Were the Portuguese and Spanish colonies as rich or richer than the English ones before independence, or were they already shitholes?
Were the Portuguese and Spanish colonies as rich or richer than the English ones before independence, or were they already shitholes?
They were far richer because of cash crops, also sugar and coffee was the OG worth its weight in gold crop and these took in Latin America far greater than the American south. This is why Latin America in particular the Caribbean and Brazil received something like 85% of all slaves during the trade. But these dont make for a rich people, it makes for rich plantation owners but leave the people poor like it did in the American south
They were richer but went to shit because Catholic Meds are a far less competent and industrious people than Protestant Germanics.
The average person in all of Latin America never had the social mobility than an Anglo colonist did, colonists in the US or Canada could become rich off fur trading and then return to the UK to get educated and then open a large lucrative trade in the colonies. This was a pipe dream to 99% of all Latams who were beyond serfs. Latams were richer because of plantations as I said, but this is like being rich off of gold production. If just having large gdp is what mattered, then colonial era Peru and Belgian Congo were the best places to live which any sane person knows is hogwash
lmao cope
Sure bro, that's why Germans ran in the tens of millions to the USA and not Latin America, even Argentina only got a few hundred thousand for the massive horde the USA got. Google "the 1848 48''rs" We literally got two million Germans between 1840-1850, why didnt these krauts go to Latin America if what this German academic said was true? Obviously this had to be a position backed by fact and not sheer metaphor? lol
You moron. His account is from before the independence of Mexico (or of the USA, for that matter). This is first hand account written by one of the most notorious writer of his time. The fact that you're denying it show that you're not interested in a genuine debate and only seek to regurgitate /misc/ memes.
>or of the USA, for that matter
Ok I made a mistake it was written between 1799-1804 so after USA independence. Still before Latin America independence which is what interest me here.
No homie, i’m just saying that this was an obviously out of touch academic no different from those of today. Even in 1800 no Germans were going in serious numbers to Latin America while they were flooding the USA in the hundreds of thousands since even during the revolutionary war, our population would multiple multiple times in this period while Latin America’s was stagnant till its 20th century baby boom. No one was choosing Mexico and even the few who did in this period was only because the government was shafting the natives to give out prime farmland to illiterate Euros. Not really something that a nation confident in its super based worker wages has to do lol
> i’m just saying that this was an obviously out of touch academic no different from those of today
You're obviously a moronic /misc/tard who would go to any lenght to justify your narrative. I'm sure you never heard of Humboldt before this thread lol.
>Even in 1800 no Germans were going in serious numbers to Latin America while they were flooding the USA
There were no significant German immigration into north america before the 1840s. Besides, protestants would naturally go to another protestant country before a catholic one regardless of its quality.
>It is estimated that between 1800 and the present over seven million German-speakers emigrated to the U.S., the majority of whom arrived between about 1840 and 1914, with the peak period coming in the early 1880s.
>German Catholics did not arrive in number until after the War of 1812 (after the independence of latin america)
oh nonono yankbros, what will be our cope now
>beaner thinks im a dirty papist
bahahahaha
Yup that's our moronic low IQ inbred yank
I didn't imply that you were catholics. I showed that German catholics did not migrate en masse to the USA before the independence of latin america. Obviously Germans protestants would pick the USA over latin America, since they were protestants
Why should religion matter when immigrating? Italians and Irish came in droves to the USA before we banned Italians for a brief period. They were lining up to be descriminated against because life was that much better in the slums of New York over those in Buenos Aires.
Also nice whataboutism, this thread was about Latin American wealth, i stuck to the truth in all posts and talked only about the wealth disparity and social mobility found between the average Anglo colony and Iberian one, you started bring random quotes that had nothing to do with the reality and perception of literally everyone else during the period. I dont care if you can pull a random isolated mine in bumfrick scorching north Mexico paying their workers more due to high mortality over some random kraut one where they had a hundred thousand serfs surrounding said mine.
Also stop seething about religion, no one cared about that in the age of nationalism and it’s a modern day cope from wannabe trads on /misc/
>Italians and Irish came in droves to the USA before we banned Italians for a brief period
God you're so moronic. We're talking about the early 19th century.
>that had nothing to do with the reality and perception of literally everyone else during the period
Mind posting some sources then? Mine come from one of the most prominent writer of the time who directly traveled and lived for half a decade there.
>Also stop seething about religion, no one cared about that in the age of nationalism and it’s a modern day cope from wannabe trads on /misc/
>No one cared about religion in the early 19th century
lmao. Keep making a fool of yourself.
We recieved 100,000 Irish between 1776 and 1810, then 400,000 before the great famine. How many Euro immigrants did Latin America get before the Liberal revolutions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_immigration_to_the_Americas#Between_1640_and_1760
615,000
Additionally around 200,000 Germans and Frenchmen
How you gonna cope now?
>talking about early 1800’s
>homie brings out a wikipedia article for the 1600’s
Lmao
Also for that same period we got 2-3 million, so nice cope i guess bros, and that was without penal colonies and counting rape babies as immigrants lmao
>and counting rape babies
???
592,000 between 1640 and 1760
615,000 between 1760 and 1820
This isn't looking good yankbros...
Also dont beed sources when reality agrees with me, find me literally any source that says Latin America as a whole got even half of the amount of immigrants the USA did between 1800-1848. People immigrate for wealth, and reality disagress sharply for you and your cope. Everything I google literally points to the USA alone got more immigrants during the revolutionary war than latin America did as a whole before the Italian exodus, which mind you half of the entire total came to the USA before being banned and then resorting to Latin America
The USA was around 33% German in 1800. Just admit you know nothing anon, our founding father literally debated about possibly making German coofficial since we had so many kraut immigrants. You know nothing about immigrant trends and just want to make yourself feel better for the lack of accomplishments of your forefathers, you desperately need for them to have lived in pre-Capitalist utopias where all workers made a dozen times more than the Euros and that all of Latin America was a hidden gem till the evil Anglo bankers came to steal your money and made you no longer kangs.
You didn't even knew who Humboldt was before entering this thread. It's like not knowing who Voltaire or Hume are. Embarrassing.
They were significantly richer:
– “ THE INDIAN FARMER IS POOR BUT FREE. THEIR SITUATION IS MUCH BETTER THAN THAT OF THE PEASANTS OF NORTHERN EUROPE, ESPECIALLY RUSSIANS AND GERMANS. THE NUMBER OF SLAVES IS PRACTICALLY ZERO. ”
– “ THIS MUST BE KNOWN IN EUROPE! MEXICAN MINERS ARE THE BEST PAID IN THE WORLD, THEY RECEIVE SIX TO SEVEN TIMES MORE SALARY FOR THEIR WORK THAN A GERMAN MINER. ”
– ABSENCE OF SLAVERY: “ NEW SPAIN HAS A NOTABLE ADVANTAGE OVER THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT IS THAT THE NUMBER OF SLAVES, BOTH AFRICAN AND MIXED-RACE, IS ALMOST NIL. THE NUMBER OF AFRICAN SLAVES IN THE UNITED STATES EXCEEDS ONE MILLION, WHICH IS ONE SIXTH OF ITS POPULATION. ”
– ECONOMIC PROSPERITY: “ AMONG ALL THE KINGDOMS (OF SPAIN IN AMERICA) MEXICO CURRENTLY OCCUPIES THE FIRST PLACE, BOTH FOR ITS TERRITORIAL WEALTH AND FOR THE FAVORABLE POSITION OF ITS POSITION FOR TRADE WITH EUROPE AND ASIA.
– SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES: NO CITY IN AMERICA, WITHOUT EXCEPTING THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES, CAN EXHIBIT AS LARGE AND SOLID SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS AS MEXICO CITY. THE CAPITAL AND OTHER CITIES OF MEXICO HAVE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENTS THAT WILL LEAD TO A COMPARISON WITH THOSE OF EUROPE.
YES, HUMBOLDT IN A SINGLE DOCUMENT DENIES MANY OF THE ANGLO-SAXON LIES. SOMEONE MIGHT SAY THAT HE HIMSELF “ LIED ”. FOR HUMBOLDT WAS GERMAN AND PROTESTANT, SO IT IS ILLOGICAL THAT HE HAD A SPECIAL INCLINATION TO SPEAK WELL OF THE SPANISH CATHOLICS AND THEIR KINGDOMS.
IT IS NOT ABOUT IDEALIZING THAT PAST, BUT LEARNING FROM IT, AND THAT MEXICANS CAN REALIZE THAT “ YES YOU CAN ” IF YOU EVER COULD. WE CAN GET AHEAD LEARNING FROM OUR HISTORY, THE STORY THAT SADLY WE DON'T KNOW.
SOURCE:
– HUMBOLDT VON ALEXANDER (1811). POLITICAL ESSAY ON THE KINGDOM OF NEW SPAIN
These place went to shit after the catholic meds rulers were replaced by Masonic Zambos.
Slavery is terrible for the economy. It only brought wealth to the ultra wealthy.
The US south was struggling hard even with rice and tobacco as cash crops, the cotton gin really only delayed the inevitable. Meanwhile the North had a much stronger economy and more people allowing it to actually develop unlike the south or latin america.
>muh freemasons
>In turn, the Portuguese and Spanish governments did not tolerate the presence of foreigners in their colonies.[9] In Brazil, the Portuguese implemented a policy of preventing other Europeans from settling in their colony, by closing the ports and destroying any foreign vessel that tried to anchor in Brazilian lands.[10] It was only in 1808, with the Decree Opening Ports to Friendly Nations, that non-Portuguese immigration to Brazil was allowed.[11] The Spanish immigration policy was so strict that the Spanish government prohibited the entry not only of foreigners in its colonies, but also of Spaniards who were descendants, up to the second degree, of israelite and Muslim converts, as well as of Spaniards who were not subjects of the Kingdom of Castile, and even subjects had to have special authorizations to emigrate to the colonies.[9]
Okay show me this massive immigration wave 1800-pre 1848 which was your cope to begin with before you used typical Hispanic whataboutism
>pre 1848
why pre 1848? Latin america independence happened in the 1810s so pretty much after the ban was lift.
I don’t know why any anons ever reply to these b8 threads seriously, dont they know meds are schizos let alone their by blows?
The truth doesnt care about bean feelings
Black person this was your cope to begin with that Latin America was a paradise in 1800 making bucko bucks compared to the downtrotten Euros
No I said it was before the independence from Spain. I'm not Latino American so I couldn't give less of a shit about what happened there once they started to revolt against us.
>compared to the downtrotten Euros
I was comparing them to North Americans, not Europeans
So Latin American a massive shithole in the span of 20 years? Cool so why should anyone care about your shithole when the USA managed to become only richer following independence with the lolbert level tax rates raising a navy capable of sailing across the world to btfo the berber pirates
>So Latin American a massive shithole in the span of 20 years?
Yeah, I mean look at what happened in Haiti
Haiti had a complete slave revolution that resulted in tens of thousands of whites being genocided and half of all half breeds facing the same. It would as if when Mexico became independant, all whites were killed and then all mestizos were made into serfs. Latin America’s revolutions mirrored the USA’s and it isnt unfounded to expect similar results instead of anarchy
>USA revolution
>White people rise against their king or something
>Latin American revolution
>Brown people rise against white people
>Haiti revolution
>Brown people rise against white people
>But somehow Latin America revolution is more similar to USA than Haiti
???
Also they did discriminate against white in latin america
>In March 1814, Francia imposed a law that no Spaniard may intermarry with another Spaniard, and that they may only wed mestizos, Amerindians, or Africans. This was done to eliminate any socioeconomic disparities along racial lines, and also to end the predominantly criollo and peninsulare influence in Paraguay. De Francia himself was not a mestizo, but feared that racial disparities would create tensions that could threaten his absolute rule.[7]
Blacks are not browns, you wish it was so but hey atleast you're ahead poojeets. And cool, Paraguay that massive Latin American empire on par with the Mexican empire and Brazil in size and population, wow!
Yeah that's why Latin America is still better than Haiti
Also I'm not Latin American
THERE WERE NEVER SUCH THINGS AS «SPANISH COLONIES»; THE HISPANICAL MONARCHY WAS CONSTITUTED IN CATHOLICAL EMPIRE; EMPIRES CIVILIZE; THEY DO NOT COLONIZE.
PORTUGUESE COLONIES WERE ALWAYS RICHER THAN ANGLO ONES; ANGLO COLONIES WERE SORDID STARVATION • DISEASE CAMPS.
the fact spain willingly sold florida and lost control of Peru, Colombia and Mexico by that point should tell you how well ran it was
ferdinand the VII was a moron and even a mildly competent ruler could've stopped colonial spain from crumbling away and keep the spanish empire going
The USA became independent long before any Spanish colonies did, while also having been colonized much mater, what kind of argument is even this?
Much later*