Colonizing is to establish or secure permanently a residence or it is, to become fixed, resolved, or established residence or colony.

frontiers of inclusion is a border between two countries/a region that forms the margin of settled or developed territory that decide to include another group, religion, country and or settlers into their culture or environment. Exclusion is to prevent or restrict the entrance or/to expel or bar especially from a place or position previously occupied.An inclusive policy of colonization would mean making colonized subjects an integral part of your new system and an exclusive policy would be pushing the vanquished out of the new system. Exclusion is to expel and keep out, thrust out, or to eject.

The ways in which countries went about colonizing the New World mainly fell into two categories which can be characterized as "frontiers of inclusion" and "frontiers of exclusion".By a "frontier of exclusion", what is meant, is settling in such a way as to keep the peoples coming into contact separate so that very little intermixing or meshing of cultures took place. A "frontier of inclusion" can be defined as a great deal of intermixing and dealings between the races. In order to explain and demonstrate the differences between these two frontiers, France and Spain will be used as examples of "inclusion" while England is used as an example of "exclusion". Land to the English was a commodity to be bought and sold, to be fenced in, to be owned.

They viewed the Indians, who looked at the land as part of nature to be used only to sustain oneself, as a group of people who were not getting all the benefit they could out of the land. In fact, many of the English believed that because the Indians did not use the land properly, it was "free for English taking. " This is one characteristic of creating a "frontier of exclusion", the English had no intention of sharing the land as the Indian's philosophy put forth, they were intent on owning the land themselves and using it for their own purposes.In essence, the policy of exclusion is founded on the idea that the difference between the two groups "was not that one had property and the other had none; rather, it was that they loved property differently" The Indian saw these same things as part of nature, part of a bigger picture to be used to survive and sustain oneself but, only to that end.

It must also be pointed out here that who was funding the early explorations and settlements played a role in the type of frontier that was created. In the case of the English, it was the joint stock company.The sole purpose of such a company was to make money and this impacted the style of settlement to a great degree. In contrast, the Spanish and French were financed by their respective crowns and although still in it to make money, the idea of conversion seems to play a much bigger role in their colonizing efforts. Another key ingredient in the creation of a "frontier of exclusion" is demonstrated by the way in which the English viewed the Indians as a people.

Many of the English perceived a huge culture gap that saw the Indian as a savage and inferior race.The Indian male especially was seen as lazy and one that shirked his responsibility of providing for his family. Sexual relations between the two groups was minimal "partly because of English squeamishness about women of another culture..

. " The only way in which the Indian might have a part in the English way of life was through the fur trade, where they could act as trapper and hunter. But, keep in mind that the fur trade was of negligible importance in Virginia and in New England it quickly deteriorated as species were hunted to extinction.Therefore, the English saw the Indian as having "little to contribute to the goals of English colonization and was therefore regarded merely as an obstacle" By looking at the French-Indian relations, one can observe what is meant by a "frontier of inclusion". The French chose a much different approach with the Native Americans, "while the Dutch and English typically used military force or guile to wrest land and political submission from their Indian neighbors, the French in the North were forging relations of a much different kind with Indian societies".

For one thing, the population of the French settlements must be considered. Whereas the English settled great numbers of people in the New World, the French communities consisted of small settlements which depended on the friendship of the native peoples if they were going to enlist their help in trapping furs or converting them. In order to understand what is meant by "frontiers of exclusion" or "inclusion", one needs to look at the specific examples discussed above.The English practiced a policy of "exclusion" when it came to dealing with the Native Americans. This practice can best be understood by recognizing the English attitude toward land.

Englishmen saw Land as a commodity to be divided, sold, and used to grow crops that could then be used in the marketplace. The Spanish-Indian interaction, on the other hand, can still be characterized as "inclusion" but, in a different manner than the French. The Spanish empire was one of conquest and while the two peoples mixed, it was by Spanish force.The Indians were forced to work for them and Catholicism was imposed on them. The Spanish wanted the riches the New World had to offer but, in their case they chose to force the Natives to help them instead of either choosing to separate themselves or cooperating amicably. By analyzing these three examples, one can more readily identify and understand what is meant by "frontiers of inclusion" and "exclusion" in the colonizing of America.

Thus were the many differences between "frontiers of inclusion" and "exclusion"