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

May 2011
13,697
Navan, Ireland
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..
I would agree but the national comes mainly from one poster, unless it 'nationalism' to dispute claims about your country that are simply untrue.

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................
A book is generally more informed that a discussion forum.

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..

And claimed that British law created castes and race division but British common law does not far from it infact.

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.”.......
Sorry I pointed you to the post



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........
Virginia is not 'the' British Empire and its laws have no relevance to Britain and so does not prove that the British enshrined racism in law.

...................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. ...................................... .
I would agree with you but one poster does not to say the least and argues that one Empire ,Spain, and one religion to be above such things, which I consider to be none sense.
 
May 2011
13,697
Navan, Ireland
.....................

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.

....................
Sorry the Statues of Kilkenny? that's the best you can do? a 14th century local law referring to one small part of Ireland where the local Lord was worried that 'English' settlers were inter-marrying with the local Irish population so much that they (and the crowns power base) will simply disappear (as it happened they were completely ignored and failed).

Doesn't really prove your point at all.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,730
Portugal
And claimed that British law created castes and race division but British common law does not far from it infact.

Sorry I pointed you to the post
Sorry, Kevin, but be honest and objective here and quote the sentence, or sentences where I made such a claim, and not an extended post where I didn’t do it.
 
May 2011
13,697
Navan, Ireland
Sorry, Kevin, but be honest and objective here and quote the sentence, or sentences where I made such a claim, and not an extended post where I didn’t do it.

Sorry how on earth is this being ‘dishonest’ or lacking objectivity?

in post 125

Edric Streona said

“…British society, post medieval, certainly had racism in its culture but to a far less extent than Spain... no British laws of “blood purity..”



You replied

“No laws of purity” because all the mixed people were on the lower caste. There were only two castes.”

Sorry when was there a caste system in Britain? When was even ‘race’defined in law?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,730
Portugal
“No laws of purity” because all the mixed people were on the lower caste. There were only two castes.”

Sorry when was there a caste system in Britain? When was even ‘race’defined in law?
Well thank you for finally identifying the phrase were I allegedly claimed that British law created castes and race division but British common law does not far from it infact. Now I finally understood your point and saw that I hadn’t seen it before that you understood that I was talking about British law. Now you were objective.

Let us get a bit back: I was answering to a post by Eric:

“Fact is in Spanish America. Slavery was RACE based. Slaves were black. Or Indian.
And they were considered lesser being by racially based laws of blood purity. Spanish society was therefore highly racist.
British society, post medieval, certainly had racism in its culture but to a far less extent than Spain... no British laws of “blood purity”. “

As you see all the reasoning was related to the racism in America.

So I was addressing to America and my comparison was between Spanish America and English (later British) America. While in Spanish America there was a caste system, more or less complex due to the existence of a miscegenation there was no need (read social need) of that system in British America since the miscegenation was low, and the few mixed individuals were often considered black, so there were only two “races”/castes. That dual system was inherited by the USA. In the British Caribbean there was often a third caste/“race”, the coloured.

I hope I was clear enough now. For further development of this: Racisms