Why did British colonies become so successful while Spanish/Portuguese colonies are stuck in the third world?
>>215331488>1488You know why
spanish and portugese food got upgraded through colonialismbritish "food" however...
the opposite
>>215331488>British colonies become so successfulyeah Nigeria, Malawi and South Sudan truly are examples of success
>>215331488I don't know m8 macau, hiroshima and nagazaki seem to be doing well
>>215331488(Southern) Canada, (southern) Australia, New Zealand and the (northern) United States were temperate lands comparable to Europe. The carrying capacity of the land was low at the indigenous level of technological and sociopolitical development, albeit less so in the case of New Zealand. It was like if someone invaded Eurasia in 1000BC. France would have been open fertile land with minimal human settlement to displace because large scale agriculture was only just pushing past the fertile river delta phase. So, British civilization was transposed accurately onto 'vacant' lands that could be developed in the same manner as Staffordshire.Mexico and Peru had large sedentary populations that survived the Columbian disease in numbers high enough to exploit, and they could be conquered unlike the more nomadic groups in the north who just faded deeper into the wilderness when attacked. The serfdom of the natives turned Mexico and Peru down the road of Russian style centralisation, violence and corruption.Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and Cuba rapidly exhausted their natives but replaced them with the African slaves afforded by the proximity to Africa and the westward trade winds at those latitudes, and the need generated by tropical disease annihilating any Europeans who tried to work in the fields.
Spanish people are not equal to English people in any respect. They should exist in servitude to White people.
>>215331488Because the successful British colonies were fully settled by British people while Spanish/Portuguese colonies weren't. British colonies that weren't settled by brits aren't that successful either.
>>215331488It's actually psychopathic that white dudes colonized and abused practically the entire known world and yet all those non-white women worship them. Makes me want to vomit
>>215335718Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong are all doing better than mostly-white Argentina and Uruguay. And I’m not even counting the Gulf States who have an oil cheat code.
>>215331488Socioeconomic factors
>>215331488>>215331747the key to success is killing everyone and replacing them with the white people
>>215335779the singular reason you're muslim is because turks raped your great great grandmother
>>215335886>Singapore, and Hong KongThey are Chinese, so that contributes a lot to their success. Others that were British colonies like South Sudan are literally the poorest countries in the world, far far worse than South America.
>>215331488wasn't that about industrialization which makes production more efficient vs traditional/manual labor that is cheap?
>>215335779I have the same thought, they genocided native americans yet women bootlick their ass
>>215335949accccually, Bosnians are less likely than other Balkanoids like Serbs to have been raped in the past because they converted
>>215335708>t. Carl Jenkinson
these mexicans
>>215335929shame the good guys lost the war then, the Germans could have turned Poland and Eastern Europe into a success if their plan to replace you with whites was implemented
>>215335896Sheeeet
>>215335779>abusedname one single empire you'd rather have show up on your doorstep with superior military might, wanting your stuff, than the british empirethe mongols maybe?the aztecs?the ottoman empire perhaps?how about the lovely roman empire who killed a million spaniards and enslaved a million more?vikings? huns? persians?you know what the japanese did to nanking when they took it overyou what the soviets did to everyone they met on their way to berlinthe british were saints compared to every other empire that ever ruled over another people, but we spread our democratic and humanitarian culture so effectively that you now have the freedom to shit on us, even as you all speak our languageyou're welcome
>>215331488Spaniards couldn't build a proper economy other than neo-feudal land estates
>>215336119Their ancestors were spiritually raped instead of physically
>>215331488The Spanish came to what currently is Latin America, saw developing civilizations, decided to enslave them and extract the resources back to Spain. This meant that the whole governance system was made to exploit people, rather than spread at-the-time-modern ideas.The British came to North America, realized that it's just giant empty land full of nothing at fucking all, and understood that if they want to extract value from said land, they need to farm it themselves. This meant that at least the ruling class had to form some kind of modern society within America itself.When US gained independence from Britain, it was a modern country with educated upper class who had a disagreement with London.When Spanish colonies gained independence, it was just a bunch of angry peasants with pitchforks, and a few smart guys who simply redirected the stream of extracted resources from Spain to their own pockets.
>>215335654good answeri heard british colonialism was partly more successful because we have a tradition of washing our hands before eating, and of drinking tea which needs the water to be boiledthis way, the british overseas avoided most of the dysentery and other diseases that held back other european powers abroad
>>215336805there's a reason why every brown person claims they look polish you know
Because the spaniards and the portuguese miscigenated while the english didn't
>>215331488At their height Portuguese America, Africa and Asia were better than most other places on Earth, we only think that way in retrospect. The divergence happened due to many reasons, but basically many places fell for the usual civilizational pitfalls
>>215339767>the usual civilizational pitfallslike speaking portuguese?
Protestant ethic
>>215337678i thought this was just cope from people who feel bad about the empire were we actually the nicest?
They eliminated all the natives from their most successful colonies.On the other hand, colonized countries in Africa continue to be in the same shit.
>>215331488for every great success there is an india, a nigeria or a pakistan. spanish/portuguese colonies are middling in terms of shitness will ours were extremes of either the highest highs or the lowest lows.
>>215337678>the british were saints compared to every other empire that ever ruled over another people>name one single empire you'd rather have show up on your doorstep with superior military might, wanting your stuff, than the british empireNot that I disagree with your general sentiment, but probably any localised empire that we no longer consider to be such because it was so successful and long lasting that its inhabitants have undergone ethnogenesis, ie China or (continental) France. Any devastation that one or two generations endured was repaid long term by entry into an emerging larger kin group and civilization. We were less cruel than many, but our unwillingness to mate with Catholics or Hindus undid Cromwell's and Clive's conquests and rendered the suffering of civilians and soldiers, on both sides, somewhat meaningless.
>>215340079the british are one of the only dominant empires to actually show remorse for what (relatively few) bad things happened under their controlif a chinese man complained to a mongolian about the genocide their people suffered at the hands of the khans? they'd be laughed atso they don't bother complaining, as there's nothing to gainbut the british actually offer sympathy and regret over not being perfectso a lot of people cash in on that sympathy"you enslaved us!!"we didn't, we bought and traded slaves (until we ended the international slave trade), and yes that's not goodbut you can get free shit from exploiting white guilt, hence the evil british empire, and the monsters that are now getting their just desserts for not being perfect
>>215340313not to sound arrogant but just a superior peoples then arent weeven the current immigration and islam problem is because we were too nice and decided to have remorse on the 'oppressed' and thought we could co-exist
>>215340678we?i won't say i'm superior, or that i have remorse (or pride) over what my ancestors might have donei will say it's utterly suicidal what british governments have done since, inviting people of a hostile culture into this country by the millionmaybe it was out of remorsemaybe it was because those governments were equally hostile to the native brits, in secretbut without our collective "racist guilt," there's no way brits could be shamed into accepting mass immigration from pakistan and other hostile nationsbrits have torn down statues over this feeling of guilttry telling mongolians to tear down their giant statue of genghis khan
>>215331488Pakistani, Bangladesh, Shri Lanka , Nigeria, Myanmar, are really thriving right now aren't they
>>215331488Canada, Australia and New Zealand were settler colonies and the anglo settlers built anglo societies.Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Central America were conquests of other empires and the subjects of those empire shaped the colonies, the colonisation was mainly religious and linguistical but Spanish settlers were always a minority so when they lost their power they could no longer shape those societies into European ones.The Caribbean, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela were settler colonies but with a heavy reliance on the slave trade. Resulting in the population being a mix of Spanish/Portuguese settlers, African slaves and some native American. So the result ended up somewhere in the middle of Europe and Africa, varying by region.The United States (especially the south) and Argentina/Uruguay were initially settler colonies with a heavy reliance on the slave trade but took a different path when the ruling class that achieved independence managed to either keep blacks enslaved/segregated as a minority (in the case of America) or just get rid of them by using them as cannon fodder and encouraging them to migrate to other places (in the case of Argentina), add to that that both countries encouraged European migration and it resulted in European-like societies.But both Argentina and America are currently deviating from this and morphing into something else entirely, through mass migration from Latin America and because the African slaves in America managed to rid themselves of the shackles. I suppose Argentina will turn into a mestizo society like Chile, while America will turn into a triracial society like Brazil.Other British colonies like those of Africa or India turned into massive shitholes just like they were before being colonies, since they weren't settler colonies.
>>215337678British were no saints by any means but compared to the Portuguese Inquisitions, British occupation was humane. At least they were not burning temples and imposing conversions.
>>215341159british colonies also include the usa and australiayour examples are generally not governed by brits or british descendants any moremaybe if they were, they would be doing better nowadays
>>215341159>we'll show george a thing or two about running a country
>>215341228Best answer ITT
>>215331488The biggest British colony isn't potty trained yet in 2025
>>215341391 I doubt even being governed by the Brits could have helped thier situation.>>215341257
>>215331488At least we have the excuse of never having been good and only improving now. Look at Peru and Mexico: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHa53Uy3H78>>215339767this is not true lol. We were a backwater shithole without universities or basic infrastructure
>>215341465Why do you need schools and roads to cut down pernambuco and sugarcane?
>>215341240the british were definitely not saints, but no empire was ever imposed by saintsin ireland and india, and you could say in north america and australia, the british used force and killed people to impose and expand the empirethis isn't the british being bad, it's empire itself being badlook at how the mughals treated hindus when they invaded indiathe goal of british imperialism was never genocideit was more like the ancient persian style of conquest, where you let people live, but they have to pay a tax, and trade under new rules, and be loyal to queen victoria, empress of india
>>215341228>The Caribbean, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela were settler colonies but with a heavy reliance on the slave trade. Resulting in the population being a mix of Spanish/Portuguese settlers, African slaves and some native American. >So the result ended up somewhere in the middle of Europe and Africa, varying by region.>varying by region.>varying by region.>varying by region.when will people stop believing this meme?
could the british african colonies be successful if settled by brits or other europeans? (remember the people of the usa were only truly majority anglo in the early days). because obviously it’s going to be harder in a place like africa compared to american lands but if the empire provided most that they could to africans and weren’t as harsh as the iberians yet they still managed to be the thirdest of thirdie shitholes then you have to accept that at some point there’s no helping people lol.
>>215341488Because the vast majority of people weren't working on sugarcane and even the sugarcane overlords needed doctors and engineers sometimes
>>215338635I’m not sure of the validity of it but I’ve heard the way the Spanish colonies were run was extremely inefficient and overly bureaucratic. Like if someone wanted to send a letter from say Mexico City to Tijuana, it would have to go back to Spain first for processing whereas if someone wanted to see a letter in British colonial America from New York to Philadelphia, it was just that, no extra handling.
>>215341537look at south africa
>>215340905Mongolia is absolutely irrelevant in both a political and military sense so nobody cares whether or not they worship Genghis Khan. They could officially declare they want to rape everyone in Asia and people would still laugh it off.
>>215341625that's not my pointmy point is that they don't regard their history as something to be ashamed of, even though the mongols were one of the most horrific empires in human historythe british empire, by contrast, was one of the most benevolent empires in historyand yet the british will kneel before black lives matter activists, whereas mongolians would find that absurd
>>215341529Your meme map literally shows I'm correct, you turd brain two digit iq merdestino preto fodido do caralho.
>>215337678France. I've always heard the Inca empire was also quite "liked" by its conquered people. The mongols were in fact fairly laissez-faire as long as you paid tribute and didn't kill their envoys.
>>215341698we should be more like the mongols. where has our empathy gotten us? muslim rape gangs being systemically covered up to avoid ‘racism’, being told to not look back in hate after nons repeatedly slaughter our own and a country which is no longer ours.
>>215341718yeah the margin of error insignificant difference for anyone looking from outside proves you correct>merdestino>preto hmmm what now m8?what completely inane imbecility about my country you're sharing with us next?
>>215331520
>>215341537You bring up an interesting scenario: What if South Africa and Zimbabwe were Africa’s version of US and Canada? And instead of a problem with migrants from Mexico and Honduras they had a border problem with Angola, Congo, Kenya, etc?I honestly still don’t think they’d be as developed as the other settler colonies from the British.
>>215341759>The mongols were in fact fairly laissez-fairethey left behind mountains of bones and rivers of blood, where there were once sophisticated chinese citieseuropeans never did anything like thati don't know anything about the incas, so maybe they were enlightened conquerersas for the french, read about the harrying of the northmy own people were genocided by the french in the 11th century, and i don't use that term lightlyalthough it was mostly mercenaries who did all that...other than the normans, the french colonisers were basically like the british from what i know
>>215341698They don't regard their history as something to be ashamed of because their empire collapsed almost a whole millennia ago. Nobody pressures them about it either because of that fact. Nobody in Asia can possibly blame the Mongols for anything anymore, although there is occasionally some rare seethe from Russians about the Golden Horde or whatever.>the british empire, by contrast, was one of the most benevolent empires in historyLol. Lmao.
>>215341911my own people were genocided by the french in the 11th centurywhom
>>215341228>>215341529>>215341803this argie armchair sociologist actually took brazilian regional banter as facts
>>215341783i wouldn't want to take pride in being descended from genocidal rapistsi also wouldn't feel shame in it, because i'm personally not like that regardlessbrits need to get a grip and stop feeling guilt over shit that other people did>>215341958my family have lived in east yorkshire for 1000 yearsthe normans went full scorched earth on this region after they resisted the norman invasion of 1066no hard feelings though, eh?>>215341931see >>215337678name a more benevolent empire
>>215342024>my family have lived in east yorkshire for 1000 yearsnot sure if mine have been there 1000 years (at least 500 though) but what the fuck sameno way frenchies did that too us no hard feelings towards the french now obviously it was a millennia ago and everyone did it but what the hell… why did the ye olde frogs have such bees in their bonnets with us…
>>215341931There is some truth to it, albeit unintentional. The British empire was spread by a literal commercial company, not the British military or church. They set out to make money, not to convert people or own more territory. Being brutal for brutality's sake will ruin their profits. If you study the British Empire history, most of its expansion was via treaties or bribes to the local rulers, at least at the start. The colonial wars only happen after those rulers finally realised they have been duped. Compare and contrast to Spain/Portugal where they straight up murder and pillage the moment they landed. The Dutch had a similar strategy to the British too.
>>215341529I should have posted this map that doesn't exaggerate the colors so our friend could see how overblown the so called regional differences are. Specially during Colonial Brazil, before European immigration in the south. There were basically no regional differences at all
>>215342099from what little i know it was mostly dutch and danish mercs, led by a french bastardwilliam the bastardit was so long ago that we forgive and forget, but british people descended from these norman cunts do tend to be a lot better off financiallythey're still our current aristocracyi guess it pays to winmy ancestors were jute vikings who extorted the locals for years before that, so maybe it's karma
>>215342132>make money, not to convert people or own more territoryCircular logic. The point of converting people and/or owning more territory is to make money (access to resources).
>nz>successful LMAO, foreigners have no idea what it’s like here
>>215342132exactly thisit was sleazy, and it was unfair, and it was often based on corrupting native leaders for profitbut it was a mercantile empire, not a religious or political empire
>>215342356fuck youyou have a futurenew zealand is best placed to survive the next 100 years, if china doesn't invadeyou have fresh water, hydroelectricity, a massive aussie ally to the west, a massive empty ocean to the eastyou don't have a government pouring third worlders into your country by the millionthere's a reason billionaires are building bunkers in your country
>>215342168It clearly show there's variance by region you massive retard. I never claimed these variations were particularly steep.
>>215343436it's dumb as hell to call these regional variations. What you had said before about Brazil would have applied to all population centers. All of them were settler colonies with reliance on slavery and with racemix, on very similar proportions. There was no reason to bring that up unless you had a misconception about a meme version of north vs south Brazil and considering your posterior posts you sure did. Just admit you thought there was less slavery in the south and more in the north because you were led to believe this. I'm only even talking about this because you're not the first clueless gringo to think like this, so it's annoyingWant to see variation look at the dynamic North and South in the US
>>215331488the carribean of course known for the successful colonies
>>215344328I've visited your country on multiple occasions and different cities each time. You're not going to convince me regional differences do not exist.I also never claimed there was less slavery in the south, I don't know why you keep claiming I say these things that I never said in any of my posts. I simply said Brazil (and other countries like Colombia) have varying levels of European/Amerindian/African admixture depending on the region, regardless of why that is. And you posted a map that proved I was correct.Almost every single country on earth has varying demographics by region, some more than others, and Brazil is no exception, far from it. You won't benefit in any way from denying this reality and if you're doing this out of some sort of complex with your own ethnicity, I suggest you accept who you are and where you come from, while not letting it condition you as an individual; you're the master of your own personal destiny and the choices you make matter far more than your ethnicity.And if it makes you feel better, Argentina also has many genetic and cultural differences depending on the region. Even neighbourhoods in my city, Buenos Aires, have different kinds of people. For example I live in a neighbourhood with a much higher percentage of Ashkenazi Jews than any other place in the whole country.
>>215344999>You're not going to convince me regional differences do not exist.they do now because of post-colonial immigrants>varying levels of European/Amerindian/African admixture depending on the regionnot until the late 19th century when immigrants cameyour original post was talking about our history and claiming regional differences originated from different relationships between settlement and slavery, what is wrong
>>215345045No, I literally never claimed that. Re-read my post. I was also not talking entirely about Brazil but also of Colombia and Venezuela. And in my post I talked of how America and Argentina could have ended up with very similar demographics to these countries but didn't for a few reasons, including 19th and 20th century migration from Europe. Brazil, I am aware, also received migration from Europe, especially in the 19th century, and this of course helped shape your country as a whole.
