Can anyone name one (1) former Spanish colony that isn't poverty stricken, and 1 British one that is? (Exclude Africa) (years, countries)

[GovernmentMan]

Originally Posted by paparaciii

Not really.

The author of this thread wasn't consequent enough, I'd say.

His original question should be changed to "Can anyone name one (1) former Spanish colony where the spanish language and culture became the dominant that isn't poverty stricken, and 1 British one where English language and culture became dominant that is?

Putting India, Jamaica or South Africa in the same category with USA, UK or Australia isn't suitable in my opinion. Yes, they were British colonies but white Anglos never became a majority in these countries.

And except Spain, you can't name any other Hispanic country which could be labeled as a 1st world country.
But all the white Anglo countries(USA, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) definitely are 1st world.

Whose theory is flawed now?

white Spaniards were never a majority in any South American country except Argentina and Uruguay

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by GovernmentMan

white Spaniards were never a majority in any South American country except Argentina and Uruguay

And Chile. The indigenous population of Chile is virtually zero.

Even though Guarani is the common spoken language of all Paraguayans, a majority of them have at least half European ancestry. It is said, in Paraguay, that there were so many men killed in the Triple Alliance War, that nearly every Paraguayan can trace his ancestry back to Argentinians on trading ships up the river when there were only women survivors in Paraguay.

The specific numbers of casualties are hotly disputed, but it has been estimated that 300,000 Paraguayans, mostly civilians, died; up to 90% of the male population may have been killed. According to one numerical estimation, the prewar population of approximately 525,000 Paraguayans was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which only about 28,000 were men ---Wiki

[Dharmann]

Originally Posted by jtur88

And Chile. The indigenous population of Chile is virtually zero.

Right.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for so long. One cannot compare Canada, New Zealand with Jamaica.

The issue, like it or not, is race.

The original question should have been phrased Can anyone name one (1) majority white nation that is poverty-stricken, and any non-white nations that aren't?

A: None, and Japan, Singapore, Korea.

Almost every single former European colony, Spanish or French or British, is a failure if the indigenous or mixed populations are the majority.

Like it or not, that's the truest answer. Any Leftist professor like a Jared Diamond who writes a long confusing book to explain this based on any other factors is just kidding or lying to himself, and us. No wonder David Landes is attacked too.

[jtur88]

What you say is very close to the truth. However, it does leave one conjecture still on the table. Are the white nations of the earth better developed because whites have innate superior capacity to succeed, or because white nations have concentrated fire-power and are collectively prepared to bomb non-white nations into submission and commandeer their resources under force of arms?

[GovernmentMan]

Originally Posted by Dharmann

Right.

And Chile. The indigenous population of Chile is virtually zero.

5% isn't virtually zero. and the majority of Chile's population is mestizo

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by jtur88

What you say is very close to the truth. However, it does leave one conjecture still on the table. Are the white nations of the earth better developed because whites have innate superior capacity to succeed, or because white nations have concentrated fire-power and are collectively prepared to bomb non-white nations into submission and commandeer their resources under force of arms?

TWO factors come into play here, both of them controversial, both of them inviting much debate.

The FIRST is "opportunity". For some reason, in certain parts of Western Europe, the ideas first emerged that bore the notion of 'individual rights', and the unique 'worth of the individual'. This just HAPPENED to occur in an area dominated by SOME whites (not all), but from there, it 'took off'. Human 'worth' led to innovative thinking, that led to the formation of 'guilds' trade-organizations, 'think-tanks' etc. All this led to specialization, the division of labor, and to the development of technology by widely-based groups exhanging information. Racial prejudice no doubt served to keep this confined to 'the locals' as long as possible, but prejudice had nothing to do with WHY this happened...it just DID. "Nothing succeeds like Success", as the saying goes, and one innovation led to the next, and soon things were "on a roll"...and yes, technology enabled Europeans to 'leverage' their power, and to magnify it, and to dominate much of the world, and mold it in their image....much like OTHERS would have done, had they 'got there first'.

The SECOND factor, I believe, is climate. While the ancient tropics HAVE produced great civilizations in the past, MOST of these had little or no technological base. Life in the tropics was 'easy', and mankind could live well with relatively primitive 'tools'. Life in the North Polar region was SO harsh, technology never got off the ground...the few people who lived there were busy just surviving. (There WERE no humans in the Southern polar regions).

Long story short, modern technology is a product of the 'temperate zones', where life was challenging, and people wrre FORCED to innovate and 'invent'. The "west" (Europe) had a temperate climate PLUS a measure of personal freedom. The "east" (Asia) had a temperate climate, but not a culture which encouraged individual inventiveness.

In short, Europeans just 'lucked into' their niche in the world, and once they 'got going', things just 'rolled along'. They 'wrote the rules', so they were able to 'swing things' to their advantage.

Are Europeans "bad"? And are all others "good"? Not really...things just happened in one way, instead of another.

So is a world "dominated by European Christians" evidence that this is a 'bad' culture? It's hard to say. 'Bad' compared to WHAT? European Christianity is the ONLY culture that's ever dominated the world...so at this point, there's nothing to compare it to. Would a world dominated by "middle eastern Islam" be better? Or a world dominated by "Indian Hinduism"? Or by "Chinese confucianism", or "African animism"? Nobody knows...because so far, these cultures have never dominated the world. Someday, maybe they will....and then we'll know if "European whites" were the "good guys" or the "world's oppressors". So far, there's nothing by which to guage this.

[blank check]

The Chinese invented gunpowder. They were also quote advanced at one time. After this discovery, why didn't they go and 'tame' the world just like Europe did?


By the way, what is "African Animism"? Acting like animals? Primitiveness?

[jtur88]

There is a gap in your story, though. There were the centuries when the lights went out in Europe, but were kept burning in other parts of the world. China, India, Arabia, even beginning to come on in South America.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by blank check

By the way, what is "African Animism"? Acting like animals? Primitiveness?

"Animism" is that type of religious belief that states that "spirits" or "souls" are found in humans, animals, and plants....and in some cases, in inanimate objects. Animism is very much a part of most traditional subsaharan African religions..it also figures in Shintoism (Japan) and in Hinduism (India).

"African animism" is animism which is found in Africa. "Acting like animals" is a phenomena found on ALL continents, particularly among musicians and soccer fans. "Primitiveness" is a term used to describe the plumbing systems of several nations, and the belief system of certain US-based televangelists..

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by blank check

The Chinese invented gunpowder. They were also quote advanced at one time. After this discovery, why didn't they go and 'tame' the world just like Europe did?


k:

They certainly did; and they invented the printing press and a number of other things as well, as I alluded to on my post. Why didn't they 'tame the world'?

LONG explanation, (as I already stated)..... their religious and cultural climate simply didn't favor this....they viewed China as the "Middle Kingdom", the rest of the world as "barbarians", and had no desire to mingle with the 'savages' out there...they even built a WALL to keep the 'unwashed masses' out. They didn't want to venture out, for they viewed their own situation (in China) as "as good as it gets". Additionally, they lacked the European concept of 'individualism', so individual Chinese were unlikely to 'buck the system'...they didn't go 'out there', because that's not what Chinese "did".

SHORT explanation?....they didn't 'conquer the world', because they didn't WANT to.....and they were so infatuated with their own past, they valued it over the future...

The Arabs once had an advanced culture, too. Their legacy lives on in much of mathmatics ("algebra" is an Arabic term)...and in Astronomy, when Europe was still in the Dark Ages. They even RAN part of Europe for centuries. Why did they decline? Internal weaknesses and 'faults' in their own culture, little or no concept of 'personal freedom', and an unwillingness or inability to 'move with the times' finally brought them down. Basically, the were their "own worst enemies".....(no comment on the present-day situation)..