Spain was absolute shit at colonisation.

[Crustaciouse]

All of their colonies are shitholes, they haven't produced a single good colony.
One thing that they did wrong was that they didn't genocide the native population. The British killed the natives and replaced them with Brits, thus creating a stable population of intelligent modern people.
The Spanish on the other hand had their colonies filled with africans, mestizos, and natives, this created a shitshow demographic.
If they wiped them all out and replaced them with Spanish people then maybe south America wouldn't be a shithole.

 

[OTaKu_WarrIOr_N]

Most indigenous people died from disease, not killings.

 

[nausea]

If they wiped them all out and replaced them with Spanish people then maybe south America wouldn't be a shithole.

beg to differ

 

[Crustaciouse]

If they wiped them all out and replaced them with Spanish people then maybe south America wouldn't be a shithole.

beg to differ

How So?

---

Most indigenous people died from disease, not killings.

I know but the Spanish promoted mixing with the natives and integrating them instead of killing them.

 

[nausea]

How So?

spanish and portuguese are shit

 

[Crustaciouse]

How So?

spanish and portuguese are shit

Don't let zyros catch you saying that.

 

[Tellem--T]

Don't let zyros catch you saying that.

what is zyros going to do with his toddler frame

 

[Sub8Hate]

spanish and portuguese are shit

Cuidado com esa boca rapaz. Where are the Italian American colonies? Oh yeah, there aren't any. Bitchhh

 

[Sub8Hate]

spanish and portuguese are shit

Says the Italian that had no American colonies,  at all.

 

[nausea]

spanish and portuguese are shit

Says the Italian that had no American colonies, at all.

elab?

 

[Juxtaposition6]

All of their colonies are shitholes, they haven't produced a single good colony.
One thing that they did wrong was that they didn't genocide the native population. The British killed the natives and replaced them with Brits, thus creating a stable population of intelligent modern people.
The Spanish on the other hand had their colonies filled with africans, mestizos, and natives, this created a shitshow demographic.
If they wiped them all out and replaced them with Spanish people then maybe south America wouldn't be a shithole.

It's impossible to wipe them all, not with the shit technology they had back then.

 

[Sub8Hate]

elab?

Stop talking shit about the Iberians, bucatini boy. 

It's cool though, we're still cool LOL. Italians are racist as shit, eh? So you guys dislike fellow Europeans, too?

 

[nausea]

Italians are racist as shit, eh?

only northern ita are

So you guys dislike fellow Europeans, too?

me, yes obviously

 

[Sub8Hate]

only northern ita are
me, yes obviously

Too funny; everyone hates someone, I guess. 

... Bastardo. JK you know I need to bust balls.

 

[Deleted member 677]

Argentina and Chile are pretty first-world today.

 

[Crustaciouse]

Argentina and Chile are pretty first-world today.

They are also the two whitest south American countries, are you noticing a coralation?

 

[Deleted member 677]

They are also the two whitest south American countries, are you noticing a coralation?

Sieg heil

 

[Deleted member 776]

This is a complicated question. It would require a detailed essay on everything from the differences between the British empire (which peaked later on in history in the 19th century) and the Spanish empire which dominated the world about 300 years earlier. Remember during the era of Elizabeth I the Spanish tried to invade England and many of the mariners of that era (basically state sanctioned pirates) did all sorts of questionable things including trading slaves inside the Spanish empire illegally and many paid with their lives for it.

Trade in the Spanish empire was thus much more controlled and restricted than it would later be in the British empire, in fact the Spanish empire was much more about wealth extraction and there was a lot of really bad management and decision making. The British empire was mainly concerned with open shipping lanes to provide a market for British industrial goods and maintaining the supply of raw materials and food coming in. While it was pretty exploitative it was never mismanaged to the extent the Spanish empire was. It was mostly benevolent and people seem to like to blame everything bad that happened in countries on the British and while they bare responsibility as the ruling power there a lot of mistakes were not made out of malice but by mistake or underestimating the problem. The British generally usurped and modified the existing power structure of the countries they ruled and added their own structures and institutions. The Spanish did not.

Generally by the time a lot of countries gained independence they had the ability to run their own affairs. India for example relies on all the institutions the British left behind. The English language and British created institutions is pretty much the only thing holding India together besides the independence struggle.

Also i think some of the dysfunction in the former Spanish empire cane be chalked up to the longer time frame between Spanish rule and independence and the weaker institutions and capacity for self governance which in many cases allowed the Soviet Union and Red China to ply their Marxist snake oil. Marxism has undoubtedly been a disaster for Latin America and Africa. Corrupt command economies run by a small wealthy elite which have produced poor economic results, bloodshed and outright anarchy in places. Former colonies/Dominions of Britain like Rhodesia and South Africa have fallen to this in modern times when they should have been well placed to transition to middle income/first world status by now.

 

[OTaKu_WarrIOr_N]

This is a complicated question. It would require a detailed essay on everything from the differences between the British empire (which peaked later on in history in the 19th century) and the Spanish empire which dominated the world about 300 years earlier. Remember during the era of Elizabeth I the Spanish tried to invade England and many of the mariners of that era (basically state sanctioned pirates) did all sorts of questionable things including trading slaves inside the Spanish empire illegally and many paid with their lives for it.

Trade in the Spanish empire was thus much more controlled and restricted than it would later be in the British empire, in fact the Spanish empire was much more about wealth extraction and there was a lot of really bad management and decision making. The British empire was mainly concerned with open shipping lanes to provide a market for British industrial goods and maintaining the supply of raw materials and food coming in. While it was pretty exploitative it was never mismanaged to the extent the Spanish empire was. It was mostly benevolent and people seem to like to blame everything bad that happened in countries on the British and while they bare responsibility as the ruling power there a lot of mistakes were not made out of malice but by mistake or underestimating the problem. The British generally usurped and modified the existing power structure of the countries they ruled and added their own structures and institutions. The Spanish did not.

Generally by the time a lot of countries gained independence they had the ability to run their own affairs. India for example relies on all the institutions the British left behind. The English language and British created institutions is pretty much the only thing holding India together besides the independence struggle.

Also i think some of the dysfunction in the former Spanish empire cane be chalked up to the longer time frame between Spanish rule and independence and the weaker institutions and capacity for self governance which in many cases allowed the Soviet Union and Red China to ply their Marxist snake oil. Marxism has undoubtedly been a disaster for Latin America and Africa. Corrupt command economies run by a small wealthy elite which have produced poor economic results, bloodshed and outright anarchy in places. Former colonies/Dominions of Britain like Rhodesia and South Africa have fallen to this in modern times when they should have been well placed to transition to middle income/first world status by now.

Where do you get the effort to write these out?

 

[RREEEEEEEEE]

This is a complicated question. It would require a detailed essay on everything from the differences between the British empire (which peaked later on in history in the 19th century) and the Spanish empire which dominated the world about 300 years earlier. Remember during the era of Elizabeth I the Spanish tried to invade England and many of the mariners of that era (basically state sanctioned pirates) did all sorts of questionable things including trading slaves inside the Spanish empire illegally and many paid with their lives for it.
Trade in the Spanish empire was thus much more controlled and restricted than it would later be in the British empire, in fact the Spanish empire was much more about wealth extraction and there was a lot of really bad management and decision making. The British empire was mainly concerned with open shipping lanes to provide a market for British industrial goods and maintaining the supply of raw materials and food coming in. While it was pretty exploitative it was never mismanaged to the extent the Spanish empire was. It was mostly benevolent and people seem to like to blame everything bad that happened in countries on the British and while they bare responsibility as the ruling power there a lot of mistakes were not made out of malice but by mistake or underestimating the problem. The British generally usurped and modified the existing power structure of the countries they ruled and added their own structures and institutions. The Spanish did not.
Generally by the time a lot of countries gained independence they had the ability to run their own affairs. India for example relies on all the institutions the British left behind. The English language and British created institutions is pretty much the only thing holding India together besides the independence struggle.
Also i think some of the dysfunction in the former Spanish empire cane be chalked up to the longer time frame between Spanish rule and independence and the weaker institutions and capacity for self governance which in many cases allowed the Soviet Union and Red China to ply their Marxist snake oil. Marxism has undoubtedly been a disaster for Latin America and Africa. Corrupt command economies run by a small wealthy elite which have produced poor economic results, bloodshed and outright anarchy in places. Former colonies/Dominions of Britain like Rhodesia and South Africa have fallen to this in modern times when they should have been well placed to transition to middle income/first world status by now.

Where do you get the effort to write these out?

Because not all of us like one-word replies. I enjoy reading his posts.

 

[Deleted member 776]

Where do you get the effort to write these out?

Because i'm a G. Now i demand you get on your knees and felate me.

 

[OTaKu_WarrIOr_N]

Because not all of us like one-word replies. I enjoy reading his posts.

I know. I just can't find the energy to do this

 

[RREEEEEEEEE]

I know. I just can't find the energy to do this

Understandable. Neither can I.

 

[OTaKu_WarrIOr_N]

Where do you get the effort to write these out?

Because i'm a G. Now i demand you get on your knees and felate me.

I ain't that kind of G

 

[KyloRen]

BTFO

 

[Crustaciouse]

BTFO

I already addressed this point to another guy.
Chile is one of the best countries in south America and it is also one of the whitest counties in south America, are you noticing a corelation.

 

[Deleted member 776]

I ain't that kind of G

HAHAHAHAHAHA. you made me spray tea all over my monitor dude. May KEK bless you.

 

[OTaKu_WarrIOr_N]

I ain't that kind of G

HAHAHAHAHAHA. you made me spray tea all over my monitor dude. May KEK bless you.

I would've turned the other way as quick as I could to avoid any spillage. I can't stand a dirty monitor or tv

 

[Deleted member 776]

I already addressed this point to another guy.
Chile is one of the best countries in south America and it is also one of the whitest counties in south America, are you noticing a corelation.

Chile and Argentina were the most anglophile nations in Latin America and the whitest, Brazils population has more Negros. Argentina was basically a feifdom for British businesses in the 19th century. The British never overtly colonised it because they were tacitly enforcing the Munroe doctrine for the United States to prevent a war between European powers over colonial territory in the Americas. The national hero of Chile is Bernardo O'Higgins. Its the Argie politicians who ruined the place in recent times through mismanagement. It should be far wealthier than Chile and be in the G20 at the very least.

Chile at least kept the Marxists at bay thanks to St Pinochet. They also refused to hand the Top Gear crew to the beying mob in Argentina a few years ago. Top kek.

 

[nausea]

This is a complicated question. It would require a detailed essay on everything from the differences between the British empire (which peaked later on in history in the 19th century) and the Spanish empire which dominated the world about 300 years earlier. Remember during the era of Elizabeth I the Spanish tried to invade England and many of the mariners of that era (basically state sanctioned pirates) did all sorts of questionable things including trading slaves inside the Spanish empire illegally and many paid with their lives for it.
Trade in the Spanish empire was thus much more controlled and restricted than it would later be in the British empire, in fact the Spanish empire was much more about wealth extraction and there was a lot of really bad management and decision making. The British empire was mainly concerned with open shipping lanes to provide a market for British industrial goods and maintaining the supply of raw materials and food coming in. While it was pretty exploitative it was never mismanaged to the extent the Spanish empire was. It was mostly benevolent and people seem to like to blame everything bad that happened in countries on the British and while they bare responsibility as the ruling power there a lot of mistakes were not made out of malice but by mistake or underestimating the problem. The British generally usurped and modified the existing power structure of the countries they ruled and added their own structures and institutions. The Spanish did not.
Generally by the time a lot of countries gained independence they had the ability to run their own affairs. India for example relies on all the institutions the British left behind. The English language and British created institutions is pretty much the only thing holding India together besides the independence struggle.
Also i think some of the dysfunction in the former Spanish empire cane be chalked up to the longer time frame between Spanish rule and independence and the weaker institutions and capacity for self governance which in many cases allowed the Soviet Union and Red China to ply their Marxist snake oil. Marxism has undoubtedly been a disaster for Latin America and Africa. Corrupt command economies run by a small wealthy elite which have produced poor economic results, bloodshed and outright anarchy in places. Former colonies/Dominions of Britain like Rhodesia and South Africa have fallen to this in modern times when they should have been well placed to transition to middle income/first world status by now.

eh as usual you good BUT it seems to me you just consider things from your point of view, without taking a panoramic view so to speak

in short, without opening specific "fronts", you can consider the british empire or whatever else as you do, ok, good, even but let's consider also the things that happened prior and after

 

[Robinxyz]

Chile and Argentina are far from being developed.

 

[Crustaciouse]

Chile and Argentina are far from being developed.

Compared to the rest of south America they are utopias.

 

[Robinxyz]

Compared to the rest of south America they are utopias.

definitely. I think what ruined the region was too much race-mixing and then marxism.