Why were Anglo America’s race relations much more binary, strict & conservative than that of Latin America?

[ecarian]

But on the other hand there appears to have been the inverse relationship with overall quality of life, that Anglo America had more binary & conservative race relations than Latin America who was more flexible & liberal with theirs, but on the other hand Latin America appears to have been more cruel & brutal with their treatment of races, as well as everyone frankly, while North America had a more healthy climate for work & living, while Latin America appears to have been far less healthy to have lived in.
This seems to be a particularly inverse dilemma for those enthusiastic about slavery, the topic of where slaves had it better.

I wonder how much heat comes into play in this?

Studies show an increase in crime/violence where it's hotter.


And there's hot temperatures can negatively effect learning....

Relationship Between Heat and Violence Found

Students Learning Suffers When Heat Goes Up

Though a too cold environment can affect learning too, and both too hot and too cold can effect productivity...

Too Hot or Too Cold

Classroom Temperature Affect Students

So before air conditioning, temperatures could have been having an effect on nations in these areas (and still have an effect where people can't afford air conditioning). Good sources of heating the indoors came before good sources of cooling homes, so heat would have had an earlier effect. Though cold weather tends to mean less food resources than warmer weather, except in extreme heat like deserts, so that would have balanced things some until trade became easier.

I mean, if you look at a map of average world temperatures....

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/52au89
The hottest parts, in the red, do also seem to coincide with the places with the most poverty and conflict, and the yellow through green areas, do tend to be where the most developed, richest countries are (with a few exceptions).

So, air conditioning could literally change the world?

 

[Tulius]

So America includes Canada and maybe the Caribbean, too.

Yes, the islands too, and “Mexico” and “Argentina”... so the comparison between the British America and the Spanish America.

Also note that the regions that you mentioned had, as far as I know, quite low British migration in the 17th and 18th century: South Africa was mainly Dutch; Australia exploded only in the 19th century; and in India it was quite low in the 17th century.

About the migration and the relation of the population in America, we also should recall that there was also migration from the colonies to the motherland, i.e. returns, and I don’t have data for that migration, but I have the idea that the returns were significant in the Caribbean Islands.

 

[betgo]

In the what became the US, there was no distinction between whites born in England or America. The British mostly ruled through the local elite, not officials appointed from Europe as with Spain. In British America, there were some hereditary rulers as well as quasi-republican institutions. Britain later used similar approaches in India with princely states, and with parliaments in various colonies.

There was only no distinction in British America between pure Europeans and "mestizos". Being part native American did not effect status at all.

Legally, there was not a distinction between mulattos and blacks in British America or the US. However, if someone was any part black, that effected his legal status. This distinction became stronger after the Civil War and Reconstruction, when southerners tried to maintain white supremacy and keep the white race "pure".

The conditions of slaves were in general worse in Latin America, particularly on sugar plantations. However, there was more racism in the US, partly because of the Civil War, and partly because the fair northern Europeans seemed more different than blacks. Probably a higher proportion of native Americans were killed in what became the US, partly because they were tribal people, rather than subjects of big empires.

 

[Millennium]

I wonder how much heat comes into play in this?

Studies show an increase in crime/violence where it's hotter.


And there's hot temperatures can negatively effect learning....

Relationship Between Heat and Violence Found

Students Learning Suffers When Heat Goes Up

Though a too cold environment can affect learning too, and both too hot and too cold can effect productivity...

Too Hot or Too Cold

Classroom Temperature Affect Students

So before air conditioning, temperatures could have been having an effect on nations in these areas (and still have an effect where people can't afford air conditioning). Good sources of heating the indoors came before good sources of cooling homes, so heat would have had an earlier effect. Though cold weather tends to mean less food resources than warmer weather, except in extreme heat like deserts, so that would have balanced things some until trade became easier.

I mean, if you look at a map of average world temperatures....

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/52au89
The hottest parts, in the red, do also seem to coincide with the places with the most poverty and conflict, and the yellow through green areas, do tend to be where the most developed, richest countries are (with a few exceptions).

So, air conditioning could literally change the world?

I’ve always pondered on that for a while as well. Thanks for sharing that! I’m quite sure temperature & climate, having an effect on even basic physiology, would somehow effect psychology even minimally as well, since about all physiological systems are linked to each other in our closed body systems, but to just what extent is a matter of interesting debate. Looks like now we can finally argue with those who tell us to just “suck it up” with the weather.

I’ve also always felt that it’s a bit ironic considering that our anatomy, along with primate anatomy overall to prove ours’, are designed for & likely originated in warm tropical climates, & how this fact relates to the temperature & climate link between violence & development you shared above, cuz it looks counter-intuitive at a glance. I wonder how that can be explained.

 

[Millennium]

Here’s a mild curiosity I’ve always had; why there’s been disparity with how those of African descent or even people’s of color overall were called.

The term “Negro” was the standard term for those of African descent. In Spanish & Portuguese it simply means the color “black”, with the similar French color term “noir/e” referring to them as well, hence the code noirs. The Dutch term for black is “zwart”, but am not sure whether they referred to those of African descent as that. In the English world however, “Negro” became the standard term for those of African or negroid descent, an actual term for a race or group of people, rather than just an adjective. Obviously the English must have somehow adopted the term from the pioneer Iberians. So what I’ve always wondered is why the English didn’t standardize the term “black” for those of African descent while at the same timestill standardizing the description of themselves with the color adjective “white” instead of a unique term like like they did for those if African descent, & why the Iberians & French didn’t develop a unique term for those of African descent as the English did. Furthermore to reserve an adjective as the term of specific a group of people, in this case a color for people of African descent, excludes other people’s who share similar traits, like South Asians, Melanesians, & other peoples with substantially dark skin. Don’t suppose there would have been many of those peoples in the Americas historically, South Asians would have had the most chances obviously, but I suppose neither Americans nor Asians would have been barely aware of each other’s existences either. The terms “negro” & “colored” were standardized as politically incorrect, outdated & replaced with the standardized term “black” quite a while before people of South Asian descent began immigrating to the Americas, as well as westerners visiting South Asia, so that’s eliminated any confusing dissonance that could have potentially arisen if those older terms were not replaced, so wonder whether those of South Asian descent & other dark skinned people not of African descent would have been called “negro” or “colored” as well, or if they still are or can be. Would Melanesians have been called & considered “negroes” as well?
As a scientist, I’ve always preferred to avoid naming things only by simple adjectives for the sake of clarity & specificity.

 

[Millennium]

Also, I wonder how likely dark skinned peoples not of African descent, like South Asians & Melanesians, could have found themselves in the Americas & Europe. I would imagine that any substantially dark skinned person not of African descent would have at least been perceived as mulatto, if not even fully negro. & if they were in the Americas or Europe during the slavery era, would they have needed to carry freedom papers? was there any risk of them finding themselves enslaved, through either kidnapping, being suspected fugitives, for punishment etc, just as countless free people of color were? The story of John Glasgow and this other free black Briton whom I unfortunately can’t remember the name of right now both prove that free people of color from both sides of the Atlantic were at risk. I’m sure free colored people in Europe were at risk of being kidnapped & sold in the Americas. How likely would this kind of dire situation have entered the historical record for future generations to be aware of? Is it something we have no evidence of & can only ponder would have been a dire possibility? An Indian Solomon Northup would make an interesting story wouldn’t it, maybe I can write a novel about that someday. If they found themselves in America during the segregation era, would they have been perceived as of African descent & thus restricted to the colored sections? It’s only the Southern U.S that had post-slavery segregation in the Western Hemisphere wasn’t it?

 

[Chlodio]

The terms “negro” & “colored” were standardized as politically incorrect, outdated & replaced with the standardized term “black” quite a while before people of South Asian descent began immigrating to the Americas, as well as westerners visiting South Asia, so that’s eliminated any confusing dissonance that could have potentially arisen if those older terms were not replaced, so wonder whether those of South Asian descent & other dark skinned people not of African descent would have been called “negro” or “colored” as well, or if they still are or can be. Would Melanesians have been called & considered “negroes” as well?

"Colored" referred to anyone who wasn't white so it would also have included Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, as well as Blacks. "Negro" was specifically associated with people from Africa. "Colored" and "Negro" were still in use in America as recently as the 1960s but have since fallen out of use. They were never bad or insulting terms. We still have organizations called "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" and "The United Negro College Fund." These organizations can't change their name without losing brand recognition, but clearly they did not use negative terms to identify themselves. Today, however, "Colored" and "Negro" are rarely used, and some people react strongly to the strangeness of the terms, not to their negative definitions.

 

[Futurist]

Throughout the Middle Ages the Spanish had shared Spain with the Moors. By 1492, they had extensive experience with cross-cultural and inter-racial marriage. The British did not have this experience.

Spanish and French colonists were overwhelmingly male. The idea was to come to the New World, make (or steal) a fortune in just a few years, then go back to Spain or France, marry a daughter of some nobleman, and live happily ever after. English colonists started out the same way, but where the Spanish found gold and silver and the French found furs, the English colonies had no readily exploitable wealth. The English colonists took to building up plantations which were life-long investments, so they brought their wives with them. Also the New England colonies were settled not for economic reasons but for religious freedom, but the result was the same - colonists came over as families, not bachelors. Many of those French and Spanish bachelors did not get rich quick and ended up changing their plans and staying in the New World. Because of the shortage of women, they married native girls. The English colonists never had to look outside of their own ethnic/racial group for spouses.

Edit: I should probably include the Portuguese as having the same experience as the Spanish when it came to intermarriage with the Moors.

That makes sense. If there's no such thing as "pure whites" in your country, then naturally you might be more flexible in regards to race relations than you would have been if you would have been a "pure white" person in a country full of "pure whites".

 

[Futurist]

"Colored" referred to anyone who wasn't white so it would also have included Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, as well as Blacks. "Negro" was specifically associated with people from Africa. "Colored" and "Negro" were still in use in America as recently as the 1960s but have since fallen out of use. They were never bad or insulting terms. We still have organizations called "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" and "The United Negro College Fund." These organizations can't change their name without losing brand recognition, but clearly they did not use negative terms to identify themselves. Today, however, "Colored" and "Negro" are rarely used, and some people react strongly to the strangeness of the terms, not to their negative definitions.

Interestingly enough, the US Census Bureau still had "Negro" as a race option until this decade:

No More 'Negro' For Census Bureau Forms And Surveys

Many African-Americans complained about the bureau's use of the word during the 2010 Census, calling it offensive and outdated. On Monday, officials said they would stop using it.

www.npr.org

 

[Chlodio]

Interestingly enough, the US Census Bureau still had "Negro" as a race option until this decade:

If the Census Bureau wanted to compare past statistics with current numbers, then they might be reluctant to change terminology.