What drove the Spanish to be so much more ruthless in colonization

>>2462770
>than portugal
>than England

you sir are ignorant as fuck

There are lots of native and mixed native people in spanish lands who owned land. Only white people owned land in english colonies until they colonized india

>>2462793
How? The Spanish conquered far more, far faster, and far more brutally

>>2462770
Do u see a huge population of mixed Native and European people in the United States? The French, English and their ancestors almost wiped the Indians off the earth. The Spanish weren't saints but they eventually assimilated the natives

>>2462770
Hol up.
>Incorporate native elites in ruling system.
Hol up
>Chill with your race so long as your Catholic and loyal to the Spanish King.
So you wuz saying.
>Spanish priests defend native rights.
So you wuz saying.
>Colony-born Spanish elites mingling with native lites.
WE WUZ RUTHLESS N SHIET?

>>2462799
they got by two stone aged empires and inherited their administrative infrastructure in some regard nothing about being ruthless or anything of the sort just lucky as fuck more or less.

the vast majority of Africans from the slave trade were imported into Brazil. the Portuguese rather work slaves to death than treat them well, on the same boat the British treated South Asians like garbage.

The british went on to having the more impressive empire as well

this is roughly why your question has no grounds or is poorly asked

>>2462800
The French didnt genocide shit, when they sold the Louisiana territory, it was still full of natives
It's the Anglos who did
Hell, the only four successfil British colonies (USA, Canada, Australia and NZ) are successful because brown locals were genocided and replaced by white colonists

File: peruvian-people-faces-of-peru-03.jpg (471KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1024x768px

>>2462770
Is that why Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc are full of pure Amerindian people who still keep their customs while they are non-existent in North America?

>>2463841
Retard

>>2462770
>Compared to Portugal

>>2462770
Aymaras in bolivia bury people, sometimes alive, in construction sites because they think it protects it.
We were clearly too soft on them.

>>2462770

they were less ruthless

-Native were not a part of Anglo American society, they didnt even show much interest in converting them to Christianity. They were just pushed from their lands to be replaced with European families.

-Brazil had a majority slave population for centuries, and their national heroes, the Bandeirantes, are slave hunters who raided Spanish Jesuit missions around Paraguay. Guarani natives escaped from the Portuguese by entering into safe Spanish territory, and hated the Portuguese.

-Spaniards opressed the natives, but in a very feudal way (after all Santo Domingo was founded in 1496), the Conquistadores had a very medieval mentality.
Natives could not be enslaved after the first decades of conquest, but they were considered as childs, not full adults. they had to work for the spanish encomendero in their native towns, in the same way serfs worked for nobles in europe.

-marrying natives, and interracial polygamy, were a constant all the colonization period.

-Spain also bought less black slaves than Portugal, England, and France.

>>2462770
>more ruthless than Englang
Sr. please, at least go to school before posting in /his/

>>2463931
you're the retard here.

>>2463922
>america
>english
mate. we did that all on our own without the help of those tea drinking limey bastards.

File: 2999129_orig.png (1MB, 836x513px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 836x513px

>>2462770
They were savage and treacherous in their conquest, The reason there are still natives is because when millions died as slaves in the mines and farms the crown in Spain had to intervene as they were almost wiped out, then started importing african slaves leaving the natives to regrowth