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

Nov 2010
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.
Actually, the French colonists - in New France (Quebec) and Acadia at least - didn't marry native people as much as Spanish colonists in general; in fact, the Filles du Roy were sent over to New France a little later than the initial date of settlement to increase the French population and promote families in the colony. Among the French male colonists, it was mainly the coureurs du bois and other explorers in the interior who married native women. Hence, métis (French for mestizo) in places like Manitoba but not so much in Quebec; this is also why there's not as much métis in Quebec as mestizos anywhere in Latin America, even the white countries of Argentina and Uruguay and certainly the likes of Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, and Guatemala.
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Jun 2017
Can’t decide whether this thread would be better suited to the North or South American, please share what you think about this.

Dividing the Western Hemisphere into Anglo & Latin America reflects the fact that the hemisphere’s colonizers were predominantly the British, Spanish & Portuguese, but doesn’t really take into account the Dutch & French, & these all seem to be the only European countries to have had lasting effect on their colonies, so which category do you consider them to be under?

North America & other British colonies’ race systems, formal as well as informal, appear to have been much more binary, strict & conservative than elsewhere in the Americas, the other European colonies & later independent countries. British culture & society seems to have been much more conservative overall than that of other Europeans. Several parts of the Americas ended up having more free colored people than whites, remarkable for the race-based slave societies that they were founded as, which I can only imagine must have been a nightmarish concept for North American slavers.
Why was it that only the United States had post-slavery racial segregation as well as the most intense racial issues of the New World Countries?
Why was Latin America demographic melting pots long before Anglo America was, which only seems to have been since post civil rights, if not later.

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.
Because the natives were seen as foreign powers/adversaries in North America not as the population being ruled. Also north american(and brazil who had more in common with the North American colonies than Spainards in terms of the colonies being built from scratch not over pre existing empires) racism towards african slaves and their descendants was a response to justifying enslaving other humans and in North America the Civil War and subsequent events(reconstruction, jim crow and how various populations responded etc) snowballed racism into something different in the modern context than what exists in South/Latin America.

Also a response of biracialism centuries ago is that racism had a very European character in Latin America and the dominant racial caste(peninsulares) was the class being expunged and what remained was a very mixed society. In the US this was not relevant at all to the revolution against the UK and while today the US is a multi racial society where very few people are "Anglo-Saxon",that wasn't the case in the 19th century while in Latin America you had large "White", Native and Black populations in a melting pot centuries earlier than the one in the US.

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
I had no idea the English immigrant ratio in the 18th century was so out of balance. But after a century or so, most of the women in any colony were probably born there rather than immigrants. New Englanders in particular had large families, sometimes eight or ten children and most of them survived to adulthood. By 1700, three generations had been born and raised in the English colonies. Because the Spanish colonies were older, even more Spanish generations had been born in the New World.
I think this is true, but imo there is more to it. Religion is a factor. The Papacy had no prohibition on interracial marriage of which I am aware. Around 1660, Massachusetts put a penalty on interracial fornication. By the mid 1700s, most of the colonies, outlawed interracial marriage. From what I have read, most of the reasoning to ban interracial marriage is sourced to one thing or the other in the Bible.