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

Feb 2016
3,986
Japan
#51
You last part is simple not true.
No genocidal camps in South Africa.
The Boer War was started by Boers who wanted to kick the British out of Africa.
They didn’t like that we gave Africans rights. ... now considering how low down the ladder the British treated Africans that tells you a lot about the Boer mentality.

So on to the gold and diamond mines.
Kimberly was the diamond town. And that was already British. And the BOERS wanted to steal that... the Goldmines in the Rand about 75% of them were already under British ownership or heavily invested in by British business men, much of the rest was ran by French and German interests. So sorry. Gold and Diamonds May have been a motivation for the start of the war... as it was the Boers who were the war mongering aggressors out to seize them.

Boer concentration camps... were Boers were FREE to come and go as they please? Those ones? The ones with full medical staff? And were Boer women and children were educated and learned to read and write? Those ones... were Boers SENT their families to after their farms are burned by OTHER BOERS... Those camps, mis managed as they were at first, SAVED the Boer people for self destruction.
 
Feb 2016
3,986
Japan
#52
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.
Sorry. I tried to quote you above but it didn’t work.
 
Oct 2017
102
United States
#54
‘A Brief History of the United States’ by Allan Nevins :

The Colonial Heritage :

Part of the heritage that the colonies were to bequeath the young nation is evident at a glance. The fact of a common language, the English tounge, was of immeasurable value. It was one of the great binding elements which made a true nation possible. The long and slowly broadening experience with representative forms of government was another priceless part of the heritage. We may take it rather for granted until we remember how little the French and Spanish colonies had to show in the way of representative self-government. The respect paid to certain civil rights was another important element in the heritage ; for the colonists had as firm a belief in freedom of speech, of the press, and of assemblage as did Britons at home. These rights were not secure, but they were cherished. The general spirit of religious toleration in the colonies, and the recognition that different sects could and should get on with entire amity, must be included in the roster. Equally valuable was the spirit of racial toleration, for people of different blood - English, Irish, German, Huguenot, Dutch, Swedish - mingled and intermarried with little thought of any difference. And perhaps we should mention the strong spirit of individual enterprise which manifested itself in the colonies ; an individualism which had always been noteworthy in Britain herself, but which was now heightened under the pressure of life in a rich but wild and difficult land. Taken all together, these parts of the colonial heritage were a treasure of worth far more than ship-loads of gold or acres of diamonds.
But two basically American ideas had also taken root during the colonial period. One was the idea of democracy, in the sense that all men are entitled to a rough equality of opportunity. It was to gain opportunity for themselves and still more for their children that a host of settlers had come to the New World. They hoped to establish a society in which every man should not only have a chance, but a good chance ; in which he might rise from the bottom to the very top of the ladder. This demand for equality of opportunity was to bring about increasing changes in the social structure of America, breaking down all sorts of special privileges. It was to effect marked changes in education and intellectual life, making America the ‘most common-schooled’ nation in the world. It was to produce great political changes, giving the ordinary man a more direct control of government. Altogether, it was to be a mighty engine.
The other basic idea was the sense that a special destiny awaited the American people, and that they had before them a career such as no other nation was likely to achieve. This faith arose naturally from the natural wealth of the country, the energy of the people, and the atmosphere of freedom which enveloped both. It imparted to Americans a fresh and buoyant optimism and an aggressive self-confidence. The idea of a peculiarly fortunate destiny was to be one of the main forces in the swift expansion of the American people across the continent. It was sometimes to have evil effects ; that is, it was to lead them to rely all too easily upon Providence when they should have been taking painful thought to meet their difficulties - it was to make them complacent when they should have been cautious. But, along with the idea of democracy, it was on the whole to give American life a freshness, breadth, and cheerfulness that were matched nowhere else. The French settler St. Jean Crevecoeur caught a glimpse of these two basic ideas when he wrote of what made an American:

A European, when he first arrives, seems limited in his intentions, as well as in his views ; but he very suddenly alters his scale. He no sooner breathes our air than he forms new schemes, and embarks on designs he never would have thought of in his own country. There the plentitude of society confines many useful ideas, and often extinguishes the most laudable schemes which here ripen into maturity. He begins to feel the effects of a sort of resurrection ; hitherto he had not lived, but simply vegetated ; he now feels himself a man, because he is treated as such ; the laws of his own country had overlooked him in his insignificancy ; the laws of this cover him with their mantle. Judge what an alteration there must arise in the mind and thoughts of this man! He begins to forget his former servitude and dependence, his heart involuntarily dilates and glows, and this first swell inspires him with those new thoughts which mark an American.
 
Last edited:

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,987
US
#56
Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church encouraged or caused a genocide? If so, please cite some authority. Otherwise, I'll conclude that it is a product of your religious bigotry.
As another poster has already mentioned, the European settlers from the Protestant areas of Europe were as harsh - or more so, upon the native population. I have posted this many times, but some apparently just can't grasp it: it is perilously dangerous to impose beliefs and standards of today, anachronistically, upon peoples and cultures from the past.
 
Sep 2012
910
Spring, Texas
#57
Actually I used to work for the Coushatta Tribe in Elton, Louisiana (subdivision of the Creeks). Many smaller American Tribes were taken captive and sold to the English colonies. The Choctaw and Chickasaws made a lot of coin selling slaves. Some tribes survived by moving off the good land and into less desirable areas. The Chitimacha tribe is still around in Baldwin, LA. The Houma and Attakapaws have blended into the neighboring Americans (White and Black). The surviving Tribesmen in Cuba, Jamaica, and the Bahamas were either enslaved, died or left. The Pequots of New England are now divided into White and Black factions. If you lived in the US you could visit an Indian Reservation. I have been to a number of different ones across the US.
 
Sep 2012
910
Spring, Texas
#58
The Catholic Church was rough on the Natives. The Pueblo tribes in New Mexico kicked them out. Many Tribesmen wanted to be safe and live in peace. If they moved to a Mission the Fathers would offer food, security, trade goods and often troops for protection. All they wanted in return was obedience and control of the lives of the Indians. The good Fathers assigned Indians to work and expected warriors to farm and work in the mines.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,987
US
#59
Actually I used to work for the Coushatta Tribe in Elton, Louisiana (subdivision of the Creeks). Many smaller American Tribes were taken captive and sold to the English colonies. The Choctaw and Chickasaws made a lot of coin selling slaves. Some tribes survived by moving off the good land and into less desirable areas. The Chitimacha tribe is still around in Baldwin, LA. The Houma and Attakapaws have blended into the neighboring Americans (White and Black). The surviving Tribesmen in Cuba, Jamaica, and the Bahamas were either enslaved, died or left. The Pequots of New England are now divided into White and Black factions. If you lived in the US you could visit an Indian Reservation. I have been to a number of different ones across the US.
People seem to forget that even native tribes fought, enslaved and killed each other. No different than other parts of the world. History is full such tales. To the victor goes the spoils. Were the Native Americans as densely populated in English territories as Spanish? I don't believe so and I think one poster has already referenced that Spanish territories had more Native Americans. This may have contributed to the success of the English colonies: less mouths to feed.
 
Jan 2010
4,010
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#60
The Catholic Church was rough on the Natives. The Pueblo tribes in New Mexico kicked them out. Many Tribesmen wanted to be safe and live in peace. If they moved to a Mission the Fathers would offer food, security, trade goods and often troops for protection. All they wanted in return was obedience and control of the lives of the Indians. The good Fathers assigned Indians to work and expected warriors to farm and work in the mines.
So giving Native Americans food, security and protection in exchange for work (and giving up a life of violent warfare) being tough on them?
 

Similar History Discussions