Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 10th, 2018, 01:41 PM   #1
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2018
From: India
Posts: 39
Why British did not take over and colonized Patagonia ?




The climate was similar, land was planty, greek, cold, mountainousetc with low % of Natives so why British nevertried tl colonized it as a "Us/canada of South America" ?


Off topic : what if brits Completed invasions from Plata and took over Patagonia and colonized it with European people ? Do you think this country can be a 1st world country ?
Razdan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 10th, 2018, 01:55 PM   #2
Dilettante
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Wirral
Posts: 4,367

Monroe Doctrine? Although I've no idea if Britain felt at all bound by it.
GogLais is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 02:00 PM   #3

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,184

How profitable would it have been ?
Apart from the latter period of the 19th and early 20th century the British Empire's expansion was mainly guided by profit not territory.
redcoat is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 08:52 PM   #4

RidiculousName's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: USA
Posts: 548

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
How profitable would it have been ?
Apart from the latter period of the 19th and early 20th century the British Empire's expansion was mainly guided by profit not territory.

I'm not sure of the timelines but assuming the suez and panama canals weren't built yet, being able to control one of the two routes to Asia seems like it might've been helpful. I dunno though.
RidiculousName is online now  
Old July 10th, 2018, 09:24 PM   #5

Belgarion's Avatar
Cynical Optimist
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Australia
Posts: 6,167

I would say that it would not have been cost effective. Not enough profit to be made to offset the annoyance of the USA and Spain over Britain obtaining more colonies in what they considered their area of influence.
Belgarion is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 11:40 PM   #6
Dilettante
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Wirral
Posts: 4,367

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razdan View Post
Off topic : what if brits Completed invasions from Plata and took over Patagonia and colonized it with European people ? Do you think this country can be a 1st world country ?
It was colonised by Europeans.
GogLais is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 04:18 AM   #7

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,618

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belgarion View Post
I would say that it would not have been cost effective..
Or to be it another way - an economic cold desert!
johnincornwall is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 06:44 AM   #8

mark87's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Santiago de Chile
Posts: 1,953
Blog Entries: 1

It was in a sense. Thousands of British people landed there, but it was more of an economic ''take over'', it was Britons who mainly started the sheep ranching industry on both sides of the Patagonian border in Chile and Argentina. The issue is that there were also other Europeans (a wide range of nationalities) and Chileans and Argentine's who migrated there in the late 19th century. At this point in time the British had their 'economic empire' and the sheep ranchers were a part of it, as were all their numerous investments in other parts of Latin america. There were an estimated 20,000 British born in Buenos Aires alone at one point of the second half of the 19th century, other port cities in the region like Valparaiso in Chile also had thousands of Britons who were mainly agents of commerce and industry giving much need credit and know how to the local flourishing industries all over the continent once independence was achieved.
What ended this ''colonization'' (by the way the whole endeavor in Patagonia got really ugly at one point with European and ''local'' Indian hunters running around and genocide occurring with the Argentine and Chilean governments looking the other way) was the economic downturn which came with the first world war and the global shipping industry that went with that. Also Panama Canal opening changed the strategic importance of the Patagonian ports.

PS. Patagonia is a region, often ill defined, not a country since it straddles two countries in actuality.

Last edited by mark87; July 11th, 2018 at 06:47 AM.
mark87 is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 08:26 AM   #9
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Argentina
Posts: 283

Hey Razdan.
I’m sorry to tell you, you are seriously miss informed. The uk or england or whatever did try to take the Patagonia as their colony. They just failed in the attempt. british ships an cannons came in 1806 and again in 1807. This second time, they took the city of Buenos Aires and give rulings.
The takeback was mostly the work and the sacrifice of the people of Buenos Aires, whom by that time, already used the demonym “argentinos”. Though, the Spanish viceroy did his part. When running away, they took to london the treasure they stole and never returned it. Soon after that, london realized that it wasn’t through guns they would get good profit out of this colony. British bankers and diplomats started to come, and bribe a big part of the ruling class of these lands (who also enjoyed it, of course).
Mark at post #8 summarized very well part of the economic take over. It just should be added that in 1824, Baring brothers bankers house delivered a large loan very aware that the money (only paper, not the metal whose necessity had justified taking the debt in the first place) was mostly directed to bribes, not to infrastructure building. In similar terms it was that trains arrived to Provincias Unidas del Sud, with all railways in fan shape, pointing to the port but not connecting interior lands.
To be fair, in the first half of 18th century, Buenos Aires government still hadn’t taken over all Patagonia, only the northern most part of it. Also to be fair, continuous moving the frontier southwards, only brought more and more lands to british enterprises, extracting wealth (wool and cattle, not a single swatter or salty meat) by british trains and british ships.
About the strategic importance of having ports near the Magallanes canal, british also thought about it and took Malvinas islands en 1833.
IMHO.
ĦĦĦAguante Talleres!!!
maTiasddsm is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:43 AM   #10
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2018
From: India
Posts: 39

Good to know brother, thanks for detailed answers.
Razdan is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
british, colonized, patagonia



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Was Japan colonized ? Elardag Asian History 34 November 25th, 2017 07:40 AM
What if America Was Never Colonized? MajorCringe Speculative History 14 September 30th, 2017 02:16 PM
Why did British not send colonized Indians to the Americas greatstreetwarrior General History 35 September 26th, 2015 04:59 AM
Emergence petroglyphs turn up now in Patagonia davu Ancient History 0 February 5th, 2011 07:14 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.