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

Oct 2015
4,435
Matosinhos Portugal
#24
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.[/QUOTE]
_________________________


Where is the evidence, how the Spaniards killed millions of Indians.
Does your comment suggest that the Spaniards were the bad guys and the English the good

I do not defend Spain I defend the real story.

If there are new countries today, say thank you to Portugal and Spain
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,442
#26
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.
The British and US were much worse than the Spanish as far as "genocide" of indigenous peoples. Most Spanish American countries have a high percentage of native American descent. The native American population of California decreased by 80% in the the first 40 years of US control.

Britain didn't offer religious freedom. It was much freer than Spain, where heretics could be burnt at the stake. However, most colonies had an established Anglican religion with de facto religious toleration. This is essentially what exists in England today, an established church with de facto toleration. What became the US was to a certain extent used as a place to get rid of members of minority religious groups. However colonial New England was almost all Puritan. In colonial Virginia all churches were Anglican and church attendence was required by law. It is a little more complicated than you imply. There was relative religious freedom in the independent US.

I am not sure if Britain offered land ownership. There was so much land available in the US, Canada, and Australia that people could obtain there own farms. Of course there were famously large estates in the south. I agree there was more opportunity for land ownership than in Spanish America.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,781
Spain
#27
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.
Another victim of Propaganda instead of History... I am very tired to talk always about the same...

LEYES DE BURGOS

Where are the Leyes de Burgos in New Hampshire or Vermont? Can you put here please?

And Spain had trade from 1492.. in fact, almost 100% products from Ameria in Europe was brought to Europe by Spain and the same about European products to America... Who do you think brought COTTON to America?...And if you want a long, long, very long and very boring list about cities stablished by the Spaniards from Isla del Fuego to Alaska? If you like I can write. From Ciudad del Nombre Jesús... 52º 19 minute South Latitude to Valdez... 61º 07 minute North Latituded...

Spain built roads, cities, ports, fortress, churches, etc etc etc... And Spain had forbidden other countries trade with the Dominions.

Sorry for English friends but this guy has made easy to me...

The british non-genocide:

Vermont (100 years under Britain): American Native: 0,2% population.

Spanish genocide:

Panamá (300 years under Spain): 8% indians, 30% mestizos, 14% Garifunas (black and India), 10% white...




New York? New Hampshire? Maybe Vermont? Rhode Island? Oh not... It is Panamá...320 years in the Crown of Spain!
I hope that you explain as the Spanish demons that ate the Indians for breakfast ... they left so many millions of Indians alive while the Anglos ... so civilized they ... did not leave one alive in New England.
The Dutch stablished Nieuw Amsterdam in 1625 became New York in 1674... 2018 Native population: 0%
The Spaniards stablished Lima 18th January 1535...90 years sooner than Nieuw Amsterdam and 139 years sooner British stablished New York....Native Population in 2018: 68%

Protestant propaganda apart if I were an american native and based on native population in any Spanish Dominion... from Argentina to Arizona or Texas... I would prefer to be under what you think the "Spanish Demons" than under what you say "British civilizated".... The natives from Georgia was able to say who were the Demons and who the civilizated.
 
Likes: M.S. Islam
May 2017
473
France
#29
It is time to fight some aspects of the theory of the black spanish legend.In South America, the spanish conquistadores have never forbidden the christian wedding of their soldiers with indian girls;today the descendants are millions.But the anglo saxon conquest was completely different;very slow but without pity for the natives,who were exterminated.How many indians in North America today ?
 
Jun 2017
2,240
Connecticut
#30
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?
Answering the question, I think you're asking. Priorities.

Spain's colonies were more of conquered provinces to rule and exploit and less of locations to transplant people. Conquering the Aztec and Inca empires wasn't really intentional and it gave them large populations of people to rule which they did but those were not intended to be "colonies" in the, let's settle people sense, more in the "oh we own this, let's send people to run it" sense. The English were at at first trying to move people away from home and gave them free reign, until the Revolution period, economic extraction was kind of secondary, Spain on the other hand were conquerors ruling a conquered/kind of mixed population. The people running these places were not from there and were administrating in the name of the King and handling huge amounts of wealth, there honestly was just a lot more oppurtunity to be corrupt. The English colonies on the other hand were governed more hands off by the people who actually lived there.

These colonies are at least somewhat "European" majorities, and are the product of the mass death North America had, and the mass interracial population they didn't. The Spanish colonies especially the Potsoi silver mines also were immensely wealthy, so I'm not so sure there was a wealth problem so much as there was no desire to really continue conquering. They had these colonies for about 300 years and they were quite successful for quite a long period of time, there was quite a bit of corruption but I don't really know by what measure they are a failure(the British colonies, Brazil is a different story) except by not eventually becoming the US.
 

Similar History Discussions