# Who was the worse coloniser - the British or the Spanish? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238 "2009-06-28T02:51:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SomeBodyUK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@SomeBodyUK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SomeBodyUK)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/1 "2009-06-28T02:51:48Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/2 "2009-06-28T02:58:22Z")
I was under the impression that the Portuguese were widely regarded as the worst colonizers of all European powers. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/3 "2009-06-28T03:19:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/4 "2009-06-28T03:24:00Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > I was under the impression that the Portuguese were widely regarded as the worst colonizers of all European powers. Well, lets put it this way, I’d rather have been a native of colonial Brazil or Mozambique than of the Belgian Congo. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/5 "2009-06-28T07:28:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/6 "2009-06-28T08:11:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/7 "2009-06-28T11:48:23Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/8 "2009-06-28T11:57:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/9 "2009-06-28T12:57:14Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, lets put it this way, I’d rather have been a native of colonial Brazil or Mozambique than of the Belgian Congo. Yeah, Leopold definitely made up with quality for a lack of quantity. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/10 "2009-06-28T13:16:05Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/11 "2009-06-28T13:24:17Z")
> [@SomeBodyUK](#): > > How accurate is this? 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. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/12 "2009-06-28T13:51:31Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/13 "2009-06-28T14:29:30Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > 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. 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: 1. Spain and the Catholic Church were the first to recognize the rights of the natives and to fight the abuse of the conquistadores. True, they were not always obeyed but contrast the “White men burden” of American and British intelectuals of the 19 and early 20 century with the Laws of Burgos, the New Laws or the Papal Bull [“Sublime God”](http://historyscoop.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/papal-bull-sublimis-deus-and-the-humanity-of-native-americans/). I quote a fragment from the last one, take into account that it was promulgated in 1512. A few years after the discovery: [QUOTE=Paulus III] We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. [/QUOTE] 1. 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Salamanca#The_conquest_of_America). 2. 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. 3. 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). 4. 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert)). ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/14 "2009-06-28T14:34:51Z")
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. > [@](#): > > Sublimis Deus, (The Sublime God), 1537 > Pope Paul III > > To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction. > > The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office ‘Go ye and teach all nations.’ He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith. > > The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. > > We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. > > By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living. ---
**Author:** ![runcible\_spoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc29f/32.png) [@runcible\_spoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runcible_spoon)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/15 "2009-06-28T16:24:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/16 "2009-06-28T16:41:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/17 "2009-06-28T17:01:38Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > 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. 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 ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/18 "2009-06-28T17:06:15Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > 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. Cite? Because I haven’t heard it this way. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/19 "2009-06-28T17:39:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/20 "2009-06-28T19:58:23Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > 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. 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238.md?page=2)