I’ve always heard this was because of what was learned from the American Revolutionary War. I’m not sure what if any implications this has on the original question.
Not equivalent, but similar: Organization of Ibero-American States - Wikipedia
Estilicon, I think you’re being a touch too defensive here. Admittedly the only place in Latin America I’ve been to is Mexico, but I liked it very much.
That still doesn’t change the fact that, in popular imagination, Latin America is Not A Safe Place and that it’s over-run with Revolutionaries (Colombia), Drugs (Most of Central America and Colombia), Elderly Nazis (Argentina), Corrupt Dictators (Most of it), Banana Republics (Central America), Communists (Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela). Those perceptions may not be 100% correct today, but like it or not, that’s the legacy Spain has left their former Colonies in the New World, at least in the eyes of the English-speaking world.
To be fair to the Spanish, the heyday of their Empire was 250 years before people in Britain started looking at maps of Africa and saying “You know what this map needs? More red coloured areas”, though.
But wait. Was the Belgian Congo British or Spanish?
This post exhibits extreme ignorance about Hernan Cortes and the conquest of Mexico.
I might accept a certain blame for the Spanish culture in what you say but to a very limited extent for several reasons. One is that Spanish culture, as has been said, mixed with local culture, did not entirely replace it, so what you have is not Spanish culture but a creole mixture. Not to mention that It’s been over 200 years since Spain ruled South America. And, as has been said, in the much more recent history it has been the USA who have intervened and influenced Latin America, politically, economically and militarily.
And it worked pretty well, considering.
The other thing is that most of the Spanish colonies in The New World became independent in the early part of the 19th century- before such innovations as “Railways” and “The Telegraph” and “Electricity” and “Radio” and so forth were widely available. Most of the British Colonies became independent in the 1950s and 1960s, and when the British left, there was a functioning transport and communication infrastructure that enabled the Westminster-model Government the British set up before they left to continue to govern the country effectively.
And even the places that became nominally independent in the 19th Century (Canada, for example) still remained fairly “close” to Great Britain, if that makes sense. Spain, as far as I can tell, basically cut their American colonies loose and pretty much left them to it.
So whilst the former British colonies either started out as strong, stable democratic countries or still had the British nearby to lend a helping hand if needs be, the Spanish former colonies did not have those benefits and were basically on their own.
So, in that sense, the British were better colonisers than the Spanish, IMHO, because they left their former colonies with solid infrastructure and democratic government, and the Spanish, generally, didn’t.
Friends that I have from Mexico City area identify with Aztec culture in a way that is very foreign to me.
Neither…but my post was in response to the statement that the Portugese were the worst colonizers of all the European powers.
Perhaps. To the eyes of the world Australia is full of convicts and kangaroos. This is supposed to be the SDMB, we do things different in here.
And Argentina is both a place were Nazis and one of the world largest and most dynamic jewish communities lives.
Of course, the meddling of the United States (and European powers earlier on in the history of “independent” Latin America) hasn’t helped matters. That’s not to get into a debate about the “Evil United States” but it’s interesting because a significant percentage of Latin America’s more modern problems can be traced to a former British colony.
+1.
fruit cartels may sound harmless but they are a sheisty bunch. confessions of an economic hitman is an easy read that showcases how corporations exploit countries.
That’s a wonderful book but I am very unsure about its legitimacy. I wish I had access to other primary sources that could confirm or deny what he says.
Australia is full of Kangaroos. 
Also, there’s a news story on the wire service this morning about a military coup in Honduras… like it or not, that sort of thing does seem to happen in Latin America rather often*, so it’s not like the stereotypes are completely unfounded.
*Ie, more often than, say, India or Kenya or Malaysia
Makes you wonder why Canada, which borders the US for thousands of miles doesn’t have these “modern problems”.
They were a British colony made up of mainly british citizens.
Plus, you can’t grow bananas there.
What Martini Enfield said.
Walks away whistling nonchalantly, head held high, upper lip suitably stiffened, umbrella neatly folded, knotted handerchief on head