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

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,781
Spain
#61
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.
Alaska was a Russian Dominion and Oklahoma Spanish one.. but you are wrong, Edric... British didn´t arrived to Oklahoma... never. In Alaska yes... but they (as the Spaniards) gave up their rights in Alaska and USA bought to Russia in 1867. I am not specialist in Oklahoma History but I couldn´t find not even one evicence about British presence in Oklahoma... not even Spaniards went to Oklahoma very much... the Conquistadores, and then some Soldiers, trade-men and maybe priest.
But you can´t give an evidece about Catholic were more cruel than Protestant... everybody can read the history of the Indians (American natives) under Spanish rule in Georgia and under British rule.
About if they were better or not it is as easy as to compare Bolivia and Canada... New York and Nuevo México....the only indias were "annihilated" (and not only by Spaniards but also by the British and the French.. and the Dutch) were the Caribes (Cannibals were the terror for the others native tribes)

Here (Spanish source.. in 16th Century Spanish language)

The Indians implored to the Spaniards for putting end to the Caribe´s Terror.

"Cargauan los auifos de los daños que hazían los Caribes y que con fus canoas y Pirauas corrían mucha parte de las Iflas, y de la tierra firme, caçando hombres para comer (...), los defendió del peligro que corrían, de que los indios de Cubagua quedaro muy agradecidos".

(It ran reports about the damage that the Caribes comitted and that with their canoes they devastated the islands and Main land, hunting men to eat them. They (the Spaniards) defended the Indians from the grave danger they were running, and that is why the Indians of Cuba were very grateful.)

Certainly on that same page (16th century) the King gave orders not to kill all the Caribes, but only those who committed horrific crimes. And that Caribes were not assesins.. the King gave orders to put in freedom and back to their houses.. for leaving in peace.

But Caribes never accepted the peace and never accepted to leave the Cannibalism... and for the 16th Century Spaniards.. that customs were intolerable for them.

And later... British, French, Dutch are going to do the same than Spaniards.. but I don´t know if one British King was so worried as the Catholic King to protect "the Good" Caribes.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,442
#62
Oklahoma has a high native American percentage because it was Indian Territory, bad land where Indians from the southeast were moved to, as in the "Trail of Tears". Oklahoma was never British territory, but it was never really controlled by the Spanish or French.

It isn't an issue of religion. In areas where there were large agricultural native American populations, such as the Aztec and Inca empires, there remained a large population. The US was also probably worse on native Americans than any of the European empires. I have not heard of bounties on native American scalps in Canada or Mexico. Many native Americans and pioneers were killed when pioneers moved into "unsettled" areas. Farmers would treat native Americans as pests to be exterminated.
 
Sep 2012
884
Spring, Texas
#63
The Catholic Church treated the Native Americans like Serfs. Adult Males were used to hunting and being Warriors. They did not farm or do heavy labor. Farming was considered Woman's work. No one did Mine Work. The Good Fathers were not above beating their charges and going after runaways. They also had nasty habit of killing apostates who went back to the old religion. The hostile Indians would also raid the Missions and steal goods horses and slaves. A number of Priests also expected the Natives to provide young women to sleep with the Priest. Going to a Mission actually made a Hostile Indian"s job easier. A Mission was a target friendly place.
 
Jun 2017
2,240
Connecticut
#65
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.



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?



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?



Why? Since much of the land was ruled indirectly or in feudal style and since the land was huge with huge Latifundium?



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 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.



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.



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.



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?
Well yeah, honestly think it makes perfect sense. Like there's like about 8-9 million people in Spain in 1500 per wikipedia(and that's in 1500 not for the 150 year period which is a bunch of generations), 350,000 is on the low side if anything over an 150 year period. Number makes perfect sense. Those colonies were huge in size and native population. Not all bureaucrats in South America, there was the mining industry to bring back all the silver which was a huge deal. Now think 350,000 over 150 years, now how many Spaniards were in the New World at a given time? Now the Aztec and Inca Empires in 1500 both are like well over 20-25 times larger than 350,000, that number is actually starting to sound too low the more I read this.

Gradually either died of disease, were mixed on a much smaller scale with the outside population or were killed in one of the many many wars Natives fought with each other, Europeans and Americans. This process took centuries. Unlike the Spanish though where disease really caused an accidental genocide(not counting the Aztec conquest) though us American's have a lot more of the blame and blood directly on our hands, while there was disease that by itself would not have ended the major north american tribes and didn't. For example no reason to think the five civilized tribes wouldn't be in the South East thriving today if it wasn't for us, they were doing just fine less than 200 years ago and had adjusted to the American era just fine. The Iroquois might be a nation today if the UK had stopped the US from gaining independence.

Well they were taking over the infrastructure of two huge empires that unlike their North American native counterparts were on scale with the most powerful European countries(population anyway, Aztec Empire is quite small, Inca is quite big). There's also the economic extraction of the silver in Peru. It also took quite a bit to subdue the Inca's.

I don't think the Portuguese saw Brazil in that sense at all, they took way too long developing it, took centuries for Portugal to develop institutions for permanent for mass permanent settlement, how Brazil has 200 million people today is one of the biggest demographical head scratchers in human history IMO. Spanish colonies might have been the same if they didn't have like 10 million more people fall into their lap. Both Spanish colony conquests were not planned and were done by a bunch of rogues.

I know your other points were addressed to other posters but per the "where did they go", Latino's are the product of what happened. Mass death and mass mix race led to mixed race being the dominant demographic, so the Natives were phased out basically and their descendants are still there in massive numbers, we just don't see them as natives because it's been a long time. Of course there were intermarriages elsewhere but they were demographic outliers, not a big or even existent"English/Native" population in the US.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Edric Streona
May 2011
13,383
Navan, Ireland
#66
.....................................

But not the typical topic based on tales and black legend (I agree about a White legend as opposition). .
Since you seem to be a great proponent of the 'White Legend' this seems a very strange comment.


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.
Please do explain why?

What is it about 'Protestants' ( I presume you actually mean non-Catholics) so racist?

What makes the British so racist?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
3,990
Portugal
#67
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...
I think that is true. I am a member (although not that active) in Portuguese and Spanish speaking history related forums and the racial issues aren’t so often mentioned as here. Even if that seems to be changing in the last years, most especially since the migration crisis begun to dominate today’s agenda.

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.
Eric, it that was an answer to my post as it seems, I never mentioned or implied anything about your religion or about mine. I don’t know what is your religion (well besides the fact that you state that you are not a protestant) and you don’t know what is mine.

I Do NOT dispute that English and American abused and mistreated Indians.
Removing the “American” from the sentence since they are out of this threads theme and the “American” abused mistreated the Indians even before Columbus arrived, I agree with you and that was my main point when I begun to read posts that the European power A treated the Indians so good and the European power B treated the Indians so badly. I think that is that dichotomy that for instance we see both in the Black and White Legends lead us not so see clearly the Colonial reality of the past and understand that the two biggest Colonial powers in the history of Mankind had many similarities and many differences, and that many of those differences not only come from their own previous pre-colonial histories and institutions, both in Europe and in America, but also from a change of time and mentality that occurred. The apogee of the Spanish Empire preceded the apogee of the British one and in an analysis we can’t forget that between those two moments we have two different European and American societies.

Well yeah, honestly think it makes perfect sense. Like there's like about 8-9 million people in Spain in 1500 per wikipedia(and that's in 1500 not for the 150 year period which is a bunch of generations), 350,000 is on the low side if anything over an 150 year period. Number makes perfect sense.
According to the source that you mention (Wikipedia: List of countries by population in 1500 - Wikipedia) the crown of Castile had 7 million inhabitants in 1500, not 8-9. The American colonies belonged to the Crown of Castile, not to the Crown of Aragon, or to the crown of Sicily, or to other “Spanish” domains.

If you consider 350.000 a low number for a period of 150 years, in the 16th and 17th centuries, than the consideration is yours. But maybe we should recall that at the time there were not transatlantic cruisers or planes. We are talking about more than 2300 people/year in a time when the routes weren’t made everyday sometimes only one/two times/year, and the ships didn’t have the capacity that they had in the following centuries.

Those colonies were huge in size and native population. Not all bureaucrats in South America, there was the mining industry to bring back all the silver which was a huge deal.
Yes, the colonies were huge in size and in some areas the native population, but not only in South America, but also in Central America, in North America and in the Carabean. Those settlers were quite dispersed, from Rio de la Plata and further south to territories that today belong to the USA. That also meant more land for each settler. Huge latifundiums. But you seem to say that all those settlers where only bureaucrats and worked in the mine industry!? Well in the legal mining industry the settlers worked as bureaucrats, since were the Indians that mostly made the hand work.

Now think 350,000 over 150 years, now how many Spaniards were in the New World at a given time? Now the Aztec and Inca Empires in 1500 both are like well over 20-25 times larger than 350,000, that number is actually starting to sound too low the more I read this.
Low compared to the initial Indian Population? Certainly so. Low as a settlement movement? Doesn’t seem so. Until 1650 how many migration movements transported 350000 settlers by sea in a 150 years period?

I don't think the Portuguese saw Brazil in that sense at all, they took way too long developing it, took centuries for Portugal to develop institutions for permanent for mass permanent settlement, how Brazil has 200 million people today is one of the biggest demographical head scratchers in human history IMO.
You don’t think that Portugal saw Brazil as a place to settle? Well, I think those doubts of yours deserves a thread of their own. I certainly can contribute to it, even if there are forum members here better informed than I on that theme.

Anyway that Portugal took its time to develop Brazil as a colony is common knowledge, as it is common knowledge that in 1500 and during all the 16th century and even in the beginning of the following Portugal, a country with a small population, had other priority, the Orient, to which we can add, even if in a lesser scale Morocco, at least until 1578.

I know your other points were addressed to other posters but per the "where did they go", Latino's are the product of what happened.
The question was about where did the Indians in today’s USA Atlantic coast went. Don’t think that the “Latinos” are a “product” of what happened there.

Just a side and curious note: I am a “Latino” (at least in the Portuguese and Spanish languages, since in American English the word gained another meaning). A “Latino” is literally the one that speaks a Latin (Romance) language. Hence the terms Latin America (“América Latina”, where the “Latino-Americanos” live), or the one never popularized Latin Africa. So the “Latinos” that you mentioned are in fact “Latino Americans”, because the original meaning the “Latinos” are the Europeans that spoke Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian, Romanian… and the other Latin (Romance) Languages. Just to conclude, that I am a Latino, but as far as I know, I am not a “product” of what happened in America. Anyway it is curious how in the expression “Latino Americano” the “Americano” part was dropped and in English changed the meaning of “Latino”, and quite often in a depreciative way.
 
May 2011
13,383
Navan, Ireland
#68
I think that is true. I am a member (although not that active) in Portuguese and Spanish speaking history related forums and the racial issues aren’t so often mentioned as here. Even if that seems to be changing in the last years, most especially since the migration crisis begun to dominate today’s agenda................................
Might that be down to a lack of awareness rather than some innate moral superiority?

"
"......Perhaps the most surprising thing about the British media's response to the anti-black racism displayed by Spanish fans at Wednesday's England-Spain "friendly" in Madrid is that they should have been so surprised.

"They are making a huge storm in a teacup," says Jimmy Burns, author of When Beckham Went to Madrid, who is half-English, half-Spanish. "Any journalist who follows Spanish football knows that there are monkey chants when black Real Madrid players take the field against Barcelona, and vice versa."

Spain, of course, is no more immune to the virus of racism than any other country. What is distinctive about Spanish racism is that Spaniards so often refuse to recognise this fact, and pride themselves on their tolerance.

The same senior politician who once told me that there was not a racist bone in the Spanish body politic blithely complained in the next sentence that "Britain is letting Gibraltar fill up with Moors".

This denial of the obvious is borne out by the attitude of the Spanish coach, Luis Aragonés. Last month he privately called the Arsenal player Thierry Henri a "black s**t". Far from apologising when the story broke, he blustered that he refused to accept accusations of racism from "English colonialists"......"

The enigma of Spanish racism
 
Oct 2012
290
#69
Since you seem to be a great proponent of the 'White Legend' this seems a very strange comment.




Please do explain why?

What is it about 'Protestants' ( I presume you actually mean non-Catholics) so racist?

What makes the British so racist?
I think he is a tad obsessed with "protestants" and "anglos". History being too "protestant/anglocentric" and not enough attention payed to the noble and most catholic Spain.
In a way he is partly right too.
 
May 2011
13,383
Navan, Ireland
#70
I think he is a tad obsessed with "protestants" and "anglos". History being too "protestant/anglocentric" and not enough attention payed to the noble and most catholic Spain.
In a way he is partly right too.
You are on an English language forum should it really a surprise that such 'anglophone' topics dominate?

I am going to take a wild guess that on a Spanish language forum 'Hispanic' topics will dominate?
 

Similar History Discussions