Cuba had become the gateway to Latin America, and while many Spanish colonists left for more promising lands in Mexico and South America, Havana was still the most important trading port in the Americas at the time. Later Cuba would be contested for by several colonial and naval powers, but this was well after the actual founding of the colonies.

Here's the deal: By definition, colonization implies acquisition of land, and therefore can only cause conflict between locals and colonists. The reason the Spanish colony succeeded was because the Spanish recognized this obvious truth and decided to eliminate the problem of conflict with the natives before it even began. Granted it involved violence, but it was necessary for the acquisition of territory that was already occupied. One could even consider it preemptive aggression. Meanwhile the English continued to try to avoid violence and still acquire land that was already occupied with disastrous consequences. The English and Spanish continued their colonization patterns throughout history and had the same effects every time. The British were in a state of constant warfare with native populations while in Latin America, the Spanish generally were not. While there was civil war in certain parts of the Spanish Empire (as there was with every great colonial power), it was not with Native American populations.

Unlike the Spanish situation with Cuba, the English knew almost nothing about Roanoke Island or Virginia, nothing about the geography of the North American mainland, nothing about the local plants and effectively nothing about the local people. One example of the lack of information about the island is that the colonists initially thought sassafras to be a cure for syphilis. On a bit of a side note the use of sassafras as a cure for syphilis was endorsed by the colony’s governor Sir Walter Ralegh (Best known for his name being mentioned in the Beatles 'I'm So Tired' song off the White album) and was said to be effective for those whose private parts were ‘Covered in knobbles and moister of matter’ according to Thomas Harriot in his ‘A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia’, which was published around 1590. But I digress to disgusting trivia...my apologies. Where was I...oh sure...Harriot also writes about his experiences in the exploration of the island and also of part of the North American mainland, which took place after the initial founding of the colony (it is important to point out that they neglected to explore the area before the colonists even set sail). However they quickly learned about the local plants and began to cultivate the local tobacco, which was actually found to be of a better quality that that which the Spanish provided from Cuba at the time. So tobacco (and later cotton) became the means of survival for English colonists in North America for almost a century. This pattern of colonization would continue and are reflected in the founding of Rhode Island and Jamestown colonies, and the pattern of conflict and warfare with the natives is also continued.

The Spanish did very much the same thing. They explored South America, they cultivated tobacco, which was the source of their colonies survival for the next century, and they too exploited new and highly valuable resources native to the Americas. What we see in the end, though, is that nations follow the same patterns when attempting the same tasks. England almost always founded colonies the same way, and Spain almost always founded colonies the same way. And what anybody can tell from these examples is that the English method of colonization is not be particularly effective and often resulted in failure. All the great colonial powers achieved military power, economic power and political power and were adept in exploration and cultivation of native plants. The difference between all the great colonial powers and Spain is that Spain clearly recognised that the acquisition of land and resources that were already occupied could not occur peacefully. They invaded Cuba because they knew that conflict was inevitable. This is no doubt why the Spanish Empire grew to become the largest empire in the history of the world. The concept of the conquistador is what allowed the Spanish to exploit what they had conquered, which is something the English, being purely colonists, could not achieve. While they may have been violent, they did achieve what they set out to achieve. The Bible says ‘Can two men walk together except they be agreed?’ (Amos, 3:3, KJV) By that same token two cultures with opposing social structures and values cannot coexist. The Native American notion of group ownership and the Western notion of individual ownership cannot coexist. The Native American lifestyle of hunting and gathering cannot coexist with Western mass agricultural production cannot coexist. History teaches us this. In the end it is a battle for cultural survival and this doesn’t mean that the superior and most ethical culture will survive. It means that the most powerful culture will survive. That doesn’t make what the Spanish did right. It just makes what the Spanish did necessary.