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.
To the first of your statements 1) I can agree on some of the points you made. However, can you support what you are saying with historical FACTS? It seems your statement is based on an opinion and you not seem to support your argument with specific facts. I can mention THREE important facts that would be in connection to my previous post.
I. The Dynastic Wars in Spain from the 16th - 19th century, the subsequent War of the Spanish Succession, and the continous wars striking Spain throughout the 19th century, which devastated the country, both socially and economically.
II. The late Industrial Revolution and the relative lack of resources, both natural and, mostly, economical.
III. The two previous points in connection with the inappropriate politics towards the new world.
With regard to your second 2) point I am sorry, but I cannot believe you are being serious:
"The Spanish who were born in America were not very friendly toward the natives" --> Were the "English-speaking", French-speaking, German-speaking Americans friendly to the American natives? - I DON'T THINK SO.... And I don't need to go back to the 18th century, I am thinking of the terrible racial issues in the USA in the 20th century, Appartheid in South Africa as recent as 20 years ago. The racial, class big issues in Britain even today and so on and so forth....
"The Spanish nor its descendants want to cooperate (economically nor politically) with the other groups in order to get the colonies up and going" --> I find this statement absolutely categorical (categorical is "bad").
I have joined this forum hoping to find discussion, debate, information....somehow "intellectual" exchange.... Let's consider that many cultural conflicts lie in misinformation, misunderstanding, misconceptions and..........OVERLY assumed generalitations and blunt, categorical statements.
Let's try to do something for the future generations at least..... I believ education is essential.
Your I-III points proved that Spain mismanaged the commerce with its colonies. For example during Spain's apex only one city was chosen to trade with the colonies, that was Cadiz. Instead of giving equal opportunity to larger and more developed Spanish cities that would have yielded better economic outcomes. The oligarchy and monopolistic forces of greed trumped development and the wellbeing of the state. These resulted in inadequately managing the Armada and emulate new ship building technologies of the British.
Second, the Apartheid of Africa or the treatment of Indians in the US is not relevant to what happened with the Spanish colonies. The criollos and mestisos were very much part of the Spanish culture. Yes they were relegated to lower class status but the strongly tied to Spanish traditions, religion and with everything that is Spanish. The problem was that there was resentment and un-cooperation between these new ethnic groups. In Africa and in the US the natives were pretty much put into reservations and camps and the majority killed. While in the Spanish colonies they multiplied and were part of a new society that lived and intermarried. You are talking apples and oranges here.
Right, that's what I said. However, the emphatic use of words "incompetence", "high tech warfare" make it sound a bit too emotional....
On the other question: Apartheid, Indians in the US, the treatment of classes in India, the aboriginal peoples in Australia. Of course those are different things. You said the Spanish people were not very friendly to the aboriginal peoples. Well, I don't think the case of the US (or any of the other territories I mentioned) are good examples of friendliness, tolerance and egalitarian treatment toward aboriginal peoples and other racial groups.
My parents are Swiss, my husband British, my kids are Spanish and British and I have lived most of my live in Spain. I can tell you right away: I've heard to much of that during my life and, no, that is not the way I see it. And I am sorry, but in Europe, most people are aware of the strong xenophobic prejudices coming towards the Spanish-hispanic world (two different worlds in my opinion) coming from English-speaking countries and, mostly, from the US, you just have to watch the news.
And we don't consider the case of the US as a good example, much unlike you want to believe.
First, the land discovered in America were not Spanish, it was Castillian territory.
Second, the land discovered became just a trinket in the hands of the Augsburg dinasty, the ones that destroyed the incipient Castillian republicanism and democracy.
The Armada did not fail because Spain lacked "high tech", but because gross incompetence.
For the Ausgsburg dinasty, America was just a place to extract gold and silver that never benefited Castille, since the gold went straigth to the bankers in Italy.
The Augsburg empire was constantly fighting European wars that were not benefical to Castille, Ausgburgs needed the money to pay mercenaries, and in this scheme, the priority for the advancement and colonization of America was next to zip.
Castille in fact was a barren, wasted and depopulated land with armies of beggars and harlots and haughty nobility and "hidalgos" and their only product was wool and soldiers.
First, the land discovered in America were not Spanish, it was Castillian territory.
Second, the land discovered became just a trinket in the hands of the Augsburg dinasty, the ones that destroyed the incipient Castillian republicanism and democracy.
The Armada did not fail because Spain lacked "high tech", but because gross incompetence.
For the Ausgsburg dinasty, America was just a place to extract gold and silver that never benefited Castille, since the gold went straigth to the bankers in Italy.
The Augsburg empire was constantly fighting European wars that were not benefical to Castille, Ausgburgs needed the money to pay mercenaries, and in this scheme, the priority for the advancement and colonization of America was next to zip.
Castille in fact was a barren, wasted and depopulated land with armies of beggars and harlots and haughty nobility and "hidalgos" and their only product was wool and soldiers.
Never knew that the land discovered in America was Castillian Terrority. I thought the marriages between Isabella and Fernidard in the late 15th century reunited the provinces of Spain.
I know alot of the wealth Spain gained was to finance the wars back in Europe. Spain in the 16th Century was among the most powerful nations in Europe. By the 18th century Spain became an second rate European power.
Last edited by other99; 08-04-2010 at 03:46 AM..
Reason: edit
First, the land discovered in America were not Spanish, it was Castillian territory.
Second, the land discovered became just a trinket in the hands of the Augsburg dinasty, the ones that destroyed the incipient Castillian republicanism and democracy.
At least you should say what period of time you are speaking of.
The downward of Spain began in the late 18th century and the final straw was its association and partnership with France which was weak at the time; of course, the Aftermath was their eventual defeat by the English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manolón
The Armada did not fail because Spain lacked "high tech", but because gross incompetence.
Spain did not keep up to pace with the technology of its time. That's why it is in parenthesis.
When you say gross incompetence give some examples,
Here is an example: According to written documents that have been kept at the Museo de las Indias in Sevilla. Merchants and trading companies were at odds with breaking their monopoly in Cadiz. If the same contracts were made with other cities such Sevilla, Cartagena, Barcelona commerce would have increased with the colonies and thereby increasing funds for war, development etc. Carlos III was a very smart man and tried to change things but it was too little too late.
Apartheid is irrelevant to the discussion. South Africa gained independence as a Commonwealth realm in 1910 (and later became a republic in 1961) - meaning that the British had no control of South Africa after 1910. Apartheid only became an official state policy in 1948.
I like to look at Bermuda and Hong Kong as the best examples of colonial rule. When the British took over Hong Kong in 1842 it was nothing but a few fishing villages populated by barely 6,000 people. When the British returned Hong Kong to Communist China in 1997 it was an economic powerhouse populated by almost 6,300,000 people. Bermuda is another good example; it has a significant degree of internal self government, enjoys one of the highest qualities of life, and standards of living on the planet. It also has no desire to become an independent nation (despite what the dunce Ewart Brown wants) ... Hong Kong also had to desire to become part of Communist China either.
I am joining this discussion very late, so if I cover something that has already been covered, please accept my apologies.
I believe the initial question over-simplifies the issue. First, it presupposes that any given colony was EITHER British OR Spanish. Second, it omits three other powers that were actively colonizing at the same time -- the French, the Portugese and the Dutch.
First example: the central Gulf Coast of the United States. While the Spanish were largely responsible for the colonization of Florida, extreme northwest Florida was for a time controlled and dominated by the French. The city of Mobile Alabama, founded by the French, describes itself as "The City of Six Flags" because it has existed under the flags of France, Spain, Great Britain, the Confederacy, the Republic of Alabama, and the United States. New Orleans and almost all of southern Louisiana, coastal Mississippi, and northwest Florida have been under at least five flags. Mardi Gras (a French term), first celebrated in the New World in MOBILE (not New Orleans), is found not only in coastal Louisiana and Alabama, but in coastal Mississippi and northwest Florida as well.
Second example: South Africa. Though most people characterize it as a British colony, large parts of it were colonized and controlled by the Dutch. British and Dutch forces clashed several times, including a multi-part clash called the Boer Wars.Boer Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Modern-day South Africa contains a large number of people called Afrikaners who speak a language called Afrikaans, the core of which is Dutch. In fact, there are three distinct South African "accents"; one founded in British English, one founded in Dutch/Afrikaans, and one founded in the indigenous languages.
Third example: South America. If only the Spanish colonized South America, why is Portugese spoken in Brazil and Uruguay? Why is French also spoken in parts of Brazil? For that matter, why is Dutch spoken on the islands off the north coast of South America?
Last edited by Nighteyes; 08-04-2010 at 12:24 PM..
I am joining this discussion very late, so if I cover something that has already been covered, please accept my apologies.
I believe the initial question over-simplifies the issue. First, it presupposes that any given colony was EITHER British OR Spanish. Second, it omits three other powers that were actively colonizing at the same time -- the French, the Portugese and the Dutch.
First example: the central Gulf Coast of the United States. While the Spanish were largely responsible for the colonization of Florida, extreme northwest Florida was for a time controlled and dominated by the French. The city of Mobile Alabama, founded by the French, describes itself as "The City of Six Flags" because it has existed under the flags of France, Spain, Great Britain, the Confederacy, the Republic of Alabama, and the United States. New Orleans and almost all of southern Louisiana, coastal Mississippi, and northwest Florida have been under at least five flags. Mardi Gras (a French term), first celebrated in the New World in MOBILE (not New Orleans), is found not only in coastal Louisiana and Alabama, but in coastal Mississippi and northwest Florida as well.
Second example: South Africa. Though most people characterize it as a British colony, large parts of it were colonized and controlled by the Dutch. British and Dutch forces clashed several times, including a multi-part clash called the Boer Wars.Boer Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Modern-day South Africa contains a large number of people called Afrikaners who speak a language called Afrikaans, the core of which is Dutch. In fact, there are three distinct South African "accents"; one founded in British English, one founded in Dutch/Afrikaans, and one founded in the indigenous languages.
Third example: South America. If only the Spanish colonized South America, why is Portugese spoken in Brazil and Uruguay? Why is French also spoken in parts of Brazil? For that matter, why is Dutch spoken on the islands off the north coast of South America?
Well Brazil was colonised by the Portugese. Actually French is spoken in French Guayna and that country is just north of Brazil. French Guyana only has an small population, and the European space adgency uses that country to launch rockets there. The Dutch and British also had territory in South America too and the Dutch had territory on islands off the coast of South America such as in the Carribean as they wanted to be an part of the sugar cane trade as that region was rich in the supply of sugar to Europe.
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.
