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

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,776
Spain
#42
We are going down that road. This argument was thoroughly trashed.
USA and Canada both have higher numbers both relatively and as a percentage of native people than MANY former Spanish colonies several of which have 0%.

The percentage does not indicate how much they were genocided... in most cases it just reflects how much migration was to those places.
Dear Edric...

So moderate in others threads... your Protestantism lost you

There are not former Spanish Dominions (not colonies) without native population.... not even in Puerto Rico (where Tainos mixed with Spaniards as it is proved by DNA)... In Jamaica... most of them died by illness not by any war. But, still there were indians when Spain lost the dominion.

By number of indias (natives) in America: 1st Mexico, 2nd, Bolivia 3rd Guatemla, 4th Peru (not even one British Colony between the first 4 positions). 5th: USA, 6th: Ecuador. The first British Dominion is Canada in 7th possition.

By percentaje: 1st: Greenland 2nd: Bolivia 3rd. Perú 4th: Guatemala....
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,776
Spain
#43
Quite right. In my haste I mixed up Oklahoma and Ohio.
Oklahoma never was a British Dominion but Spanish one. Francisco Vasco de Coronado went through Oklahoma and took possestion of the Territory in 1540. In 1700 was part of the French Loussiana and from 1763 back to Spain again. Oklahoma never belonged to the British Majestic.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,776
Spain
#44
There is no “black legend” Spaniards butchered the Indians and enslaved them.
Spanish America had laws about who was “pure” Spanish and who was not though. FACT.

English frequently inter married with American natives. FACT.

The only places in which natives were completely eradicated .... Spanish.

All of these are are routinely ignored in these forums whenever this gets trotted out.
There is a Black Legend invented in Italy and used by the Protestant countries. Spaniards didn´t butcher the indians (save during the conquest) and not enslaved... as I proved here with OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS... from 1504 onwards...

Spaiards intermarried Indias... it is a FACT.... and they had a social possition as never they had it in the British Empire.... Not a INCA GARCILASO at all... in the British Empire.... I Hope our dear Edric can write here the name of a "British" Native intelectual....as I can do... type INCA GARCILASO... and you will find indias writting books in Sp. language from 16th Century.
By the way the Native Nobility (Aztec, Inca etc) is part of the Spanish Nobility.... British never accepted the Ashanti Nobility (or the Zulu) as member of the British Nobility...

And here MEMBERS OF THE MEXICA AND INCA NOBILITY as part of the SPANISH NOBILITY.

By other side.. natives always prefered Europeans (Spanish, Portuguese, British, French) than Criollos, Creole... but between Europeans the worst for native: Dutch and British. The best: Spanish/Portuguese and French.
For the Spaniards.. the native had soul and they were subjects.. they had lands.. they were protected by the Crown.

The racism in USA is an unfortunate British and Protestant heritage

here BLACK SPANISH CONQUISTADORES as Don Juan Beltrán or Don Juan García or Don Juan Bardales etc etc etc.

This kind of thread always is the same... somebody made a captious question to opposite British and Spanish Empires... in one moment, one Protestant wrote about the "butcher" and "genocide"....and others answer about the natives in Paraguay or in Arizona... and then another Protestan said Spaniards ensalved indians... and others answer about the British Racism....and we are going to finish talking about Rhodesia, KKK, Caste system etc etc etc...

And what is the moral of this fable?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
3,968
Portugal
#45
I was not able to read it because my JSTOR account has expired

Well don't have a JSTOR anymore sadly.
Fortunately any free user can have access to 3 JSTOR works. I also don’t have a paying account. Anyway unless you question the 350000 number it is irrelavant, I quoted the work as a source and a development.

Still the South American colonies were much larger and managed a much larger population, and were those people settling to live or migrating to help run the colonies for the empire?
Are you raising the possibility that between 1500 and 1650, 350000 Spanish went to America to help to run the colonies for the empire? 350000 Bureaucrats? In the Modern Age in a period of 150 years? Do you think that that possibility is reasonably?

The English colonies were starting from scratch they weren't trying to rule large native populations, they were separate.
I think that is true. They were separate, the natives existed but there was a low miscegenation. Which rises the question where did the natives went?

It still takes a ton of people to run and rule such a large area of land,
Why? Since much of the land was ruled indirectly or in feudal style and since the land was huge with huge Latifundium?

and more Spainards moving to the New World doesn't really disprove that the point of those provinces were not to settle people.
Yes, the huge number of settlers in reference to the number of inhabitants of the kingdom of Castile, and even the Castile and Aragon proves that America was seen as a destiny to settle. The Spanish migrated to America because they saw America as a destiny to settle, as the Portuguese saw Brazil as a destiny to settle, or as the English saw their American colonies as a destiny to settle. I don’t see strong differences in that perspective, and if we want to point differences we will have to justify them and source them and not just to fall in the easy saying that “A” saw the colonies as a place to settle and “B” saw them to other ends.

There is no “black legend” Spaniards butchered the Indians and enslaved them.
There is a black legend and there is a white legend. As in all legends, the fact that parts of the legend are true doesn’t make all the legend true. And, they existed and still exist in the historiography as a propaganda tool where the facts were distorted and in many cases exagerated.

English frequently inter married with American natives. FACT.
Are there studies about that to consider that a “FACT”? Because what we see in the thirteen colonies or in Canada isn’t exactly a miscegenated society. And I am not talking about today. I am talking about, for instance the 18th century. How many of the founding fathers had an Indian mother or father? My point here is that the creoles didn’t had the importance in the independence of the USA as they had in the independence of the Spanish colonies. Mostly because their number and social relevance was almost inexistent in the USA, and this as far as I know.

The only places in which natives were completely eradicated .... Spanish.
That is not true. The Portuguese destroyed Indian tribes in Brazil, and in the 18th century before the USA independence I don’t think we can see the same Indian tribes as we saw a century before. If we don’t see them… where did they go? But you can correct me here if I am wrong. USA history was never my strong point.

Mute point.

Ever been to Alaska? Or Saskatchewan? Or Ohio?

The fact that some Spanish colonies were able to cope and thrive does not negate that they exterminated them completely in others.

But yes. Every country is different. And some of the nonsense peddled about about how great Spanish colonists were compared to English ones is nonsense.

But where are the natives of, Bahamas Trinidad or Jamaica? How did they THRIVE?

If I was native I’d take my chances against or living under the English. If I live with them and have their kids ... my kids are not trapped in a slave/caste system. I could marry one.

If Im captured in war, I’ve got the same odds of being murdered, but less odds of being a slave. I’m not going to be fed to a dog though.
I don’t think that Alaska was a British colony. And the comparation here seems to be between the British and the Spanish.

As the fact that the Spanish committed atrocities against the natives doesn’t prove that others, like the British, or specifically the English, didn’t.

And your wishes, in an imagined fictional historical scenario, as a British to be captured by British are quite understandable. I would prefer to be captured by Portuguese. We should recall that our preferences aren’t sources or arguments, but a reflex of our biases.

I really find exasperating is that here, in an History Forum (although an English speaking one) we usually find the British and the US Americans saying bad things about the Spanish and the Spanish saying bad thins about the British. Can we just consider that the things weren’t white and black, there were tons of gray, that we all have biases that influence or judgment, and that this thing that mine is bigger/better that yours doesn’t lead us to a better knowledge about our common past, just creates a fog around it?
 
Likes: martin76
Jan 2010
3,920
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#46
There are more Indians in the US today than ever before. 5 million. More if you include mixed and partially decended.

How many are on Barbados? Dominica? Jamaica?

There is no “black legend” Spaniards butchered the Indians and enslaved them. A few on here believe in an Anti Protestant Naritive though. English America never had any laws prohibiting interracial or inter religious marriage. Englishmen and women could marry who they liked. British law neither. Or blood purity laws.... and s couple believe in some “Golden Spain” where by the Spanish arrived, loved the Indians and treated them as brothers and children and all was happiness and joy....

Spanish America had laws about who was “pure” Spanish and who was not though. FACT.

English frequently inter married with American natives. FACT.

The only places in which natives were completely eradicated .... Spanish.

All of these are are routinely ignored in these forums whenever this gets trotted out.
See the following link which will correct many of the statements you make.

Native Americans, Treatment of (Spain Vs. England) (Issue) | Encyclopedia.com

Most of the natives of the islands died out from malaria and yellow fever brought to the Islands by African slaves--imported because the natives did not make good slaves, as the English too found out. And slavery of the natives was against the official policy of Spain and the Roman Catholic Church.

The islands are a very small part of the New World and in most of it, the natives survived and thrived--even in Florida. The majority of the population of the countries south of the US border and north of Argentina and Chile is mixed native and European or African. Why? Because most of the Spanish settlers were young males, not families as occurred in English North America. There is nothing in South America like the pitiful reservations that house Native Americans from whose ancestors the land in the US was stolen.
 
Last edited:
Likes: martin76

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,776
Spain
#47
The natives in the Carribean died out largely because of diseases, not "slaughter", although I agree they were enslaved by the Spanish--against the laws of Spain and over the objections of the Roman Catholic Church). However, they didn't make very good slaves ( the English, too, tried enslaving them but without success) and so Africans were brought to the islands, who brought malaria and yellow fever. So the population of the islands is of African and European descent today.
View attachment 13309
However, the islands are a very small part of the New World indeed, and in most of it, the natives fared much better in the Spanish (and French) colonies than in the English. The Spanish and French intermarried with the natives in much greater number than did the English, largely because the English came with their families while the Spaniards who came were primarily young, single males.

The vast majority of the population of the countries south of the US border and north of Chile and Argentina is mestizo (mixed native and European) , while the vast majority of the population of the US is not.

See the following link.

Native Americans, Treatment of (Spain Vs. England) (Issue) | Encyclopedia.com
Great link. Thank you
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,776
Spain
#48
[QUOTE="Tulius, post: 3051518, member: 43111"
I really find exasperating is that here, in an History Forum (although an English speaking one) we usually find the British and the US Americans saying bad things about the Spanish and the Spanish saying bad thins about the British. Can we just consider that the things weren’t white and black, there were tons of gray, that we all have biases that influence or judgment, and that this thing that mine is bigger/better that yours doesn’t lead us to a better knowledge about our common past, just creates a fog around it?[/QUOTE]

An excellent post, Tulius. It is not possible to say better... We can talk with level... and not falling down in topic.. Yes.. We can Speak about slaugthers, cultural fussion... (Spain/Portugal built a World...that it was not European but either American... a New World), the British point of view about their dominions etc etc...

But not the typical topic based on tales and black legend (I agree about a White legend as opposition). Maybe I am wrong but I think the racism in USA Society is a British heritage. This forum is super interesting and it is possible to learn a lot... but you can see how much thread we can find here about "white" "non-white" "races" etc etc a clear reflection of the cultural substrate of a society ...no threads as those in historical forums in Spanish or Portuguese...

By other side to say the racism in USA is a British (and Protestant) heritage doesn´t mean Great Britain is a racist country at all in 2018.
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,519
#49
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.



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.
I think this one pretty much nails it.
New Spain, Peru, Brazil, and other Iberian colonies had a foundation of late-medieval Imperialism; they exploited the wealth of the territories for the benefit of the core (The HRE and Iberian crowns, in this case).

English (and French) colonies were built the other way around. They settled poorer regions with the intention of building Utopias (especially in the case of the French). Instead of exploiting the lands for resources and sending it back to the capital, the capital sent wealth to the new lands in order to develop them. A lot of this was based on the social order of the time (mainly later 17th and 18th century) - as 19th-century colonialism saw The UK and France turn into exploiters themselves; 19th-century colonialism is a dark time, especially the Belgian Congo - the English had the diamond exploitation and the gold exploitation which led to genocidal efforts of block-houses, slashing and burning of villages, and concentration camps in their brutal conquest of the Orange Free Republic and the Transvaal.
 
Feb 2016
3,835
Japan
#50
As stated. Maybe 15-20 times the LAST time we went over this. I am NOT A PROTESTANT. My family are NOT PROTESTANTS though I have ancestors both CofE and RC. Now I expect that to be the last time I have to repeat that.

Alaska was Russian. But was bought by the US. And “Anglo” colony. The natives were not genocided. But it’s by the by.
Oklahoma and Alaska have been under “Anglo” or “Protestant” control. By Martins twisted logic they should have minute insignificant or no Indian population. But they do.

I Do NOT dispute that English and American abused and mistreated Indians.

I dispute, and nothing said so far refutes it, the lies that ...
Religion of the oppressor has any bearing on it. Catholics were as and more cruel than Protestants.
That the Spanish were in any way better than the English or Americans.
That Indians thrived under Spanish rule. (They were annihilated in several locations).
That interbreeding and intermarriage were forbidden amongst English settlers (it was common and happened everywhere they went).

And sorry no.
Jamaica has NO indigenous Indians. They make up 0%. When the English took over they found only a handful left, and they had mostly interbred with African runaways.

Cuba - Taíno extinct by 1840. Modern “Taíno” are mixed rave people trying to recreate something. But truth is Cuban Taíno died out 1840.

Barbados. Arawaks annihilated by the Spanish. The Caribs they left alone though..

An so on an so on. So any claim the SPanish were better or Indians thrived is laughable.
 

Similar History Discussions