Would South America still be the 3rd world shithole as it is today if the British and not the Spanish conquered it?
Depends on how they chose to colonize it, for the resources of if they wanted to live here. It would probably be the same. Also a lot of South America isn't nearly as bad as /pol/ makes it out to be.
Remember that thread about South America moving just a bit to the East (like 300 miles)?
I keep staring at maps and my globe, and SA's position really does seem wrong. It's been a week or two, and I can't stop thinking about it.
are you really this stupid and ignorant?
why white people make so stupid questions?
are you fucking retarded?
do you really think something that happened 400 years ago its affecting the present day?
go get a fucking education OP
Depends. If they slaughter the natives instead of fucking them then maybe things would have been better. Although, it is likely that if they had colonized South America as well, then America, Canada, Australia, etc. would have received far fewer immigrants from Europe as there would be more stable places to choose from. It's like lily that the Americas in general would be well off but sparsely populated and would have possibly remained tied to Britain either as dominions or part of some imperial federation (given that they'd be comparatively weaker and America would likely not become the mister it is now due to decreased immigration.).
>what happened 400 years ago has no impact on what's happening now.
Shit's not great there but they aren't Africa Tier.
If the British had conquered it, they would have killed the majority of the natives.
Because the Natives in the USA and Canada were treated so well.
It would be 10000000 times worse. Take a look at my country:
> ''''City'''' with a high native population = S H I T H O L E
>City where a decent amount of white people live= pretty good when compared to any third world country.
So we would go from ' Good' by thirld world standards to almost a niggerlike standard of life
Maybe they don't teach this in your shitskin country, but, for future reference, events in the past, especially an event like the COLONIZATION OF AN ENTIRE CONTINENT, typically affect the future. At least a little
>whites coming to north america wouldnt have an impact on north america today
>spanish coming south america wouldnt have an impact on south america today
this is some low quality bait
Are you really Mexican, saying that?
But pic related was still going on in this area just 500 years ago... while Europe was experiencing the 'Renaissance'
i mean about the colonizers
british would have killed the natives so you wouldnt exist and wouldnt be called mexico
i want nukes to go off and US and UK be fucking nuked, you fucking people are awful
Think of it this way. british colonialisim if it had occured would have meant the massive American Region both south and north would have been at their disposal.
In essence spanish and portuguese would have compensated by occupying parts of Asia, Arabia, and Africa.
The French would have likely forced their way into the region as well but because of how thinly spread the british were would have most likely has to occupy the Carribean or would have been similar to portugal with brazil.
Latecoming empires such as the swedes, the Dutch, or the Russians would have had better chances of aquiring colonies as well.
You'd be right if we were talking about Central America in particular, but that didnt last all that long and wasn't as devastating as they taught you. If anything, their over reaction to foreign influence and foreign investment is what did them in. Their dictators were keeping order and allowed for the country to be stable enough for investment and economic growth to take place. Then they sperged out and went full civil war and nationalization/socialism mode which inevitably destroyed their economies and internal stability. The fault is all theirs and not America's exclusively.
Maybe if your country wasn't dirt poor with no infrastructure and a completely uneducated populace you could accomplish that dream yourselves. But, as it stands, the shit hole you live in is lucky to get in door plumbing. So maybe not.
Brits are the ones who fucking ruined us
After we got independent most of us(except chile) had to fight the brits because they wanted our resources
So yeah fucking anglo fault again
I rejoice in the fact that brits are cucked now
>as devastating as they taught you.
nobody taught me anything, i have done my own research
>The fault is all theirs and not America's exclusively.
and that is what they taught you
why US invaded haiti twice?
they need it democracy?
they didnt have freedom?
what you mean?
they were in their fucking homeland ffs
It's not the british colonization that changed things
Otherwise the guyana, jamaica etc would be developed
The thing is that the usa got an incredible amount of skilled and rich immigrants from europe, and with a young country they could build a better europe overseas
Even in south america, the countries that had more european immigration are relatively better off
I misread the thread because I'm a dumb fag who should probably sleep.
No, Meso america would be much better off if the spaniyards didn't show up. For one thing, the British would have brought a lot less niggers.
SA is a shithole not necessarily because the Spanish colonized it, but because they didn't genocide the natives. Argentina is the best SA country because it's predominantly white.
.45 ACP for all you anti capitalist faggots. Why don't countries that have and are communist have wealth like the USA? Why aren't you asking the same question about wealth in commie countries. Seriously take a re pill or a cyanide it really doesn't matter. Pick one.
We WERE the best country in SA during 19th century and early 20th. But then we embraced populism and we have been shit since then.
Pic related, we've been going down relatively on pretty much every ranking since then: education, safety, health, etc.
I think the Brits would have replaced the natives, not interbred so much with them.
Also I am not familiar with many countries (Pitcairn Island being an exception) that are inhabited by English speaking white people that are impoverished, so I think somehow, yes, South America would have been better off.
I realize it's not an absolute shithole down there, but Central America and Mexico for the most part are.
Guyana used to be nice before white people were basically chased out of the country. Jamaica was never subjected to any serious campaign of colonisation like Canada, Australia, NZ, and USA were but was treated purely as a plantation colony.
Where the climate didn't allow for plantations, the British typically created (in the long run) prosperous colonies. Where the climate did allow for plantations, those colonies eventually became shitholes (wonder why that is?).
>no government can be effective if under foreign intervention
those 2 countries are the ones causing most shit in other countries then act like they didnt do nothing
Well, I'm going to base my observations on a few things. Namely : government, experience, genetics, and timing.
Government wise, the Spanish had both the crown and the papacy to solidify its control over parts of north, central, and south America. The Spanish conquest of Latin America began by 1492 around 30 years later the British referendum happened so the religious governmental powers of the British sank. This worked for the Spaniards and the Portuguese because they would have more funding to spread Catholicism to the new world. The powers of church and state was able to subdue to local population a lot better (in my opinion) than the British. While the British focused more on trade the Spaniards focused on religion and trade. Catholicism seems to be a lot more aggressive in "saving the souls of the savages" than British Protestantism.
The Spaniards also had a head start in working the maritime logistics between the two continents. The climate and terrain was more or less similar to colonies and conquests in Africa. So they've had experience in this type of heat and environment since medieval times.
To put it in /pol/ terms, Spaniards have taken enough nigger dick to acclimate and adapt better than what those cum skinned Anglo's ever could; i.e British colonization of Africa.
The Brits barely survived N. America when the environment is compatible to Europes.
The fall of the Spanish Empire lead to the independence of almost all of the Latin American countries by the close of the 1800's. This allowed free trade between these newly formed countries and nations in Europe ( england, france, portugal, etc) and the US. this they were able to develope at a faster rate than former colonies/commonwealths of England (Jamaica, guayana, belize, etc) which weren't let to their own devices even as late as 1997.
So in my opinion the 350 year rule under the Spanish was a god send from the Spaniards. British wouldnt allow this much development.
>English is a plebe language.
Tell me, how many famous poets and authors are there in Portuguese? I mean among the ranks of Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Keats, Milton, Chaucer, Shelley, Tennyson, Pope etc.
Can you even name one? If you can't, I'll allow you to try to come up with a Spanish correlary.
Mexico isn't so bad actually. It's doing much better than most South and Central American countries, that's for sure. Probably just Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile are doing a little better. That's pretty much it.
Marxism destroyed South America as much as the small number of white people. Even a white country like Argentina is a shithole ruled by lunatics. Here Marxism combines with the worst and more corrupted form of Catholicism ( Luthero could not save the entire world). We can't blame colonization, some idiots think we could be more intelligent than portugueses, in fact we never put our shit together like them did one day, doing a technology revolution and a efficient military domain. We degenerate before we even start to be a country because some retards imagine they coud reinvent the wheel.
>if they had colonized South America as well, then America, Canada, Australia, etc. would have received far fewer immigrants from Europe
I think you underestimate how many people immigrated to South America in the late-1800s and early-1900s. It was very comparable to the number that immigrated to the USA. Argentina went from nearly 90% Spanish to majority-Italian within a few decades. Brazil took in enough immigrants to make it go from 33% unmixed White in 1880 to 65% by 1930. Cuba took in 2 million immigrants from Spain alone from 1900 to 1930 and went from majority Afro-Caribbean to majority White. Same with Puerto Rico.
you got really nice fuckable girls, amigo
Estoy hablando de las chicas en la foto que subi
tienes que admitir que tiene buenas piernas
otra mas que coji ahora :D
Actually I have, and I did a study abroad with like 15 Spaniards from Catalan familia. Btw your Spanish is atrocious. I would rather have an Ecuadorian talking my ear off than you guys.
>Would South America still be the 3rd world shithole as it is today if the British and not the Spanish conquered it?
Yes. They would murdered the Indians and replaced whem with productive people. True, probably within plantation-ready lands they would place plantations with Black slaves in them. But we probably could contained to the Caribbean islands and surrounding areas.
>tfw when realize you will live a timeline where Brtiannia rules all of the Americas.
The British almost had Argentina. It would have probably been a kind of South American equivalent of South Africa if they had won.
Brazil had a type of colony only for extraction of resources. Only then Portugal permitted our independence, after the extraction of the majority of resources.
America had a type of colony to mass immigration and for building a new nation.
That's what makes the difference between colonies and the future for each country. It's not about the country that install the colony but what they do with land you "discover".
thinking of doing this 3 month backpacking trip. What do you guys think? How much you think it would cost.
Short answers is yes. Race matters.
In the beginning the Portuguesenearly starved to death because they only produced sugar cane and it occurred to them almost too late that they needed to produce food. You can't make this shit up
Well, take a look at India, Jamaica, Belize and South Africa.
However, in the Northeastern part of Brazil for instance a Dutch nigga was implementing some really cool stuff. The Dutch called him back however, and now the region which was developing some 300 years ago is literally a shithole as disgraceful as Africa.