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

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,827
Spain
#11
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.
Exactly Pikeshot. I agrew with you. It is unlogic to compare WV and California as British or Spanish Dominions evidence. USA are great economic power by their own... as UK or Australia... California is not a great economic area because it was a Spanish Dominion but because people have done it great..as Canada or Australia.
Former British Dominions as Canada or Australia are highly development countries...but not because they were British former Dominions... (Ireland was it and it was one of poorest countries in Europe)... Bangladesh is not poor or corrupted because of Britain...only because of their own system.

Low Countries were one of richest place in Europe before being a Spanish Dominion...they continued being rich under Spanish Dominion (as Lombardy) and they are some of richest areas in Europe after Spanish Dominion... Guatemala was a poor area before Spain, during Spanish dominion and after... The same about Bangladesh or about Pakistan. Argentina was one of richest countries on Earth... not because it was a Spanish Dominion.. as today it is not down because of Spain or Britain at all.

Dear Tulius,

It is not possible to say better than you have written. I agree with you in everything you have written but specially in this phrase:

This is a question that runs over and over again in this forum.

I don´t know why they don´t use another Empire comparation.. for example: Britain and France... Britain and Portugal, Britain and Netherland or Britain and Germany etc etc It is always the comparation between British Dominions (I don´t know why always Canada-Australia and not Bangladesh-Burma) and the Spanish one.
As it was studied by Elliot... both Empires were similar and different.. the "mind", the "social values" were different.. British Empire is a bourgeois Empire with a Burgeois mind ( liberalism, imperialism, capitalism, protestantism)... the Spanish one is a nobiliarian empire... based on Nobility with the low nobility mind (Hidalgos, Fidalgos, Hijosdalgos)..traditionalism, merchantilism, catholicism. As I read from a Canadian student:
Both empires were extremely wealthy and possessed powerful navies. The similarities between the two are endless.

In both Empires the sun was never set but I can find another 3 European Powers with dominions in each Continent: Portugal-France-Netherland. Why not to compare British and Dutch Empires? Spain vs Britain or Britain vs Spain... is getting boring.

Dear Kevin.

In this thread nobody wrote about to be settled by "European". Mr Paulagnes only said British and Spanish "colonies" (that I understand as "Dominions" because Spain never had "colonies").

Regards
 
Sep 2018
40
Sri Lanka
#13
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:
No No. You didn't read the description did you?

I said "THE ONES with the European majority". Colonies like Australia, New Zealand, the US, where people are mostly from Europe..... why are these successful?

How come Cuba or Colombia isn't as successful, a lot of people from these countries came from Europe didn't they?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,034
Portugal
#14
How come Cuba or Colombia isn't as successful, a lot of people from these countries came from Europe didn't they?
See post #10.

First you should need to know what American countries had more European migration to make such a comparison in those ethnic lines.

To measure success in European defined terms, the input of European settlers is certainly relevant. And those two countries aren’t certainly among the ones that have a major population of European background.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,827
Spain
#15
No No. You didn't read the description did you?

I said "THE ONES with the European majority". Colonies like Australia, New Zealand, the US, where people are mostly from Europe..... why are these successful?

How come Cuba or Colombia isn't as successful, a lot of people from these countries came from Europe didn't they?
And why only "european majority".? Most "European" people in USA are not from UK...(it is a fact, a genetical fact) but from Central Europe (Germany-Austria-Hungary) and then British, but also, Italian, Russians, Poles, Irish... Do we count Jews as European or as asian?

It is so weird and manipulating... Do you want to say USA is inhabited majority by British? No way... not even the German Trump is British! (and the same we can say about Argentina or Uruguay)....

Spanish Empire as well said Tulius (as the Portuguese) are Empires Pre-Industrial Revolution... and both Empires lacked of manpower enough to settle only with populations from Hispania... So what do you understand as "White" (which is definitely what you want to say with the euphemism "European")?

The Spaniards always were a minority in their dominions...save in Cuba and few islands. As you can see in Spanish Wikipedia: Colombia most of population have Spanish DNA Mytochondrial (93% population... but only 37% are Spanish by both lines)....most of them are Mestizos, Mulattoes, Zamboes, etc etc

So what do you understand as Spanish or British "European" "Colonies? I repeat.. Spain never had colonies.
 
Last edited:

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
3,794
India
#16
Only White only colonies of Britain performed better than Latin American countries. Beside, majority of British colonies were extremely poor while British were leaving them and except few, British created institutions failed to keep stability in those countries. Myanmar fall to military junta, Pakistan and Sri Lanka turned towards civil war, majority of African countries fall to military rules and civil wars. Only some like India and Malaysia were able to keep stability in their countries.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,827
Spain
#17
Only White only colonies of Britain performed better than Latin American countries. Beside, majority of British colonies were extremely poor while British were leaving them and except few, British created institutions failed to keep stability in those countries. Myanmar fall to military junta, Pakistan and Sri Lanka turned towards civil war, majority of African countries fall to military rules and civil wars. Only some like India and Malaysia were able to keep stability in their countries.
One time more I agree with you Devdas.. by other side.. I don´t know what we can understand as "White" colonies in Spanish Dominions... maybe Cuba? Puerto Rico? Spanish Virgin Islands?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
3,794
India
#18
One time more I agree with you Devdas.. by other side.. I don´t know what we can understand as "White" colonies in Spanish Dominions... maybe Cuba? Puerto Rico? Spanish Virgin Islands?
I was only referring to White only British colonies like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, not the Spanish one.
 
Aug 2018
36
Southern Indiana
#19
Spain tended to extract resources and ship them back to Spain, they also were joined at the hip with the Catholic church which led to a genocide of millions of indigenous peoples. Spain generally treated the indigenous populations much worse. The British generally made their colonies more attractive to English immigrants by offering religious freedom and land ownership. Towards the end of the colonial era, Spain still did not have an infrastructure of trade built into their colonies and often relied on other countries to supply necessities.
 

Similar History Discussions