Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
India has some pretty horrific slums...My son goes to Bombay on business and has sent pictures of some of the worst poverty I've ever seen. One was a picture of a family on the side of the airport runway with their few possesions up in a tree while they slept on the ground.
Go to Google Earth and check out some of the pictures...They are actually labeled.. Slum Beach...Slum by airport..Slum by trade Center...
What about those sidewalk people who spend their entire lives in lean-tos they build along the sidewalks.
Are you sure about the political boundries here in the western USA? Why I wonder is looking at a map of today's Mexico; their states' borders tend to follow the terrain whereas ours are much more arbitrary i.e. the Arizona/New Mexico/Texas/Colorado/Utah, etc borders all come to mind.
I don't think there is a single Spanish colony that comes anywhere close to the standard of living found in the Canada, Australia, New Zealand, let alone the USA. I think the OP brings up a valid point.
I don't think there is a single Spanish colony that comes anywhere close to the standard of living found in the Canada, Australia, New Zealand, let alone the USA. I think the OP brings up a valid point.
Very true. As for the former Spanish/Mexican, etc. lands that fell and are still under Anglosphere domination (our Southwest, Gibraltar, etc); they don't count since their historical 'Hispanic' culture has; for all practical intents and purposes, been erased.
Actually there is one former British colony that is Latin America poor-----------Belize.
Why did Spain's conquest of North and South America result in a bunch of 3rd world countries? Why did anything the British touch turn to gold? Think New Zealand, Australia, Canada, THE UNITED STATES... etc. etc.
You'll never see scenes like this in any former British colonies, or majority English speaking countries.
Kiribati is a former British colony that qualifies as 3rd world, and Chile as well as Uruguay (Argentina is questionably so) are doing quite well for themselves and are hardly 3rd world
Chile comes to mind as a former Spanish colony that is not poverty stricken. Jamaica has tons of poverty. Most third world states have higher poverty than first world states.
[quote=ArizonaBear;11947883]Very true. As for the former Spanish/Mexican, etc. lands that fell and are still under Anglosphere domination (our Southwest, Gibraltar, etc); they don't count since their historical 'Hispanic' culture has; for all practical intents and purposes, been erased.
I wouldn't say that the American SW, Texas, California, Florida and even Loisiana are not influenced by Spanish culture. I'd say that the Spanish culture will be predominant in a couple of generations.
The poorest countries in America are not Spanish, I'm referring to Haiti, Belize, Jamaica and parts of the US (such as the African ghettos there).
As to Gibraltar, they don't speak English there (just a few officials), they speak Andalusian.
Cuba, Venezuela, Uruguay and Argentina were far more advanced than Canada and Australia during the 50's.
Spanish Colony? The United States of America.
Formerly Louisiana, Texas, California, Florida and the Carolinas.
The Spanish, and later the inherited Mexican claim to the above territories was never much more than a claim. Neither Spain nor Mexico made much of a contribution toward supporting and protecting the tiny populations there, Santa Fe was the only settlement of any consequence. The scattered missions were largely in ruins by the dawn of the 19th Century. By the time of the Texas revolution, immigrants from the US enjoyed a 5-1 population advantage there. When the Comanches threatened the settlements, Mexico didn't have any troops there capable of dealing with them, it was the Norte Americanos who formed the Rangers and policed the frontier.
California had a handful of Mexican officials in Los Angeles and Monterey, but their influence on the territory outside of those places was non existent. Those officials received virtually nothing by way of assistance from the central government in Mexico.
When speaking of the European conquest of the American SW, we are speaking of a situation that was starting almost from scratch after the Mexican War. It had been conquered only in name by Spain and Mexico.
I guess you are reciting the old revisionist history supporting the invasion of Texas, California and Florida.
I am offering facts. Do you dispute the validity anything that I wrote?
The territory in question was thinnly populated, the control over the lands by Mexico was much more of a claim than a reality. Isn't that true?
If it is your intention to launch some moral argument, then you should provide that moral argument. Your above contribution seems little more than a vague attitude.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
