Yes, I did overlook Costa Rica.
You’d have to cite it…I don’t remember you as a poster and afaik I’ve never responded to you in a thread before.
As for the latter part, if you know the answer to a question then don’t ask me to answer it and then get bent out of shape when I dismiss you as ignorant. If you knew about Spanish atrocities in Cuban then why did you ask me about them…why didn’t you mention this when I asked YOU a question? Next time simply answer me…then, if I disagree I’ll disagree with you. I won’t dismiss you as being ignorant on the subject.
They were still Spanish colonies, so of course they qualify as examples in the thread. That was the point of the thread…to compare Spanish to British COLONIAL practices to determine who was ‘worse’.
The Spanish treated the Cuban’s like shit for a LONG time before they finally revolted…that’s kind of why they DID revolt after all. Colonies that didn’t have problems with the mother country tended to remain within the sphere of influence of the mother country if they felt they were getting a fair deal.
Yeah, I agree, the US rather deliberately set out to remove the Spanish from what we considered our sphere of influence…and yeah, we used the excuse for war to drive the Spanish out and seize several of their colonies. And yeah, we treated the Filipino’s like shit when we snatched the PI. No doubt, all true…but it really doesn’t have much to do with colonial practices of the Spanish or British, unless you want to try and put forth that the US was worst. Mind, the US colonial period was pretty brief, so it’s going to be a hard sell I think, but if you want to try and do that you can. Personally, I think that even attempting to compare US expansionism on the continent would be a hard sell compared to the history of both British and Spanish expansionism, but that’s just me. I don’t think you’d get much argument from anyone around here (me included) that US expansionism and how we treated the Native American’s was in any way, shape or form one of the shining examples in history.
Still, if you or Sailor want to make the case that US colonialism was equivalent to Spanish or British then go for it.
-XT
Dictatorships aside (from which I don’t think it should be fair to blame Spain), Argentina seems to be doing very well(says one who is not fond of them). And really, most of the countries, at least in the cities, are comparable to other cities in the US. Heck, I found Lima and Cuzco to be in some cases more technological advanced than some cities in the US.
And really, I’d rather visit or live in any of the Latin American nations than in the majority of the various other countries spread around the world which were colonized by the other European countries (British, Belgian, Italian, etc.).
Not all the countries in the world can be really technological advanced and developed as others. Former colonies start at a disadvantage, as the colonial powers did not help with stimulating the economy and developing it independently from the power. Of those that did, I’d say the British probably did a slightly better job than other powers.
I realize I am hijacking the thread but, why don’t you like us?
I’m going to guess something along the lines of Exocet missles and Diego Maradona’s right hand. That is, if KarlGrenze is British. Confusingly, I believe Karl is a she, too.
I’m no expert in Spanish history, but wasn’t this recognition due to the overwhelming atrocities and murders of the native populations? It seems a little convenient to claim Spain as more enlightened just because they did their murdering earlier and then also regretted it earlier.
I feel this is also a very problematic claim. Anyone who spends any amount of time in Latin America will soon realize that racism is a huge problem and that the lightness or darkness or your skin is almost as big a deal as it is in the United States. Sure, there is no false divide between “white” and “black” like the U.S., it’s more of a color continuum, but “light skin = ruling elite” is pretty much standard operating procedure as far as I can tell in Latin America. (I can’t speak for the Caribbean nations; I would be interested to hear how the Afro-Caribbean populations fit into this equation.)
Also, I would question whether Indian populations in Argentina are much better off than their American and Australian counterparts. As far as I can tell, they mostly live in far-flung provinces in deep poverty. Am I incorrect in this impression?
That being said, Argentina is a wonderful country and everyone should really visit. I’d put it up there against any former British colony.
Who does anyway?
This.
Spaniards, although not strangers to racism, were not exactly oblivious to other races, and had managed to live in relative peace with their “browner” conquerors for centuries. Spaniards had no qualms about mixing, and by reading the first description of Arawak women penned by the Spaniards, it seemed that the lecherous bunch found them quite attractive (it helped that the women were prancing around naked).
Although Dominicans have long argued that the Spaniards killed most of the Tainos, the fact is that they disappeared mostly because of European diseases, assimilation, low birth rate and yes, mistreatment. Spaniards considered their mixed children to be their own, even those with African slaves, which is why we have our own racial dynamics in the Spanish Caribbean.
It sucked to be conquered by anyone, ever. But at that point in history, I would have been MUCH better off in a Spanish colony, although it would just mean that it sucked less.
Worth noting that on the whole the end of British colonisation and Empire was a period of decolonisation and granting of independence, once the British realised the jig was up.
The end of Spanish colonisation and Empire was marked by a several wars of independence, by all the jewels in the Spanish Empire; Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Cuba.
That’s not to say that Britain didn’t have trouble, but on the whole they seemed to finish the whole business of Empire less…messily than the Spanish.
Well, yes, pretty much every war has been sold in America as a selfless effort to liberate other people and that is how the war with Spain was sold and I suppose Twain bought it but it soon became obvious what the real motives were when the liberated peoples started shooting at the Americans who would just not go away.
The notion of the “Spanish tiranny” in the colonies is sadly laughable because Spain at that stage had little effective power. As I say, Cuba was already pretty much in the hands of American mill owners and Spain dared not displease them by outlawing slavery. In the end it did Spain no good as the Americans took over anyway. The exploitation of Cuba in the following decades gave rise to such resentment that Castro was the natural result.
Again, I much recommend Hugh Thomas’ book. It is the best history of Cuba I have read.
So Mark Twain might have bought the propaganda at first but was intelligent enough to soon see that it was just disguised imperialism.
this is quite true but, again, we are comparing totally different periods in history. The independence of the USA is more comparable. You cannot compare things that happened centuries apart.
Spain’s possessions in Africa were decolonised in the 1970’s without wars unlike French Algeria in the 1960’s. That seems appropriately comparable to the British decolonizations after WWII.
Like saying the British left the colonies with trains and telegraphs but the Spanish didn’t. Well, those things had not been invented yet when Spanish America became independent so I am not sure what the accusation is. The British also left the USA without trains or telegraphs.
Look, I am not saying all Spain did was good or all other countries did was bad. I am saying that ALL countries have their good and their bad and painting Spain in a much worse light is ignorant of the truth.
And, I am a great admirer of the Brits and their culture which I think has some very admirable aspects.
I am bilingual and bicultural myself and have seen the ignorance on both sides so no side has the monopoly of this either but it bothers me when one side paints the other side as much worse. History is not like that and Spain was historically no worse than other European countries.
Any country who believes they are better than the others is almost certainly wrong and almost certainly dangerous.
Exactly. Sorry, my original quote should’ve included a smiley. Estilicon, your country may be awesome, but unfortunately many Argentinians that I’ve met (not a lot), fit the stereotype. Plus, Brazil is still better. 
The rest of Mighty Girl’s post applies to PR too. And yes, the mixed children where considered their own, which IIRC some people mention affected some population data. Sometimes they didn’t separate who was “mixed”, so the kids would either be placed under “Indians” or “Spaniards”. This could show a decrease in the native population (true), a high increase in the Spanish conquerors (overestimated), and low intermarriage rates (probably false).
As to the black and white thing… In general it is the “elite is whiter”… But the poor’s life sucked the same whether they were (freed) black or white (and had access to about the same legal rights).
I’m a female, and while I am very pale, I’m also 100% Caribbean born and raised. No British ancestors here, but I can claim some from Africa.
You mean, things like Madrid timidly and repeatedly reminding the viceroys that slavery was illegal and the viceroys repeatedly ignoring it?
QFT.
As has been said before, the comparison is a bit Granny Smith and Washington: they’re both apples but very different.
Ok, fair enough. Many people in Argentina don’t like the British for the same reasons: Several times we went to war with them and the events of 1966 :).
Please look at the dates again. The discussions, the laws and the efforts to stop the abuse happened before the bulk of the conquest began, they started when the first news of the discovery reached Spain.
You have to be kidding me.
I am for a far flung province. The fact is that the states in the north are the poorer in Argentina for a variety of reasons (mountains not Pampas for example). They also happen to be the ones with a bigger proportion of indians (which are few in all the country though).
Apples and pears my friend. One happened, for the most part, in the early 19 century and the other, for the most part, after WWII.
I think that the Spanish saw their colonies as part of “Greater Spain”, and that they felt the colonies would always be a part of the mother country. British coonization was more commercial or expedient (e.g. Aden was colonized because the British Royal Navy needed a coaling and refit station between Suez and India). However, Britain did invest large amountsof capital in their colonies (with the exception of the African ones); this was not the case with Spain (Spain largely missed the industrial revolution, and wound up as poor as many of her colonies).
I don’t know which corner of Latin America you’re from but my wife is from Peru and she’d absolutely agree with the notion that white is considered better in her native country. The lighter your skin, the more likely to you are get ahead with less effort, other things being more or less equal. Girls, particularly ones of indigenous blood, are encouraged to “marry white” to better the chances for their lighter-skinned children’s futures.
Very true (and also to follow on from what Estilicon said) - but then if we go down that road (admittedly we are already knee-deep in whig history) we’re already comparing things that are centuries apart; the Spanish Empire being a direct product of the Age of Discovery, reaching it’s height during the 16th - 18th centuries, whilst the British Empire had its seeds in trading posts established at this time, but would not reach it’s zenith until the 19th/early 20th centuries, when Spain’s Empire was falling apart. It’s only natural that the British Empire dissolved later than the Spanish - it started later.
It’s admittedly tempting to think that because the British Empire dissolved in the 20th century the business was bound to be more civilised and without the wars of independence that marked the death of Spain’s oversees empire in the 19th century. However, the 20th century was no stranger to colonies fighting wars of independence against their former colonial masters. Would this have been the case if Britain hadn’t begun voluntarily granting autonomy to colonies? Who knows, but the fact that they did avoided such an outcome occurring.
I think you are simplifying and confusing things.
As far as I know Spain never had segregation or other racist laws like were common in British colonies. Never. The Spanish considered the natives legally their equals and they mixed, married and lived with them. The colonized people were given all Human and Civil Rights that the Spanish people had. In this respect Spanish colonization was far ahead of its other European counterparts.
You may be confusing plain and simple desire for wealth and power with racism. In any society those in power are seen as desirable by those less wealthy and powerful. Spain has a huge Moroccan immigrant population and these immigrants often complain of racism in the way they are treated without thinking that if they are treated badly it is not because of their race but because of their poverty and ignorance and that Spanish individuals of the same social class are treated pretty much the same and that there are plenty of Arab wealthy and royalty who come to Spain and have no complaints about being treated as any other wealthy Spanish individuals. So don’t assume racism where there is none and what there is is the universal desire for money and power.
Ask blacks or latinos in America what their experience is and you will see it also has a lot to do with wealth and power.
I have never been to Perú but I cannot see how “Girls, particularly ones of indigenous blood, are encouraged to “marry white” to better the chances for their lighter-skinned children’s futures” can to be blamed on anyone but those who do the encouraging. There is a sizable Peruvian (as well as Ecuatorian, etc) immigrant population in Spain and of course marriage with Spanish people is considered desirable because Spanish citizenship carries certain advantages and because the Spanish tend to be better off economically than the immigrants. I cannot fathom why this desire of the immigrants would in any way imply racism on the part of the Spanish. On the contrary, it seems that the fact they are marrying the immigrants shows the contrary.
In any poor country marrying a person from a richer country is considered as something desirable.
In Spanish history compared with Anglo history you will find Anglos always were more racist.
Of course when any powerful people expand they have a belief in the superiority of their culture. No people expanded by thinking “Boy, we really are inferior and suck at everything we do so let us invade the neighbors and learn their culture and customs”. Every culture who had the power to expand believed in the superiority of its own culture and that everybody else should be like them. Whether it was religion, democracy or whatever. Look at the feeling and attitude of superiority today of Americans. Ask Iraqis if they believe they are treated with respect and as equals by Americans. Of course not.
We continually hear here and everywhere how America is the greatest country on earth and superior to every other country. And as the 4th of July approaches this rhetoric increases exponentially.
Now, take impressionable young people and imprint them with that notion of superiority and send them to expand that in the world. But not by convincing anyone but by the use of brute force. A young man who is a nobody in America, who may be poor and whose personal life may be in shambles can go to Iraq and feel the superiority the barrel of a gun gives him. He can kill and he has the belief that he has the right to do so on his side.
Spanish colonization was considerably tolerant, even by today’s standards. But, of course, anglo cultures have taught that the Spanish were awful, and that anglos were superior. Like the Germans taught they were superior and the Japanese taught they were superior.
To the extent that anglos today believe their history and culture is better than others that is not a good thing but a bad thing. Just like it is a bad thing when the Japanese or others do it.
The fact is that both the British and the Spanish granted independence withour wars in the 20th century and that both fought colonial wars in the late 18th century (4th of July coming up). The paths are quite similar. Both adapted to the tone of the times in that regard.
No, it is a plain assumption that white skin = better people = more success.
I’m not really looking to have a debate by proxy for my wife but we’ve spoken about it at length (including a recorded interview I did with her for some local historical archives) on the topic and there is, in her opinion, a definate spectrum of racial discrimination with darker skinned people seen as less desirable, educated, “worthy”, whatever and lighter skinned people seen as basically universally better.
All I was refering to was this:
…to which Estilicon replied…
By all reports from the wife, Erdosain’s remarks are 100% correct for Peru, though they obviously may not hold up across all of Latin America.
This is all aside from the greater debate regarding colonization and I wasn’t trying to conflate the two.
Something that was pointed out was the “wobbliness” of policies from Spain toward her colonies.
Between 1492 and Cuba’s Independence, the territory which currently is Spain
- went from three kingdoms to one,
- underwent several civil wars,
- several changes of dinasty,
- a Republic,
- several foreign invasions (some of the Latin American Wars of Independence didn’t start against “Spain” but against the Napoleonic invaders), including its own War of Independence,
- had good kings, bad kings, strong kings, kings who wanted everybody to fear them, kings who wanted everybody to love them, kings who were busy running after actresses while their privados ruled, kings who wanted to be the State…
policies weren’t just wobbly overseas, they were equally crazy in the mainland.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you here. Have a look at A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies - the Spanish were far from enlightened colonisers. There was no doubt the Spanish considered them superior in every way to the natives. Culturally (when Las Casas argues that the natives are civilised due to their art, Sepulverda replies “…do not bees and spiders make beautiful things human beings cannot entirely emulate?”), morally (forced conversion to Catholicism, destruction of native beliefs) , militarily (Waman Poma writes to Phillip II; “Our Indians should not be thought of as a backward people who yielded easily to superior force. Just imagine, Your Majesty, being an Indian in your own country and loaded up as if you were a horse…What would you and your Spanish compatriots do in such circumstances? My own belief is that you would eat your tormentors alive and thoroughly enjoy the experience…”).
Tormentors? Hardly a description you’d use for a tolerant coloniser. I have absolutely no doubt that the British are also guilty of mistreating natives too, of course - the betrayal of Tecumseh, for example.
Of course, this is more whig history; we can’t apply the standards of today to the past. Everyone looks bad.
The American Revolution can be seen as almost a one-off - it happened centuries before the rest of the British Empire became independent, was brought about by extraordinary circumstances, and didn’t repeat itself. Contrast with the Spanish experience; pretty much the whole of Spain’s possessions in the New World rebelled by force when the Empire was in terminal decline. When the British Empire was in terminal decline, the granting of independence throughout the sixties. When the Portuguese colonial possessions wish for independence around the same time; bloody wars of independence.
Again, I wish to emphasise; ‘worse’ is entirely relative, the British were certainly no angels.