I started taking a Spanish class last week - an the instructor starts talking about American history. She said that the Spanish were better colonisers that the British, cos the British killed everybody off, and the Spanish intermarried.
How accurate is this?
I was under the impression that the Portuguese were widely regarded as the worst colonizers of all European powers.
The British were pretty decent in India, which was colonized by a for-profit company.
Other Brits exterminated the Tasmanians, & the “Americans” were pretty vile to the natives.
The Spanish did intermarry, but some populations died out anyway, whether from exotic diseases or abuse when enslaved.
Well, lets put it this way, I’d rather have been a native of colonial Brazil or Mozambique than of the Belgian Congo.
Hernan Cortes killed pretty much anyone the moment they weren’t useful in furthering his plan to kill EVERYONE, so I’d say the Spanish might not have been the friendly colonizers you’re talking about in the OP. At least not at first.
I think how “good” the colonisers were depended more on the firepower of the colonised than any intrinsic merit of the various European powers. The Maoris did a lot better than the Australian Aborigines for example - because they had a more organised civilisation and fought back more effectively, so the British couldn’t wipe them out. Same with America - the inhabitants of South America were more technologically advanced than the northern tribes - also they were farmers, with more resistance to disease. I don’t think the Spanish failed to kill them off because they didn’t want too, they just couldn’t manage it.
The Brits tended to leave local religions alone, at least as far as official policy was concerned.
The Spanish killed everybody who wouldn’t convert. Fast enough, I mean.
Look at it this way: *Most *of the places colonised by the British are generally pretty stable, “civilised” places that are doing alright for themselves.
“Latin America” is widely regarded as a byword for, well, Banana Republics, Revolutions/Civil Wars, and generally being Fairly Unstable And A Bit Third World, Really.
Yeah, Leopold definitely made up with quality for a lack of quantity.
There’s a reason for that. Spain , by and large, did not give up their colonies without a fight to the bitter end, leaving anarchy in its wake, while Britain in most cases (America excepted for one), negotiated a measured withdrawal of control of their colonies, leaving somewhat stable self governments.
Not very. The Spanish could do a pretty fine job of killing the natives off from day one if they wanted to. There aren’t exactly that many Arawaks around today as a result of 1492 and Columbus, and as has been said India isn’t depopulated from the British killing everyone.
um… American Revolution? Ghandi? Boer wars? how about Sunday, bloody sunday or Braveheart? Britain caused its fair share of instability as a ruling nation.
this may be too involved a topic to debate even for GD.
I resent that. We are much more than that.
The first wave of colonization was done by people like Cortes and Pizarro who were soldiers recently unemployed by the end of the Reconquest. Tough guys who were accustomed to do things only in one way.
But everyone, so far, forgot to mention a couple of points:
I quote a fragment from the last one, take into account that it was promulgated in 1512. A few years after the discovery:
Spain and the Catholic Church were also at the vanguard of International Public Law, the promoters of Irak War could have learned a little from Fray Francisco de Victoria and the School of Salamanca.
Some already mentioned this, in our banana republics there are indians and they do not live in reservations or deep in the interior of Australia’s desert. True, again, there are inequalities but when Australia is governed by a native you can preach to the masses Martini Enfield.
Spanish and portuguese fomented intermarriage. In our Banana Republics (I speak for Argentina), no one asks or care about your race. For example in no private or government form you’ll find an space to fill up your race (or religion).
Case in point Argentina. The Crown and the Church did their utmost to protect the indians. Republican presidents with “ideas of progress” (imported from America or Europe), where the ones that exterminated the indians and stole their lands in our version of the conquest of the far west (Conquest of the desert).
You know what? In case someone fails to open the link to the text of the bull, I quote it in full (it’s not long). Also it was promulgated in 1537 and not 1512.
I’m not sure that this is a question that can be answered. What are the guidelines for judging ‘best’? Are we talking end result as of right now? Sum total of history in (ex)colonies? Only the period during which the European countries held sway? And in which colonies? Do we care if a country is doing great, but the original inhabitants aren’t? Is America a succeeded colony or a failed one? Not to mention, Britain and Spain went through several centuries of colonization - there’s a vast difference between having been colonized in the 1600’s and the 1800’s, not to mention what continent you’re on. If the OP would like to set some standards, we might be able to get somewhere, but as is, it’s pretty vague.
The problem with answering this also lies in the fact that the major coloziers colonised titanic swaths of territory, encompassing most of the planet at some point or another. And there were huge differences depending on who colonized what and where and when they did it. It’s not a question that can be answered easily.
Well pancakes did say most of the places.
Also the USA isn’t in Central America and Braveheart was before we had an Empire. Heck we were’nt even a union when Willie Wallace started his shenanagins
I’ll give you the rest…grudgingly
Cite? Because I haven’t heard it this way.
Cortés was trying to conquer, not to exterminate.
Actually, some of the problems Latin America has today are due to Anglo-American imperialism. Don’t blame the Spanish Crown for banana republics, it’s Anglo-American corporations that took over there & built them.
Also, most of the former British colonies continue to belong to the British Commonwealth, and many of them even have the British monarch as their monarch, officially. That implies a certain amount or respect or affection toward the colonizer.
I don’t know of any equivalent organization of former Spanish, Portuguese, or Belgian colonies.