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.
Spain dominated the world, the English, Romans, etc.
English went to those places to earn money, as the Spanish.
Spain created one empire on lands with a large number of inhabitants that became subjects of the Spanish empire, England, or rather colonials, massacred original inhabitants in countries with a scarce number of "natives".
Had the English discovered America and set foot on the Aztec or Inca empire, they would have acted in the same way than Spain, some English historian said so.
As to former colonies, what about Jamaica, Belize, India, Birmania and the many African colonies? Do you remember what English did to Afrikaners or to Irish?
English ex-colonies are still colonies inhabited by non-natives, and colonies have no future in the long run.
Latin American countries are inhabited by citizens, not colonials, they will exist 1000 years from now.
England ceased to dominate the world generations ago.
Had the English colonized the Americas first, I think it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be as many mestizos, mulattoes, etc as you see in Latin America today.
Had the English colonized the Americas first, I think it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be as many mestizos, mulattoes, etc as you see in Latin America today.
Not necessarily true. Most of the British colonies actually are mixed race & have many mestizos & mulattoes & multiracially mixed race types.
Race is socially constructed & a matter of perception & in the eye of the beholder.
Not necessarily true. Most of the British colonies actually are mixed race & have many mestizos & mulattoes & multiracially mixed race types.
Race is socially constructed & a matter of perception & in the eye of the beholder.
Yeah but you have to keep in mind that the English viewed race differently than the Spanish and Portuguese. Do you really think Latin America would be the same if the English had complete control over that area instead of the Spanish and Portuguese? I could only imagine how different a country like Brazil would be if England has colonized it instead of Portugal. The same can be said for the United States if Portugal had colonized it instead of England.
Yeah but you have to keep in mind that the English viewed race differently than the Spanish and Portuguese. Do you really think Latin America would be the same if the English had complete control over that area instead of the Spanish and Portuguese? I could only imagine how different a country like Brazil would be if England has colonized it instead of Portugal. The same can be said for the United States if Portugal had colonized it instead of England.
There is something else to consider. Portuguese colonialism and Spanish colonialism was male-dominated in comparison to British colonialism. The British brought their families. The Spanish and Portuguese(and especially the Portuguese) was dominated by men. Alot of single men went. Pretty much very few, if any, families went along. Very few women from Europe meant the men were more likely to seek companionship with the local women.
This is very true. Latin speaking colonizers mainly Spanish Portuguese and the French intermarried with African slaves and indigenous tribes in the new world. The British and the Dutch brought their women with them. British and Dutch would have sex with slaves and natives but marrying one was out of the question.
This is very true. Latin speaking colonizers mainly Spanish Portuguese and the French intermarried with African slaves and indigenous tribes in the new world. The British and the Dutch brought their women with them. British and Dutch would have sex with slaves and natives but marrying one was out of the question.
Mixing took place from the beginning. And it wasn't considered as much of a stigma to have mixed-race children. Sometimes mixed-race children were made heirs.
This doesn't cancel out some of the racism that has existed and still exists. It's just different. In the USA, if you have even one drop of Black, you are considered Black, even if you look White. In Latin America, it is more about color continuum. The lighter you are, the better you are treated. Consider this. Mariah Carey, who has paternal Afro-Venezuelan ancestry, would be considered Black in the USA. Interestingly, when I first saw her on television, I never suspected she has any Black ancestry. However, she could go to Venezuela, and she wouldn't be considered Black over there. Because she is rather light in complexion, she would get treated better. Conversely, the late Hugo Chavez, who also has partial Afro-Venezuelan ancestry, could go to the USA and be considered Black if not for being Hispanic.
And there is another part I want to speak on. Brazil and other parts of Latin America received more slaves than the USA did. Brazil particularly. Slaves kept getting imported over to Brazil for a very long time. Shorter distances between Portuguese colonies in Africa and Brazil. So not only where there not as many European women for the men to be with, Africans and indigenous peoples were quite numerous.
The Spanish mainly hunted for quick treasures. In contrast to the Portuguese and Spanish, the British were traders and industrialists. They had products to sell and needed raw materials to buy. It suited both sides brilliantly. It was easy to see why the British ended up dominating the world.
Look at what the British left behind. BTW, the British Commonwealth was an idea from its members not the mother country. All ex Spanish colonies ended up in turmoil with democracy being alien to them. Look at the stability of what the British left behind in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong.
This is a very false statement. Even today, the former British colony and now global sole power the USA is still picking up mother Britain's poop all over the world, most notably in the Middle East which America cant seem to fix but also we make it worse. Britain also help contribute to the mess in the partition of India which left millions of dead in India and Pakistan. Communist ideals and revolutionaries took root in some of Britain's colonies like Malaysia in 1953. The South American colony of British Guiana also had conflicts due to growing spread of Communism and ethnic clashes between African, Asian Indian and Portuguese residents which led the destabilization of the colony. Britain gave Afrikaners equal rights which lead the Apartheid in South Africa which created plenty of inequality in South Africa for years. Britain's former African colonies remain in poverty today with growing health problems like HIV and Malaria. Britain helped destabilized Iran with the overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister which lead to the Shah coming to power again. Britain has done plenty of bad in this world. After the USA fully declines Anglosaxonism will come to an end as a dominate power, unless Britain, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa forms some sort of Anglo Saxon Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePaganSun
Mod cut.
Spain was at its peak for much of the 15th-17th centuries besting countries in battles including France, England, the Netherlands, the Ottomans, sometimes the Portuguese, sometimes even the Germans. Most of these battles were fought during the Thirty Years War which was at first primarily won by Spain (the Holy Roman Empire, Spain's ally kept losing many battles to Sweden although they kept beating Denmark)
Here's proof that Spain was still a major force to be recokened with even after the late 1700s! The Battle of Cartagena de Indias in 1741 where Spain OBLIETRATED the supposedly greater and wealthier British navy! Stats: 12,000 British regulars, marines and militia, 15,398 British Royal Navy sailors, 29 British ships, 22 British frigates, and 135 British transport and other crafts vs 2,700 Spanish regulars, 400 Spanish marines, 600 Spanish sailors and 300 militia (and 600 native archers), and 6 ships. Result? 9,500-11,500 British dead, 7,500 wounded and sick, 1,500 guns lost, 6 Royal Navy ships lost, 17 Royal Navy ships damaged, 4 frigates and 27 transposrts lost vs 800 Spanish dead, 1,200 Spanish wounded, 6 ships lost, 5 forts lost, 3 batteries, and 395 cannons lost.
Conclusion? Spain might not have been considered a "superpower" by 1741 but they were certainly powerful and a major force to be reckoned with considering they just whipped the butt of a unified kingdom that was thought to be "more powerful" than it. So yeah...Spain was still a very powerful country at least militarily after 1741.
Spain was a great power up until the Napoleonic era which weakend Spain after Napoleon occupied Spain. Spain could have still been a great power during the 19th century but the affects of Napoleon and the French Revolution hurt Spain in so many ways, most notably between liberals and conservatives who fought for the claimants of the throne and or support of a Republic. This is known as the Carlist Wars which lead up the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s. Constant Civil Wars are not good, a good example of this is with Greek Macedonian Empire and later Roman Empire due the lack of successors which contributed to all out of conflict for a claimant. Carlist Wars weakened Spain so much, by time the Spanish American war in 1898, Spain's Navy once the greatest in the world a 100 years prior was just a shadow of its former self. Another problem that hurt Spain was its economy. Spanish dollar was once the first ever global traded currency. Problem for Spain is that it fought too many wars which each time Spain had to borrow money. Spanish Silver rate was never fixed. Last Spanish middle class never bough Spanish made goods and prefer to buy goods from other countries like Portuguese sugar or British cloth.
Prior the Napoleonic wars Spain was a great power due to its Empire which it was the largest at that time. France was a power on Mainland Europe and Britain began to rule the seas after the French/Indian wars where Spain was allied with France. Spain had a good run, of 300 years of being a dominate global power, compared to Britain which only lasted for 150 years tops.
Had the English colonized the Americas first, I think it's safe to assume that there wouldn't be as many mestizos, mulattoes, etc as you see in Latin America today.
The same, as there were halfbreeds (Indians) in America or mulattoes in South Africa. The same, but they would have brought many more slaves, as they did in their sugar factories in the Caribbean.
There is something else to consider. Portuguese colonialism and Spanish colonialism was male-dominated in comparison to British colonialism. The British brought their families. The Spanish and Portuguese(and especially the Portuguese) was dominated by men. Alot of single men went. Pretty much very few, if any, families went along. Very few women from Europe meant the men were more likely to seek companionship with the local women.
Not true in the case of countries in the southern cone, or Cuba during the 19th century.
Yes, the "Dollar" or "Thaeler" was the Spanish currency.
One thing must also be taken into account, Latin America is far older.
It would be fair to compare the US with LA two hundred years from now.
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.
