If Britain or France had colonized Latin America, would it be much Whiter today?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,513
SoCal
If Britain or France had colonized Latin America instead of Spain and Portugal, would Latin America be a lot Whiter today?

The reason that I am asking this question is because the U.S. and Canada were historically much Whiter than Latin America is. True, this changed to some extent over the last 50 years as a result of large-scale non-White immigration into the U.S. and Canada, but historically, the U.S. and Canada were extremely White. In the case of the U.S., I think that the U.S. was almost 90% non-Hispanic White in the early 20th century--and it would have been even higher than that had it not been for the Southern U.S.'s large Black population.

Basically, the U.S. and Canada appear to have historically been flooded with White settlers who then proceeded to displace the Native American populations there. In contrast, in Latin America, there appears to have been a lot of mixing between Whites and Native Americans (and Blacks as well, in countries such as Brazil). Thus, what I am wondering is this:

Would Latin America be much Whiter today if Britain and France--rather than Spain and Portugal--were the ones who would have colonized Latin America?

Any thoughts on this?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,970
No, no change eat all, settlement pattern of europeans was based on economic exploitation model.

Latin America was economic exploitation by slaves.

North America it was the lack of economic exploitation available for slave type economic activities that lead to larger white settlement.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,513
SoCal
No, no change eat all, settlement pattern of europeans was based on economic exploitation model.

Latin America was economic exploitation by slaves.

North America it was the lack of economic exploitation available for slave type economic activities that lead to larger white settlement.
Why exactly was there less of a potential for slave-type economic activities in North America?
 
Jan 2015
150
new york
I think what he meant was cash crops and minerals wealth. Once you get north of Virginia the only easy money left is fur. In undeveloped portion of north America, there is little incentive in bring a large number of slaves.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,970
Yeah not the best wording on my part. but thats the gist, cotton, sugar, mines lend themselves to slave use, Fur trading, does not.

I would argue the pattern of economic exploitation was large factor in the pattern of settlement.

Unskilled migrants from western Europe are not going to go where their labour hats compete with slaves, it's just not attractive.

were Caribbean french and english settlements really different from Spanish?
 
Last edited:

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,542
Japan
Not really. Similar to today only with English and French as the languages not Spanish and Portuguese.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,513
SoCal
I think what he meant was cash crops and minerals wealth. Once you get north of Virginia the only easy money left is fur. In undeveloped portion of north America, there is little incentive in bring a large number of slaves.
Yeah not the best wording on my part. but thats the gist, cotton, sugar, mines lend themselves to slave use, Fur trading, does not.

I would argue the pattern of economic exploitation was large factor in the pattern of settlement.

Unskilled migrants from western Europe are not going to go where their labour hats compete with slaves, it's just not attractive.
OK; understood. Indeed, all of this makes perfect sense.

Also, this helps to explain why the Northern U.S. and Canada industrialized before the rest of the Americas did, no? After all, without either cash crops or mineral wealth, the Northern U.S. and Canada had to look for other ways to become prosperous, and thus they were the first in the Americas to seize on the opportunity that industrialization presented.

were Caribbean french and english settlements really different from Spanish?
No, I don't think so--and neither were the Danish West Indies.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,970
Also, this helps to explain why the Northern U.S. and Canada industrialized before the rest of the Americas did, no? After all, without either cash crops or mineral wealth, the Northern U.S. and Canada had to look for other ways to become prosperous, and thus they were the first in the Americas to seize on the opportunity that industrialization presented.
You don't sell a lot of consumer products to slaves. Once you have a dominate slave based economy other sectors are just generally weak. The Northern American settlements enabled prosperous farmers (ready availability of relative large amount of land, leading to larger more productive farms, without the feudal hangover in large parts of Europe, even though serfdom was abolished, the terms it was abolished on varied enormously, often with nobles/former nobles translating their feudal dues into property rights, leaving the peasants without enough land to be independent , still having to work for their former masters, or paying of large debts for the purchase and the lands they got from the abolishment of serfdom)

prosperous farmers where able to both produce excess to support the growing cities and buy products to stimulate those cities.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,513
SoCal
You don't sell a lot of consumer products to slaves. Once you have a dominate slave based economy other sectors are just generally weak. The Northern American settlements enabled prosperous farmers (ready availability of relative large amount of land, leading to larger more productive farms, without the feudal hangover in large parts of Europe, even though serfdom was abolished, the terms it was abolished on varied enormously, often with nobles/former nobles translating their feudal dues into property rights, leaving the peasants without enough land to be independent , still having to work for their former masters, or paying of large debts for the purchase and the lands they got from the abolishment of serfdom)

prosperous farmers where able to both produce excess to support the growing cities and buy products to stimulate those cities.
OK; understood.

Also, the mechanization of agriculture enabled a lot of these farmers and their descendants to move to the cities later on and to establish a lot of industries there, correct?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,970
OK; understood.

Also, the mechanization of agriculture enabled a lot of these farmers and their descendants to move to the cities later on and to establish a lot of industries there, correct?
large farms also helped with mechanisation and as did the Farmers being relatively prosperous, to be able to afford the investment.