[Thunderhawk]

What Brought Europeans to N.America?

The initial wave - trade, exploration, exploitation.

The subsequent ones - land, resources, liberty.
Access to land is a big one IMO. The right to own land and keep all (/most) of the profits of one's work is a huge draw for people, and all the people had to do was defend themselves from savages. Such an offer was either not given for South/central America or of dubious honesty. Most of North America also had a climate similar to that of the nations experiancing population pressure, so it would be "easy" to move and set up.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Well, there was also the quest for the Northern Passage, and by the time they figured out it doesn't exist they were somewhat dedicated.

If that were the case most Canadians would be situated nearer the poles.

The lumber trade was vital to the shipping trade. The lumber trade was one of the key components to the New England economy into the 1800s. And Scandinavia had bigger armies.

What about their armies? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just go to Scandinavia to buy wood then go all the way to N.America? And what makes N.American wood better than S.American or African where trade was already established?

The right to own land, and keep all (/most) of the profits of one's work is a huge draw for people. Such an offer was either not given for South/central America or was of dubious honesty.

As I already asked, how could the poor looking for land afford it? If indentured, they'd be working in a plantation further south.

[psyche]

Foods in the nightshade family, cotton, nutmeg, sugar. The later two were v. expensive items back in the old world.

[U184]

The Queen needed more farm land and thus food to feed an overgrowing and always hungry English population.

The deal was a % of the food and other taxes in exchange for title, hereditary ownership of land and the right to marry Royals. Also land owners that fulfilled their end of the bargain would be then granted land holding in England.

Later the reasons changed as politics changed. A good way to gather information on the subject is to research Queen Elizabeth and Sir Walter Raleigh.

[millie_(A)TCK]

^Those two make no sense, non dry goods couldn't survive the journey between the continents.

Cotton makes sense. Nutmeg doesn't as that was being bought from Indonesia.

[Brio]

Those two make no sense, non dry goods couldn't survive the journey between the continents.

Well at least with sugar they converted it into rum while still in the Americas and then shipped it back to Europe. Rum doesn't really have an expirary date like sugar cane does.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Sugar is a dry good...

[psyche]

Nutmeg doesn't as that was being bought from Indonesia.

Oops. Wait, I think Nutmeg grows in Central and South America. When were the continents actually divided? Also, I'd like to add wheat. I recently read a Zola novel called "The Land" where a community in France was falling apart because wheat could be had cheaper from America. Dunno how true it is, I'm not a Historian.

[Zagadka]

If that were the case most Canadians would be situated nearer the poles.

Obviously, people quickly realized those places sucked ass, whereas there was plenty of lumber, ore, pelts, and other materials down along the St. Lawrence.

What about their armies? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just go to Scandinavia to buy wood then go all the way to N.America?

You want to occupy Sweden in 1500? G'luck.

And what makes N.American wood better than S.American or African where trade was already established?

One, ocean currents. Two, Africa was never a good place for colonization, for a huge number of reasons. Northern Africa was/is too barren. Southern Africa has tons of disease (including the sleeping sickness that prevents draft animals like horses from being used) and rugged terrain.

[Brio]

Obviously, people quickly realized those places sucked ass, whereas there was plenty of lumber, ore, pelts, and other materials down along the St. Lawrence.

Indeed. Also the population of New France was miniscule compared to the thirteen British colonies.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

For reasons to colonise Canada, you can add fish as well - the Grand Banks fisheries were huge. And the fur trade wasn't over in a couple of decades (I'm not sure if you were saying it was, Millie, or if that remark just applied to the North-West Passage search); that stayed profitable for centuries.

If that is so, why did the Portuguese first explore south america first and not N.America?

The difference isn't so much for the Portuguese; but they were told by a Pope to stick east of a line, while the Spanish got everything west (they then adjusted the line between themselves). That meant they got Brazil, while the Spanish got the rest of the Americas. But Portugal was mainly interested in the trade to Asia, going around Africa, so they weren't bothered about colonising North America anyway.

Why Spain went for South America first may be a good question; Columbus had to aim fairly far south (eg Shanghai is at about the same latitude as Florida, and the spice-producing islands are practically on the equator), so it made sense for him to go that way; and then they found gold and silver, and set up camp. The French, Dutch and British were just taking what they could, in the north.

[Doomhammer]

You want to occupy Sweden in 1500? G'luck.

A more insane person would try it in the 1600's but whatever.

[Dr House]

Good question Millie. If I had been piloting the ship I would have headed and settled into brazil and the likes for the hot latina girls.

There were no hot Latina girls, just ugly-ass Amerindians. Hot latina girls are the result of interbreeding between said Indians and Spaniards.

If that is so, why did the Portuguese first explore south america first and not N.America?

Probably because trade winds carried ships from the Iberian peninsula over to South America rather than North America, which means that area was explored first by both Spain and Portugal. Columbus's first two trips landed him in the Caribbean.

[Heste]

There was heavy immigration mostly from countries where the people suffered. The prosperity of North America might have some to do with it but the condition in Europe has just as much to say. Springing to mind is the potato famine in Ireland which caused mass immigration.

North America because it was more or less empty I guess. Same with australia.

[Zagadka]

:lol: A more insane person would try it in the 1600's but whatever.

Well, at any point, heh... Them Nords have been beating the crap out of people for a long time.

[Thunderhawk]

If that were the case most Canadians would be situated nearer the poles.

Quebec city, even Montréal, arent exactly in the nice temperate south.

What about their armies? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just go to Scandinavia to buy wood then go all the way to N.America? And what makes N.American wood better than S.American or African where trade was already established?

Apparantly Scandinavian wood wasnt cheaper.
Woods common to North America, such as oaks, are hard, strong and lightweight. Ideal for ship building.

As I already asked, how could the poor looking for land afford it? If indentured, they'd be working in a plantation further south.

Afford?
The land was cheap, people could get a lone or work for some one else, save up money and gain experiance, and then move and buy their own. Some times land was practically if not actually given away.

[Einherjar]

You mean what brought the English and French to North America? The Spanish and Portuguese were more interested in the gold of South America and spices of India, leaving North America barren for secondary powers.

[Ombrageux]

Land, land, land!

The impoverished rural populations of Europe were, by the 19th century, growing and not getting any richer (and working on less land per head). There was poverty, widespread hunger and periodic famines. The entire system of economic and political power in Europe had until the industrial revolution essentially been based on ownership of land. Europe, this small, over-populated continent, suddenly found itself in contact with a continent, the Americas, of an order of magnitude bigger. And so naturally enough, you had millions of Irish, Germans, Scandinavians and Poles eager to go to the New World and stake out a plot of land they could never dream of possessing in Europe.

By the second half of the 19th century, the industrial revolution was also underway in the United States. This was an economic transformation that did not exist in many parts of Europe (it was essentially limited to Britain, France, Germany and small parts of Austria-Hungary and Russia). American factories eagerly swallowed the supply of cheap, manual laborer provided by the European poor.

[Potemkin]

By the second half of the 19th century, the industrial revolution was also underway in the United States. This was an economic transformation that did not exist in many parts of Europe (it was essentially limited to Britain, France, Germany and small parts of Austria-Hungary and Russia). American factories eagerly swallowed the supply of cheap, manual laborer provided by the European poor.

And the chronic labour shortage in America meant that wages were higher in the US than anywhere else in the world, which made it an even more attractive destination for immigrants.

Oh, and the egalitarianism of American society owed its existence to the fact that even ordinary people could become landowners. Owning land in Europe was traditionally a sign of high social prestige and was largely hereditary, something to which most people could never hope to aspire. A similar democratisation of society caused by the easy availablity of land occurred in Australia and New Zealand too.

[JRS1]

I would imagine people viewed it as a place that hadnt been monoploised by the establishment in europe. Land was power. Most people had little chance of owning land and creating wealth for themselves.