# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/101 "2011-01-21T16:24:44Z")
> [@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. True that. ---
**Author:** ![bbart4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/51bf81/32.png) [@bbart4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbart4)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/102 "2011-01-21T19:13:14Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > This post exhibits extreme ignorance about Hernan Cortes and the conquest of Mexico. > [@Mosier](#): > > I’ll admit it was pretty long on hyperbole, but I’m curious about just what you think about Cortes. I am also curious of sailor’s view of Cortes and maybe Pizarro. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/103 "2011-01-21T21:40:07Z")
The British were worse, because ex-Spanish colonies have better cuisine. (Indian cuisine is better than anything from Latin America, but it does not count, as it predated British colonization.) ---
**Author:** ![bbart4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/51bf81/32.png) [@bbart4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbart4)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/104 "2011-01-21T21:55:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The British were worse, because ex-Spanish colonies have better cuisine. > > (Indian cuisine is better than anything from Latin America, but it does not count, as it predated British colonization.) Then again, didn’t the Brits bring chilli peppers to India from South America, thus transforming Indian cuisine? ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/105 "2011-01-21T22:15:10Z")
> [@bbart4](#): > > Then again, didn’t the Brits bring chilli peppers to India from South America, thus transforming Indian cuisine? [Black Pepper](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pepper) is native to India. ---
**Author:** ![bbart4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/51bf81/32.png) [@bbart4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbart4)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/106 "2011-01-22T00:36:44Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > [Black Pepper](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pepper) is native to India. I said chilli pepper, NOT black pepper. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/107 "2011-01-24T15:05:49Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > To be fair, and if I’m not mistaken, there has been exactly one south-american country governed by a native and only once (the current Bolivian president). We don’t have natives, but we’ve had several mixed presidents, ranging from the very black to the “almost pass as white”. You are sadly misinformed. Our current president is obviously mixed, so is Chavez for that matter. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You might want to think a bit harder to find an example. A religion that combines the most ridiculous and superstitious elements of West African paganism and Roman Catholicism is not an inspiring one. It’s not any better or worse than any religion, but I think you missed his point. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > (Indian cuisine is better than anything from Latin America, but it does not count, as it predated British colonization.) Pistols at dawn! ---
**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:** [January 24, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/108 "2011-01-24T15:28:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The British were worse, because ex-Spanish colonies have better cuisine. Can’t agree. Sure, I love the chow you can get all around South America… but there’s nothing like roast beef, grilled catfish, mashed potatoes, stuffing, and all our arrays of pie. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/109 "2011-01-24T16:22:10Z")
I’d say that both countries have a mixed record. Take the carribean islands-islands once British (like Jamaica) are pretty poor and run down-the roads in jamaica are terrible. the capital (Kinston) is a dump. Aruba (still Dutch) is much better (modern roads, high living standard). Spain did some awful stuff (like kill most of the population of Peru (forced them to mine silver). But spain built up an infrastructure. Both colonial empires were based upon resource extraction. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/110 "2011-01-24T16:28:46Z")
The British killed off the dodo. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/111 "2011-01-24T16:29:53Z")
> [@bbart4](#): > > Then again, didn’t the Brits bring chilli peppers to India from South America, thus transforming Indian cuisine? **Somebody** did. Actually, I think the introduction of chillies\* to India predated British colonization. The Portuguese and Spanish were in India before the Brits. [Let’s see . . .](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper#History) > [@](#): > > Christopher Columbus was one of the first Europeans to encounter them (in the Caribbean), and called them “peppers” because they, like black and white pepper of the Piper genus known in Europe, have a spicy hot taste unlike other foodstuffs. Upon their introduction into Europe chilis were grown as botanical curiosities in the gardens of Spanish and Portuguese monasteries. But the monks experimented with the chilis’ culinary potential and discovered that their pungency offered a substitute for black peppercorns, which at the time were so costly that they were used as legal currency in some countries.[5] > > Chilies were cultivated around the globe after Columbus.[6][7] Diego Álvarez Chanca, a physician on Columbus’ second voyage to the West Indies in 1493, brought the first chili peppers to Spain, and first wrote about their medicinal effects in 1494. > > From Mexico, at the time the Spanish colony that controlled commerce with Asia, chili peppers spread rapidly into the Philippines and then to India, China, Korea and Japan. They were incorporated into the local cuisines. > > An alternate account for the spread of chili peppers is that the Portuguese got the pepper from Spain, and cultivated it in India.[8] The chili pepper figures heavily in the cuisine of the Goan region of India, which was the site of a Portuguese colony (e.g., vindaloo, an Indian interpretation of a Portuguese dish). Chili peppers journeyed from India, through Central Asia and Turkey, to Hungary, where it became the national spice in the form of paprika. - N.B.: “Chillies” apparently is how the word is always spelled in the context of Indian or Anglo-Indian cuisine. In Mexican or Tex-Mex, it’s “chilis” or, better, “chiles”; the spiced meat dish is “chili”; a powder made of dried and crushed chile peppers is “chile powder,” but a mixture of chile powder and other things prepared as a chili seasoning is “chili powder.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/112 "2011-01-24T16:33:32Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Can’t agree. Sure, I love the chow you can get all around South America… but there’s nothing like roast beef, grilled catfish, mashed potatoes, stuffing, and all our arrays of pie. Sauteed in olive oil with peppers, onions, and lots of garlic. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/113 "2011-01-24T16:34:58Z")
> [@perez1212](#): > > This is a rarity in former English colonies, where blacks, whites and Natives live culturally segregated. Errrr. No mate, only in the mass settlement colonies, such as Australia. But then Argentina looks rather similar. > [@](#): > > The English did not intermarry and children who were of mixed raced were considered bastards. You evidently haven’t spent much time in the British Caribbean. The English intermarried like little bunnies back in the day, and the mixed race people are dominant… well they’re all mixed race actually. > [@](#): > > A mixed race person in an former English colony is forced by societal factors to choose one race over the other, this is due to the lack of integration. This is only true of the United States (and I guess Aussie land). The American developed the most pernicious aspects of their colour bar all on their own, so I hardly see where the UK gets the blame. Hmmm, and to an extent in South Africa, but it was far less the English that pushed the colour bar. But in the African colonies, Ghana, etc. mixed race is quite a-Okay. > [@](#): > > In Latin america a mixed race person does not have much societal pressure to choose a race because there is less racial tension. Funny, Black Latin Americans have told me that its because the lighter people refuse to recognize how fundamentally prejudiced they are, using the excuse some cousin or the like married a coloured lady. Or had an affaire with her. > [@](#): > > The societal pressure comes from the English one drop rule. This rule is non existent in Latin America. Again, one-drop is more American than English. > [@](#): > > An example of racial and cultural integration in Latin America is afro-Cuban religion of Santeria. It is practiced by many regardless of race. This religion has crossed cultural and racial borders. It is no longer seen as a strictly afro-Cuban religion but as just a Cuban religion. Uhuh, that’s actually pretty condescending and pretty much indicates the blindness my black Latin friends complain about (see the picture link the other poster linked too, Cuban elite is pretty bloody European…). > [@](#): > > All in all, the English are worse then the Spanish. Former Anglo colonies are almost universally richer than their Spanish peers (peers in region). I’d say if we leave aside American history - what they did after their independence is their responsibility - British colonial rule comes off not badly (among a bad lot I should say). > [@](#): > > Sadly, this is not what is taught in American schools. The English and early Americans are called “settlers”, "pilgrims"or “colonist”. Where as the Spanish are called Conquers and are portrayed as rapist and murders. Hey mate, the US is not the only (former) British colony in the world. > [@](#): > > THIS IS AN UNFAIR PORTRAYAL!!! Not really. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > If this is the case, then why is there a severe under representation of Afro-Cubans in Cuban society? > > Both systems are bad IMO, however the Latin one is worse for one reason, they have a colour bar much more entrenched into society, in some ways it can be representated as a caste system, with full blooded Africans at the bottom, Afro Latinos and Metizos in the middle somewhere, and Latin-White at the top. I’d say Ryan is spot on here. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The British were worse, because ex-Spanish colonies have better cuisine. > > (Indian cuisine is better than anything from Latin America, but it does not count, as it predated British colonization.) Bollocks, Indian cuisine co-developed with the Empire - we were there so long you can’t separate the two (although certainly many excellent portions are from the Moghul days). Never mind you’re clearly confusing British National Cuisine (I can’t quite bring a defence for it myself) with the various colonial cuisines, which are generally outstanding (excluding Egypt, can’t understand what went wrong there). Ghana, the Caribbean, even Aussie land. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/114 "2011-01-24T16:41:02Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I’d say that both countries have a mixed record. Take the carribean islands-islands once British (like Jamaica) are pretty poor and run down-the roads in jamaica are terrible. the capital (Kinston) is a dump. Aruba (still Dutch) is much better (modern roads, high living standard). Spain did some awful stuff (like kill most of the population of Peru (forced them to mine silver). But spain built up an infrastructure. > Both colonial empires were based upon resource extraction. Mate, you’ve got not the first clue as to what you’re on about. First, comparing Aruba, which receives direct subsidies from Netherlands to Jamaica, that’s been under self rule since the 40s and independent since 1958 is just bloody daft. It’s apples and oranges. The decline of Jamaican infrastructure is pretty much a story of bad post independence governance. And to say the Spanish built up infrastructure is just … amazingly ignorant. The Spanish colonial empire was in fact pretty much known for the mediocrity of its infrastructure investment (as Spain began on a quasi Medieval mode of conquest to extract Bullion for the crown in the 1400s and had pissed away its capital by the time the concept of investment in infrastructure gained traction. Jaysus mate, try to post with some actual facts in it. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/115 "2011-01-25T18:33:30Z")
Before the Europeans colonised areas of the world the locals lived in love and peace with each other, in harmony with the environment and didn’t rape mother nature. The Aztecs, for example didn’t brutally butcher huge numbers of people, the Moghul lords treated their subject Indian peoples with fairnes, dignity and respect, (So that there is absaloutley no truth in the story that the creator of the Taj Mahal, for example had all of the workforces right hands cut off so that they never again could create such a work of beauty), In Africa the Zulus didn’t exterminate the bushmen when they migrated into the south of the continent, and Black East and West Africans didn’t enslave other Black Africans routinely BEFORE ever the Europeans appeared on the scene. ( and still don’t do so today ) These are just a very, very few examples of what the peace loving saints who inhabited the non European worlfd didn’t do to each other. Just because the losers lose it doesn’t make them innocents, it just makes them peoples who weren’t as good at winning as the people who actually won were. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/116 "2011-01-25T22:26:47Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I’d say that both countries have a mixed record. Take the carribean islands-islands once British (like Jamaica) are pretty poor and run down-the roads in jamaica are terrible. the capital (Kinston) is a dump. Aruba (still Dutch) is much better (modern roads, high living standard). Spain did some awful stuff (like kill most of the population of Peru (forced them to mine silver). But spain built up an infrastructure. > Both colonial empires were based upon resource extraction. Barbados people are considered ‘anglo blaxons’ for a reason, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/117 "2011-01-26T08:57:16Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Here’s a picture of Raul Castro and some of his generals: > > [http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo\_StoryLevel/080223/080223-cuba-generals-2p.grid-6x2.jpg](http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080223/080223-cuba-generals-2p.grid-6x2.jpg) > > With the exception of Estaban Lazo, the people who are in charge in Cuba tend to be a pretty pale group of individuals. OK, so your complaint is that the current Cuban government is not representative of the racial makeup of Cuban population. Thanks for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/118 "2011-01-26T16:16:10Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Never mind you’re clearly confusing British National Cuisine (I can’t quite bring a defence for it myself) . . . [George Orwell could,](http://orwell.ru/library/articles/cooking/english/e_dec) FWIW. ---
**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:** [January 26, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/119 "2011-01-26T17:26:30Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > OK, so your complaint is that the current Cuban government is not representative of the racial makeup of Cuban population. Thanks for the clarification. It’s **Ryan\_Liam** ’s complaint, not mine. But generally, historically, with a few important exceptions (like Battista), white and light skinned Cubans have tended to be more successful politically or economically than black and dark skinned Cubans. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238/120 "2011-01-26T19:07:28Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I should add that the former Spanish American colonies of Florida, Texas and California have done quite well under US 'meddling". That’s not exactly accurate… Texas in particular was also a French colony, and when it was developed beyond some missions in El Paso, Nacogdoches and San Antonio, it was part of Mexico, not Spain. And it was settled primarily by white immigrants from the US prior to the Texas Revolution, not Mexican immigrants. There were some (look up “Tejanos”), but they were not the majority. Most of early pre-independence Texan history and culture is derived from the white settlers to Mexican Texas, not from the Tejanos or Mexicans. Post independence, it is a combination of white immigrants from the US or from parts of Europe (primarily Bohemia, Moravia, Germany, and some Italians). You may as well lump Louisiana in with Texas, California and Florida above; they were part of Spain as well, just prior to 1803, but the French influence is what people remember. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-the-worse-coloniser-the-british-or-the-spanish/501238.md?page=5)