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

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
But it's the religious zealotry that often drives colonisation. The 'State' uses these zealots as 'footsoldiers' to cover the ground. Just as islamic forces sent out preachers in the 7th and 8th centuries to spread the word and obtain what was all in all a very rapid 'spread' through N Africa and Hispania. And Catholic missionaries of whatever type played a huge role in expanding Imperial Spain.
Yes, and also, the delights of the Spanish culture, such as torture of the heretics. The last auto-da-fé was performed in Mexico in 1850.

I wonder if the "delights" of modern animal torture, such as torro embolado, Toro embolado - Wikipedia, a nauseating game popular in Southern Spain and Hispanic countries, had origins in auto-da-fé procedure?

Of course Spanish colonies fared worse than the British ones, after all, even in XXI century, in modern Spain, torture of animals is institutionalized. How do you expect them to treat poor pagans in old times?
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,206
Navan, Ireland
I was talking specifically about racism towards one group. I don't know about racism toward all other groups and I'm not going to comment on "who was/is more racist overall" when considering all cases..
Well that's the argument! why do you support the claim that the British or 'Anglos' are more racist than the Spanish?

or catholics less racist than protestants ?

I also fail to see how continuing with race based slavery in one Empire is a sign of non-racism while it abolition in another is a sign of that empire inherent racism.

I stand by my earlier statement. If this is an issue on which you are going to take a somewhat nationalistic stance then there is really no point in explaining further.
Nationalistic?

For objecting to one 'group' being inherently morally inferior.

Ok please explain why tone group is inferior to another.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,206
Navan, Ireland
Sincerely if you don´t know about subject... not talk about what you don´t know. It is clear you know nothing about Spanish Empire save some Low-budget Hollywood movies...
Yet that doesn't stop you commenting upon subjects you seem to know little about.

Despite your claims to be an expert on British social history !

........We can compare what the English invasors made in Ireland... Do you know what language they imposed?...
Which? -- or again is this an example of you commenting upon a subject that you know little--- so perhaps you should follow your own advice rather than insult other posters.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,664
Benin City, Nigeria
Well that's the argument!
That's the argument that you and martin are apparently engaged in - who was more racist overall when considering all cases. However, that isn't what my comment was about, as I made clear. As I stated before, I am simply talking about racism toward one specific group. To go into detail on that would be another derailment of the thread, and would take too much time to type out an explanation so I'm not going to get into it here. For now, what I'll say is that you should seriously consider the possibility that the British probably reached the heights of their racism after - not before, but after - the abolition of slavery in their empire. That is something you might want to look for information on (to either confirm or refute this idea), instead of simply assuming that this could not be the case.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,206
Navan, Ireland
I agree with Mr Betgo said. It is not possible to say better.
Sorry this is rather hypocritical because you continually claim one Empire (or national grouping and or religion) to be good and another to be bad in the most simplistic of ways!

Dear Kevin and Edric... proud of the House of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha... it was Cronwell who said the Spaniard is the Natural enemy... not any King or Minister in the Catholic Empire. I will refresh your memory:

And the Spaniard is not only our enemy accidentally but he is providentially so God having in His wisdom disposed it so to be when we made a breach with the Spanish Nation long ago , Oliver Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches.


Your grasp of 'Anglo' thought is flimsy to say the least, Cromwell is not the father of British thought at all and the notion that the British psyche is dominated by its 'natural enemy' of Spain might be comfortable to a Spanish Nationalist such as yourself but really the British have moved on since the middle of the 17th century.

It would explain you line of thought.

t was Britain and not Spain who broke the relations... and it is British Propaganda who speak in this thread from the first post. As simple as to see how many times I wrote about Britain with Ups and Downs... not as you.. that only use Propaganda. ...
Sorry when have I used 'propaganda'?

I freely admit 'negative' (down right horrible) actions of the UK but what I don't accept is your simplistic non-sense of one Empire (Spain) being morally pure and another national group (Anglos) being morally deficient.

What I do not accept is your grasping of anything negative about 'Anglos' as 'proof' of their 'racism' and anything negative about the Spanish as 'propaganda'.


but you prefered the "nice and beloved" aztecs than the "evil" Spaniards.... right? Who knows... maybe you like the 7 yo child´s meat...
Petty insults?

Who said the Aztecs were 'nice and beloved'? ---- you are the one that goes in for spitting history into good and bad, I think the worlds a great deal more complex than that.

I will write a long post about the history of the Black Legend and the hispanonophobie... the origin is not in Britain and not in Protesstant... but In Italy when aragonese conquered Sicily! What´s is true.. it is British and Protestant expanded the black legend.

Sorry Martin I have not seen anyone denying that there is such a thing as the 'Black Legend', as someone brought up in a 'protestant' country it is well to remember that there was anti-Catholic propaganda.

However the same really should apply to someone brought in the catholic tradition, that propaganda is peddled by both sides so your dislike of the Black Legend should really be matched by a questioning of the White legend.

Another native languages grammar book written by the Spaniards....
Why are book written by the Spanish relevant but ones written by 'Anglos' not ?



Of course, thiis book is not for you dear Kevin and Edric....................
Is it for the highly advanced civilisations that existed in South America when the Spanish arrived?
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,206
Navan, Ireland
That's the argument that you and martin are apparently engaged in - who was more racist overall when considering all cases. However, that isn't what my comment was about, as I made clear. As I stated before, I am simply talking about racism toward one specific group. To go into detail on that would be another derailment of the thread, and would take too much time to type out an explanation so I'm not going to get into it here. For now, what I'll say is that you should seriously consider the possibility that the British probably reached the heights of their racism after - not before, but after - the abolition of slavery in their empire. That is something you might want to look for information on (to either confirm or refute this idea), instead of simply assuming that this could not be the case.

Not really because I don't see how more 'national group' ( I don't think 'ethnic' is really appropriate) can be 'more racist' especially over centuries.

That really rather than making sweeping statements that are based more on national (or in some people case religious) prejudice that societies and history should really be viewed with a little bit of context.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,771
Portugal
In my opinion this thread long felt in pity nationalisms and bias to a point of bringing YouTube videos, photos without sources or context, 3rd rate sites just to justify already existing prejudices and mixing/merging time periods into just one just to thrown a stone to the neighbour glass ceiling forgetting that in the history of the colonialism all the powers have glass ceilings trough the eyes of the current moral values.

This led me to think that probably reading the book that I am currently reading, and that I already mentioned, is far more informative that reading these thread’s posts, so don’t be surprised if I remove myself from the discussion.

Anyway I will try a “Swan song” post hoping that my perspective on this remain clear, since it seems that I was often misinterpreted, and also answering to posters that addressed to me, and hoping to provide some relevant information.

In post 125 you said there was no caste system in Britain because all non white or mixed race people were lower caste.

There was no caste system and in Britain there was no restriction on marriage and no blood purity either.

What is today the USA is not the same as Britain or the British Empire.
I made a comparison of race division to the caste division in post #125, and mentioned indirectly a law of an English colony, namely Virginia, while it was a colony and before the existence of the USA.

But Kevin, since you didn’t quote me to prove you affirmation, as I requested, I assume that you misread me or confused the poster when you stated “You claimed that the British law classified people due to race--- I know of no law in Britain where this is the case.”

It is one of the things that annoy me more in this forum is when people try to put in my posts meanings that aren’t there. This often makes me to remove myself from the threads and I often feel that is a lack of intellectual honesty, even if in many times it isn’t the case, and it can be understood only as a misreading.

Virginia May have made laws. But since they are American... again. No laws have existed banning or restricting British people from marrying or imposing race based caste systems. Only Spain....

though later the USA, most likely inspired by Spanish ideas, introduced racial laws. But Britain. Nope.
Virginia was an English colony that had legal restrictions. Yes the Virginians are Americans, like the Mexicans and the Brazilians, but the period that I was mention was under English rule. As for the rest I already understood your opinion.

Tulius I think has not read Martins posts?

He claims Spain was better for Native Americans!! Exterminated in almost their entirety in Barbados, Jamaica, Cuba, Trinidad... it’s not until the Spanish meet densely populated American civilisations that they can’t kill them all. They did engage in mass murder, slavery, forced conversions and land theft. Everything the British did Spain did on a larger scale.

If anyone had actually argued the British empire was an ethnic love in, I’d take issue. But Martins stand point is

Protestants are naturally racist.

English are Protestant. Therefore racist.

British did bad things to natives because they are Protestants and culturally racist.

Spain loved Americans and natives thrived under them.

He picks a photo of 1 old racist Briton. Claims it really represents British culture.

Gets shown evidence of endemic and systematic racism is Spain. Says “just hooligans”. Sums up Martins bigoted Anglophobia
I think that you still didn’t understood that I consider Martin’s posts as biased as yours. Probably the main difference is that I consider Martin’s pretty well informed and documented on Spain’s’ history. I may question often his interpretations and conclusions, but I rarely questioned his sources.

Furthermore I really don’t give a damn who was the more racist, if the Spanish, the English, the Portuguese or other colonial power. And a serious historian wont fall in that bias trap. But I give a damn about biased reasoning on themes that I consider to have some knowledge. Racism changed in time and in place. Ighayere pointed quite well that a human group can be racist to another second group and non or less racist to a third one, as the EU study for the year 2015 states, the study that served quite partially as a source to the article in site that you mentioned:

PublicOpinion - European Commission

Since it was your link that lead me to the study, read it and state if is that clear if A is more racist than B. And see the changes that happend in just 3 years. The study really seems objective and without the propaganda slogans of the kind “my country is better than yours” that we have been assisting here.

Yes, and also, the delights of the Spanish culture, such as torture of the heretics. The last auto-da-fé was performed in Mexico in 1850.

I wonder if the "delights" of modern animal torture, such as torro embolado, Toro embolado - Wikipedia, a nauseating game popular in Southern Spain and Hispanic countries, had origins in auto-da-fé procedure?

Of course Spanish colonies fared worse than the British ones, after all, even in XXI century, in modern Spain, torture of animals is institutionalized. How do you expect them to treat poor pagans in old times?
There are several missconceptions here. Some already mentioned in the thread. I will focus on the bull runs.

I am not a fan of bull runs, they exist in Portugal, Spain, France, and in some American countries, Spanish ex-colonies. Even if I am not a fan, it is a cultural tradition that I hope that can continue for the future centuries.

Bull runs are an ancient sport, with unclear origins, maybe related with the bull runs games in Crete. There is no relation with the inquisition or the rituals of public penitence of the autos-de-fé, they predate it. As for the fire on the bulls horns, as far as I know also predates the autos-de-fé, even if that tradition is quite local and it is not usual in other parts of the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
7,045
Spain
Very hard to follow a somewhat rambling stream of conciousness..

I do not claim the Aztecs were some benign and good force. I find it very foolish to suggest that anyone’s has said that.
It was someone else that suggested the Spaniards treated Indians better than British!!!
It is irrelevant how the Aztecs acted, as I’m sure you know the Indians the English and later Americans defeated were hardly hippies living in harmony ... but warlike cultures with a fondness for torture.
But by the by... while the English killed a lot deliberately and even more accidently... fact is the English exterminated none.
Indians wiped out more Indian tribes than the English. And the Spanish purged the natives from the Caribbean. Killed far more than the English, enslaved far more and carried them off, and let more die from disease.

John Smith
William Strachey BOTH wrote dictionaries of the Powhatan language pretty much as soon as the English were attempting to colonise America.

Alexander Graham Bell - wrote a Mohawk dictionary.
Captain James King - first to records Aleut words in a language study.
So how many books did the British write? I can’t say but at least 4.
But Martins lie that the English didn’t write about Indian languages is false. They started immediately and kept doing it.

Cromwell.. sure he said Spain was a natural Enemy. But Spanish hatred of England is far older.
I was answering to a man knew nothing about History of Spain.. and his rstatement Spaniards imposed Language (absolutly False)... nor in New Spain.. where in 1821 only 20% spoke Spanish nor in East Indies where in 1899 only 2% people spoke Spanish..nor El Plata, El Piru or New Grenada...The Spaniards studied, systematized and researched each native languages in West and East Indies. Spanish language has the oldest Grammar Book in the world (from 1492) in Vernacular language... but second it is not French or English.. but the Native languages Spaniards studied! Aztec language Grammar books is oldest than English Grammar Book. The English Gramma Book is from 1586, the Nauatl grammar Book from 1555, 31 years sooner than the English one.

Only from the Ignorance or from the sectarism was possible to say the lies that guy said. Spaniards not only never taught the language but they adopted the native languages to teach the Catholic Religion.

Indians wiped out more Indian tribes than the English. And the Spanish purged the natives from the Caribbean. Killed far more than the English, enslaved far more and carried them off, and let more die from disease.
False or as it was said by the modern hypocrites.. Fake News... As easy as to STUDY the indians tribes under Spanish Rule in Georgia (USA) or under British ruled... very easy to watch how lived the same tribes under both Empires. The British deliberately exterminated tribes in North America and Australia... Sir Jeffrey Amherst and the use of the smallpox for extermination... Von Trotha was the German version of the British original, Jeffrey Amherst.
English imposed the English language in North America, Canada, 13 Colonies, Australia, Ireland... We always can compare British in Ireland and Spanish in Low Countries...Whilst Gaelic was banned in English Administration... Flemmish and French were languages in the Spanish Administration. Whilst the English banned the marriage between Irish and English, the Irish language (The Kilkenny Statutes)... the Spanish mixed with Flemmish, Walonians, Italians.... till the same English language was used in the Spanish North American Dominions as West (Alabama today) and East Floridas etc etc.

Never in the history of the Spanish Empire nor in Europe, nor in Americas, nor in Africa, Asia or Oceania... we can find a law as the Kilkenny Statues... never.

Also, it is ordained and established, that no alliance by marriage, gossipred, fostering of children, concubinage or by amour, nor in any other manner, be hencefoth made betweeen the English and Irish of one part, or of the other part; and that no Englishman, nor other person, being at peace, do give or sell to any Irishman, in time of peace or war, horses or armour, nor any manner of victuals in time of war; and if any shall do to the contrary, and thereof be attainted, he shall have judgment of life and member, as a traitor to our lord the king.

And this totalitarian laws was simply not conceived by the Spanish mind: No.. it is not a Nürnberg Laws.. but English Laws:

English language, and be named by an English name, leaving off entirely the manner of naming used by the Irish; and that every Englishman use the English custom, fashion, mode of riding and apparel, according to his estate; and if any English, or Irish living amongst the English, use the Irish language amongst themselves, contrary to the ordinance, and therof be attainted, his lands and tenements, if he have any, shall be seized into the hands of his immediate lord, until he shall come to one of the places of our lord the king, and find sufficient surety to adopt and use the English language, and then he shall have restitution of his said lands or tenements, his body shall be taken by any of the officers of our lord the king, and commited to the next gaol, there to remain until he, or some other in his name, shall find sufficient surety in the manner aforesaid: And that no Englishman who shall have the value of one hundred pounds of land or of rent by the year, shall ride otherwise than on a saddle in the English fashion; and he that shall do to the contrary, and shall be thereof attainted, his horse shall be forfeited to our lord the king, and his body shall be committed to prison, until he pay a fine according to the king's pleasure for the contempt aforesaid; and also, that beneficed persons of holy Church, living amongst the English, shall have the issues of their benefices until they use the English language in the manner aforesaid; and they shall have respite in order to learn the English language, and to provide saddles, between this and the feast of Saint Michael next coming.


No dear Edric,

It was England who broke... not Spain... and the hate came from England.. as the Literature is proved... not Anglophoby in Spain till 18th Century...and the Perfidious Albion... the British Hispanophoby begun early... From 16th Century onwards..
The origin of the British hate is Protestant (and only Protestant) as this essay proved. It is funny the work wrote about the "Demonisation of the Spaniards"... exactly as Edric and Kevin wrote in 2018... the "Spanish Demons" fighting innocent Aztecs, Aymaras, Jibaros, Protestant, Turks, Moors... all of them "innocent" souls attacked by the "Spanish Demons" as British like to portrait....
Works by scholars as Richard Helgerson, Andrew Hadfield etc have touched the enormously important role occupied by Spain within the English national imagination. English authors used images of Spain to negate Spanish military, colonial and mercantile prestige as much as to reinforce their own religious, political and nationalist values as this forum often, (and this thread from the first post) prove.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
7,045
Spain
Dear Tulius

It is not possible to say better than you have written. + 1

I don´t like Bull fighting but I defend the right to play that fiesta...prestigious Portuguese rejoneadores, Spanish and even French matadors.

I am sure you will find this source interested: The origin of the Anti-Spanish sentiment in England... an Essay edited by University of Leeds. As you well know (and this essay proved), the origin of the British Hispanophobia is in the Protestantism.

I believe in what is was written by Richard Helgerson (California 1940 - California, 2008): "England necessarily defined itself and the character of its overseas expansion in terms of its relation to Spain"

This forum prove that British (Protestant) hate to Spain (as arkteia or the guy said Spaniards imposed language....) and they systematic British attack to the Spanish prestige.... still I remember when Kevin said The Spanish Infantry as one of the worst in History...and one american member of this forum had to answer to him... that the Spanish Infantry have been one of the finest in the history...or when Edric says Spain played a minor role in the Napoleon´s wars...etc etc... Richard Helgerson or Andrew Hadfield explained it very well..

In proto-State, in Proto-Nationalis... England was built in the hate to Spain (not France as it was in Medieval Times)... that is the reason because they always talked very good about France (but never about Spain)... for them.. England only has Prestige when Spain lacks...Pizarro or Cortes did nothing "outstanding"... because they were not "Vikings"... but Spaniards... and however, my dear Tulius.. nobody in this forum (and Me the first one) never are going to do nothing similar to what´s done by Cortes or Pizarro.

That is the reason of this recurrent thread. We are never going to find a thread about.. How was possible for Spain to be figthing at the same moment against England, Scotland, Netherland, France, Sweden, Brandenburg, Others German Protestant States, Ottomans, Berbery, Chinese and Japanese, Cambodya, Siam, Brunei, North America, South America, Central America.. at the same time?
But the thread as "Why the Bristish Empire was Better than Spanish one..." one each year... as it was written by Helgerson... England defines itself in terms of its relations to Spain..
This recurrent post is a prove (and the the absence of others ... well we know).

Congratulation for your post.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,206
Navan, Ireland
.....................

. It is funny the work wrote about the "Demonisation of the Spaniards"... exactly as Edric and Kevin wrote in 2018... the "Spanish Demons" fighting innocent Aztecs, Aymaras, Jibaros, Protestant, Turks, Moors... all of them "innocent" souls attacked by the "Spanish Demons" as British like to portrait....
..............................
Please post a reference where I said this or I will simply assume you are being dishonest and simply making it up.

......................still I remember when Kevin said The Spanish Infantry as one of the worst in History...and one american member of this forum had to answer to him... that the Spanish Infantry have been one of the finest in the history…………...
For this as well please