How come Spain's colonies didn't do so well but Britain's colonies did well?

Sep 2018
40
Sri Lanka
#1
THE ONES with the European majority I mean.

If both Spain and Britain are European countries and both are rich, how come a lot of Spain's colonies ended up being corrupt and poor but Britain's not that bad?
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#2
This is a malicious question....or a Trick question....Bangladesh or Burma are not "corrupted" Colonies? Nor Nigeria? Pakistan? So... each country is not matched with the former metropoli.. by the way... the richest States in USA... they never were British Dominions.. .. so a easy and manipulating and malicious question it would have been.. Why the former Spanish Dominions in north America (California, Texas, Florida.... ) are richer than west virginia, South Carolina and Maine?

But I don´t like manipulations... There are former British Dominions very rich (New York, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc) and others very poor and corrupted (Nigeria, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan...Bostwana...) There are former Spanish Dominions very rich (Texas, Florida, California, Argentina, Netherland, Belgium, Artois, Lombardy...) and others very Poor and corrupted (Guinea, Guatemala, )...

So... Not manipulations. And not malicious trick....

It is clear you didn´t travel to Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Burma.... to say "not that bad"....:lol::lol:
 
Likes: Zanis

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,415
Benin City, Nigeria
#3
Botswana isn't even significantly more corrupt than Spain though. Poorer, yes, but only slightly more corrupt at most. It doesn't belong in that list.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,876
Spain
#4
Botswana isn't even significantly more corrupt than Spain though. Poorer, yes, but only slightly more corrupt at most. It doesn't belong in that list.
Well, Ok, you are right... I don´t know Bostwana.. but yes I can speak about Nigeria... and Yes... Nigeria.. a British Dominion till 1960... is one of the most corrupted and poorest country on earth...However both Flanders and Lombardy... between the richest areas in Europe belonged to the Spanish Empire... the issue is very simple... how a country is today.. it is not matched to the former Imperial Power.
New York is very Rich... and Bangladesh is very Poor...
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,415
Benin City, Nigeria
#5
Well I agree that there is no real correlation. I'm not sure about the argument the thread starter is really making either since he hasn't provided any evidence, but based on the first line I think he wants to compare majority "white" former colonies along cultural lines or linguistic lines.
 
Likes: martin76
Oct 2015
4,541
Matosinhos Portugal
#6
martin 76 Great answer. Hehehe
Tell me which country is in the world, which is not corrupt, and which country has no poor.
Even the Vatican escapes corruption.
fortunately my country has a bit of everything,starting with corruption.

Corruption and poverty are global.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,992
US
#7
I believe the basic economic model used by English colonies encouraged more privately owned industry and businesses, which resulted in more privately owned wealth, which was then shared and spread more effectively.
 
Likes: arkteia
Jul 2009
9,374
#8
The OP seems to imply that Britain's colonies which became successful were those settled by substantial populations of Europeans, not those where Britain controlled large native populations as in Africa, and in India and Pakistan. Although there were Europeans who settled there, those locations were more exploitative economic dependencies than colonies.

Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps until recently South Africa, were successful in establishing wealthy societies based upon European cultures. Although India has promise, poverty and corruption are wide spread and remain serious challenges. Africa, in most cases regardless of "colonial past", seems as unsuccessful as it has seemed for many centuries.

Although the history of the Iberian maritime nations is fascinating, the legacy in Latin America has often resulted in political instability and corruption at all social levels. Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Colombia and Venezuela, and even Panama and Mexico are big examples of corruption and instability, and Chile, while a general success story, has had a lengthy experience with military repression.

The mentioned social-political simulacra of Great Britain have avoided the overpowering corruption referenced above (although the US is currently a question mark :) - but we can't discuss that). Politically those former colonies have been pretty stable.

Comparing West Virginia (G.B./VA) with California (Spain) is too compartmentalized for the premise of the OP it seems.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,093
Portugal
#10
and perhaps until recently South Africa, were successful in establishing wealthy societies based upon European cultures.
You mean only a part of the South African population, since most of its population only could see the wealthy society but was excluded from it.

Those countries were not settled by 'Europeans'?

So that's not what the OP was asking about.
He didn’t mentioned the ones settled by “Europeans”, but the ones with an Euroepan majority, witch isn’t exactly the same thing. And for Latin America maybe there aren’t that much.

This is a question that runs over and over again in this forum. Somewhere I already have a personal simplified interpretation of this.

It was something in these lines:

Spain colonized first America and transplanted to America many of the medieval institutions that had in the Iberian Peninsula. Furthermore begun to develop in America a culture that was made to the image of the one in the Peninsula but at the same time different, with a mixture of cultures: European, American, and African only comparable to what we see in Brazil and in the Caribbean.

Britain begun to colonize America much later, had less territories to develop and control, and it transplanted to America early modern institutions, so the colonies in Canada and the 13th colonies were much more similar to the ones in the British Isles.
 

Similar History Discussions