Who was the worse coloniser - the British or the Spanish?

[KarlGrenze]

@Nava

Something that was pointed out was the “wobbliness” of policies from Spain toward her colonies.

policies weren’t just wobbly overseas, they were equally crazy in the mainland.

I realize that (and had to learn about them in class), I forgot to point that out :smack:(see, I thought they took the same class I had to take).

Point still stands that the Spanish Empire was not magnanimous and nice to its colonies, and of course, didn’t treat all of them equally. The bigger ones flourished, while the smaller ones were left behind, to be used as… I have no idea.

[Sitnam]

The Dutch in the East Indies were pretty harsh, but yeah, I’d stay the hell away from the Congo.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@sailor

I think you are simplifying and confusing things.

Back atcha.

As far as I know Spain never had segregation or other racist laws like were common in British colonies.
In Spanish history compared with Anglo history you will find Anglos always were more racist.

You need to tune up on your Spanish history. Half a century passed since Britain abolished slavery throughout their empire before Spain did the same finally in Cuba. During that time, British ships were scouring the Atlantic to thwart the slave trade.

cite

Spain abolished slavery in Puerto Rico in 1873 and in Cuba only in 1886. Once slavery was abolished in Cuba, legal slavery gradually came to an end in the Caribbean and the rest of the Spanish possessions…Perhaps due in part to the Spanish colonies’ late discovery of the money to be made on slave production of sugarcane, particularly on Cuba, the Spanish colonies were among the last to make any moves to abolish slavery. While the British colonies abolished slavery completely by 1834, Cuba still hung on to the process until 1888.

I wonder how long its going to take before bull fighting is finally banned

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.

Well I’m not anglo, and I have no qualms accepting the superiority of British colonial history over Spanish colonial history, or Dutch colonial history for that matter.

[Martini_Enfield]

@sailor

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.

As far as I can tell, the only Spanish colonies to be voluntarily “given up” (ie, not the subject of a War of Indepdendence) in the 20th Century are Equatorial Guinea and Spanish Morocco. And of the two of them, only Equatorial Guinea was given unilateral independence in the same way most of the British colonies were.

Spanish Morocco was ceded to Morocco for political reasons (in that, without France controlling the other half of the territory there was going to be a popular uprising in Spanish Morocco anyway), and before anyone mentions Spanish Sahara, it’s still technically part of Spain (at least as far as the UN is concerned) and both Morocco and the Polisario Front are fighting over it, so it doesn’t count.

In other words, Spain has had one former Colony peacefully decolonised in the 20th Century, and it basically turned to shit as soon as the last planeload of Spaniards lifted off the runway in 1975. Not only that, but, in a case of life imitating art, British industrialists and financiers were implicated in an attempted Coup there in 2004, which was almost an exact case of Real Life Imitating Art (more specifically, the Frederick Forsyth book The Dogs Of War).

True, not all the places the British left evolved into Paragons Of Civilisation And Stability, but most of them did. Of all the former Spanish colonies, there’s only one or two equivalents of Australia or Canada or India or even - ie, a sizeable, stable, democratic country. That’s not very impressive when you consider the Spanish controlled a sizeable chunk of the planet at one point.

[Mosier]

@sailor

This post exhibits extreme ignorance about Hernan Cortes and the conquest of Mexico.

I’ll admit it was pretty long on hyperbole, but I’m curious about just what you think about Cortes. He came to Mexico to conquer and pillage. The same is almost universally true for all of the Spanish contact with the Americas.

The British came as either settlers or governors, depending on the place. I’m not glossing over the atrocities the British committed against some of the natives they came across, but there are lots of former British colonies which still have close, friendly ties with England.

The Spanish intermarried with natives more than other colonizers because the Spanish colonizers were veteran soldiers who just finished (mostly) kicking out the Muslims and were looking for another war. They weren’t families. The British colonizers usually came for religious or political reasons, and usually included a bigger mix of women than Spanish groups had.

[KarlGrenze]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

You need to tune up on your Spanish history. Half a century passed since Britain abolished slavery throughout their empire before Spain did the same finally in Cuba. During that time, British ships were scouring the Atlantic to thwart the slave trade.

cite

He was talking about segregation laws and other things put in place after slavery was made illegal (like what happened in the US). Now, I admit that I don’t know if the laws that were passed in the US have similarities with laws in other countries that were part of the British Empire (or Great Britain itself)… Oh wait, there’s South Africa…

Freed blacks, which existed in the colonies, had no such segregation laws (that I know of, I’m certain Puerto Rico didn’t have them, haven’t done enough history on all the other countries to figure it out). In some areas and times the communities were more established than the slave communities, and they were the majority of blacks instead of the minority.

[sailor]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

You need to tune up on your Spanish history. Half a century passed since Britain abolished slavery throughout their empire before Spain did the same finally in Cuba. During that time, British ships were scouring the Atlantic to thwart the slave trade.

I already said that so I do not need to tune up anything. And I agree that in that particular instance Britain came out ahead. And I also explained that Spain was very weak at the time and maintaining slavery in Cuba was a concession to the American sugar mill and plantation owners. It was wrong but Spain was, as is painfully obvious, unable to enforce its policies in Cuba.

@The_Flying_Dutchman

I wonder how long its going to take before bull fighting is finally banned

WTF has this got to do with anything being discussed here?

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Well I’m not anglo, and I have no qualms accepting the superiority of British colonial history over Spanish colonial history, or Dutch colonial history for that matter.

And I think that is an extremely simplistic view.

[XT]

Slavery in the Spanish New World colonies

Slavery in the Spanish colonies began with the capture and subjugation of local Native Americans. Initially, enslavement represented one means by which the Spaniards mobilized native labor. Other forms of coerced labor used were the encomienda, repartimiento and the mita. However, as these populations shrank due to imported European diseases, warfare, and famine, African slaves began to be used instead. Beginning in 1502, the enslavement of Africans in Spanish America did not officially end until 1886. Native slavery was prohibited during the first half of the sixteenth century, although some enslavement continued under the guise of just war.

Spanish enslavement of Africans

Bartolomé de las Casas (1484 - 1566) recorded the effects of slavery on the Native populations. Following what many of his contemporaries were suggesting, he initially preferred to replace Natives with African slaves to alleviate their suffering.[1] However, he later spoke against African slavery as well once he saw it in action.[2]

In 1501 the Spanish monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, granted permission to the colonists of the Caribbean to import African slaves. Between 1502 and 1518, Spain shipped out hundreds of Spanish-born Africans, called Ladinos, to work as labourers, especially in the mines. Opponents of their enslavement cited their weak Christian faith and their penchant for escaping to the mountains or joining the Native Americans in revolt. Proponents declared that the rapid diminution of the Native American population required a consistent supply of reliable work hands. Free Spaniards were reluctant to do manual labour or to remain settled (especially after the discovery of gold on the mainland), and only slave labour could assure the economic viability of the colonies. In 1518 the first shipment of African-born slaves was sent to the West Indies. The Spaniards, although major purchasers of slaves, did not trade on the African coast until the late 1700s. However, it is estimated that 95 percent of the African slaves transported to the New world from the 15th to the 19th century were sent to Latin America and the Caribbean. In total, the Spanish colonies received about 2 million.[3]

Spain abolished slavery in Puerto Rico in 1873 and in Cuba only in 1886. Once slavery was abolished in Cuba, legal slavery gradually came to an end in the Caribbean and the rest of the Spanish possessions.[4]

@sailor

And I also explained that Spain was very weak at the time and maintaining slavery in Cuba was a concession to the American sugar mill and plantation owners.

I asked you already for a cite for this. Can you cite that the Spanish government wanted to end slavery in Cuba but did not because of US pressure due to US sugar plantation owners? Afaik the US mostly pulled out of the sugar business in Cuba after the late 1860’s due to the risk…and didn’t start to crank that back up until after the Spanish American war, when we seized Cuba. If you have other information feel free to provide it. Keep in mind that the Spanish didn’t end slavery until 1886.

-XT

[Mighty_Girl]

@Jophiel

No, it is a plain assumption that white skin = better people = more success.

That is an oversimplification, but it is in essence the truth. All things being equal light skinned people are more likely to have an easier life, just like any other group of people whose ancestors were not slaved and maintained in poverty.

The racial dynamics in the Spanish Caribbean (the only part of Latin America I know “well” are as different to that of the US as Spanish is to English, they are not mutually comprehensible. One of my favorite words in English is miscegenation. Something that had a bad connotation in the US a few decades ago is something Spanish Caribbean people are, and were very proud of (how mixed we are).

I don’t see how we will agree about who was the best, or worse colonizer. From what point of view? From that of the people in the colonies (when they were colonies)? From that of the numerical majority in such colonies (undoubtedly the poorest and most oppressed)? I presented my theory on why I would have been better off exactly where I am now.

If we are going to use the current state of affairs then a few things have to be taken into consideration. The current state of the former colonies are not a direct, lineal result from the actions of the conquerors. Many things have happened, many other players entered the arena in over 2 centuries to change the equation.

[perez1212]

In Latin america native people and their descendants do not live on reservations. Native cultures are integrated into main stream society, for example in Paraguay, the native language of guarani is taught in schools and is an official language. Many natives still live the same way they did years ago. Others have integrated into western society through intermarriage and acculturation. Many central and south american countries are mostly composed of mestizos.

This is a rarity in former English colonies, where blacks, whites and Natives live culturally segregated. The English did not intermarry and children who were of mixed raced were considered bastards. This is why the word Mulatto is considered such an insult in the USA, where are in Latin America it is common use. 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. In Latin america a mixed race person does not have much societal pressure to choose a race because there is less racial tension.

The societal pressure comes from the English one drop rule. This rule is non existent in Latin America.

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.

The USA has recently elected the first mulatto or “black” president. Latin america has has many mestizo, Indian, mulatto and black presidents long before Obama or any other mixed raced president of a former English colony.

All in all, the English are worse then the Spanish. 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.

THIS IS AN UNFAIR PORTRAYAL!!!

[clairobscur]

@Estilicon

True, again, there are inequalities but when Australia is governed by a native you can preach to the masses Martini Enfield.

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).

[Strainger]

I don’t know about the British and Spanish, but the Zombie colonizers were the worst.

[BrainGlutton]

@perez1212

An example of racial and cultural integration in Latin America is afro-Cuban religion of Santeria.

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.

[clairobscur]

Forget about it. Zombie colonists.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@Strainger

I don’t know about the British and Spanish, but the Zombie colonizers were the worst.

I resent that.

[Candyman74]

@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.

Are you implying that places like the USA, India, Northern Ireland, and Scotland are *not *fairly stable and civilised places?

[Ryan_Liam]

@perez1212

In Latin america native people and their descendants do not live on reservations. Native cultures are integrated into main stream society, for example in Paraguay, the native language of guarani is taught in schools and is an official language. Many natives still live the same way they did years ago. Others have integrated into western society through intermarriage and acculturation. Many central and south american countries are mostly composed of mestizos.

This is a rarity in former English colonies, where blacks, whites and Natives live culturally segregated. The English did not intermarry and children who were of mixed raced were considered bastards. This is why the word Mulatto is considered such an insult in the USA, where are in Latin America it is common use. 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. In Latin america a mixed race person does not have much societal pressure to choose a race because there is less racial tension.

The societal pressure comes from the English one drop rule. This rule is non existent in Latin America.

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.

The USA has recently elected the first mulatto or “black” president. Latin america has has many mestizo, Indian, mulatto and black presidents long before Obama or any other mixed raced president of a former English colony.

All in all, the English are worse then the Spanish. 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.

THIS IS AN UNFAIR PORTRAYAL!!!

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.

[Nava]

Ryan_Liam, perez1212 is new here and doesn’t know how to use the Quote function. Part of his post is quotes, but picking out which parts and fixing the quotes is going to be a byiotch.

I’d still like to know how do you figure there’s “a severe under representation of Afro-Cubans in Cuban society”. Do you mean that the population isn’t mixed enough, that there aren’t enough black/mixed-race Cubans for your taste, that there aren’t enough of them in the Government, that they tend to be disproportionatelly poor?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Nava

I’d still like to know how do you figure there’s “a severe under representation of Afro-Cubans in Cuban society”. Do you mean that the population isn’t mixed enough, that there aren’t enough black/mixed-race Cubans for your taste, that there aren’t enough of them in the Government, that they tend to be disproportionatelly poor?

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

With the exception of Estaban Lazo, the people who are in charge in Cuba tend to be a pretty pale group of individuals.

[Marley23]

@Nava

Ryan_Liam, perez1212 is new here and doesn’t know how to use the Quote function. Part of his post is quotes, but picking out which parts and fixing the quotes is going to be a byiotch.

I only did a cursory search, but I don’t think he quoted from any other posts. If I’m wrong I’m happy to edit his post to fix the coding.