What would South America be like today if they'd been conquered and settled by the British rather than by the Portuguese and Spanish?
>>373684
haha
Whiter
Anglican
>>373684
Culturally they'd obviously be similar to other British colonies such as Canada, US, Australia, and New Zealand.
Politically, there certainly wouldn't be the proclivity for Cadillos like Latin culture. Also one reason for the "backwardness" of Latin America (besides Brazil) is because the independence wars destroyed a ton of infrastructure that set them back many years.
At least this is what my Latin American history professor said when we asked what differentiated Spanish American colonies from English colonies.
Brazil would've broken into a dozen or so separate states because the flight of 1808 was essential to the creation of a Brazilian national identity
They'd probably speak English
>>373684
Belize and Guyana
>>373684
Britain was the only colonial power to apply the "genocide the locals and replace them with whites" policy that created the only four successful colonies of history (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ).
Span, France, Portugal...etc, only applied the "Let's try to civilize the natives instead of replacing them" that Britain also applied in its colonies that arent the 4 mentioned above.
This shit doesnt work and colonies turned into shitholes when european left because, let's face it, not all races are equal.
>>373684
It's all about whether or not the local population is replaced by europeans.
Britain didn't have some colonial magics to create successful colonies.
The colonies in which they didn't apply their "outbreed the natives by sending waves of white settlers" turned out to be as shitty as Spanish, French and other countries colonies
See Zimbabwe, Iraq, Burma, Sudan, Bengladesh, Guayana...etc
>>373734
>Portugal civilizing anyone
>the Portuguese ever "leaving" the country
There isn't any instance I'm aware of a native or even black person holding any significant political power in the brazilian colony. On the other hand, the region that was historically looked down as as being the filthy mud pit where portuguese and natives intermixed the most in the name of commerce is one of the most prosperous ones in the nation.
>>373756
>Britain didn't have some colonial magics to create successful colonies.
Nigga, check your premises. Yes they did. Everywhere they went became much better off. Even India, for fuck's sake.
>>373774
>Everywhere they went became much better off.
That's pretty much the case for every european colony except Belgian Congo
What I meant is that only the four colonies (out of hundreds) were they replaced the locals with white people are now 1st world civilized countries
The rest of British colonies (Zimbabwe, Iraq, Burma, Sudan, Bengladesh, Guyana...etc) are as shitty as French ones and worse than Spanish ones
>>373774
India was a fifth of the world economy when the British arrived, it was a fiftieth when they left.
One would think that if Britain were good for the colonies, they wouldn't have needed to use violence to keep them.
>>373734
>This shit doesnt work and colonies turned into shitholes when european left because, let's face it, not all races are equal.
While this is true, I would also suggest that destroying a nation's entire elite and political structure and replacing it with an entirely foreign elite and political culture before deciding that that is wrong and just telling the natives to mime white people's political culture because it's obviously perfect for all eventualities is also butt fuck stupid and bound to fail regardless of whether the natives are literal chimps or godly perfect tabula rasa noble savages
>>373795
>India was a fifth of the world economy when the British arrived, it was a fiftieth when they left.
Between the Seven Years War and 1947, much of Europe and other parts of the world had industrialised and rapidly developed their economies past the mere export of resources. Therefore this is not surprising.
>>373788
>What I meant is that only the four colonies (out of hundreds) were they replaced the locals with white people are now 1st world civilized countries
>The rest of British colonies (Zimbabwe, Iraq, Burma, Sudan, Bengladesh, Guyana...etc) are as shitty as French ones and worse than Spanish ones
Why do you use the word colony to describe a whole range of arrangements?
In the places where Britain killed most of the natives, and in the places where they didn't, the British who arrived kept about as much political and economic independence as they had at home; they arrived wealthy, and were heavily subsidized.
In the places where Britain didn't kill most of the natives, and in the places where they did, the surviving natives didn't have political or economic independence of the British; they started out as conquered land, and from this point they were taxed.
In places where the British /did/ allow the natives something like the rights they allowed Britons, like New Zealand, the natives did much better.
>>373734
you should remove spain from that because they never cared about the fate of the natives in any colony they ever established, to the point of wiping out civilizations with their shenanigans...
>>373765
portugal's influence was never too big on the colonies since we simply lacked the manpower to settle as we wished - the portuguese conquered mostly with their dicks - but unlike spain it wasn't usually forced.
but even if the feitorias, minor and major roles in the colonies were usually appointed to portuguese settlers, some colonies still had local goverments and some were even ruled by them while the portuguese just having the power to influence the ruler if he wished (india mostly)
>>373825
I'm just saying, under British leadership, India didn't.
We don't know what would have happened if Britain didn't colonize India. We do know that Britain was not good for India in the way that India was good for Britain.
And that's leaving aside the ethics of forcing something 'good' on someone who is fighting you to stop, someone who is your slave.
>>373827
WE
>>373684
Le alternate history thread
Take this to /int/
>>373839
WAS
INDEPENDENT
If civilizing was the mission, wouldn't it have worked in at least one place? Wouldn't it have worked without having to enslave people?
>>373734
Actually the difference between the two was that Britain was trying (after the inital few colonies) to create actual colonies, while Spain wanted to just get gold and silver by forcing the natives to work.
The English did try to civilize the Natives too, but the problem was that the Natives in North America were more nomadic, while many of the southern Natives were sedentary. On top of that, the Spanish needed Natives to mine that gold and silver, all the English needed was a market.
>>373734
> (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ)
First off, those were the only British colonies where that shit actually happened. In Africa, India and East Asia they didn't genocide the natives and replace them with whites.
Second, the last time I checked the Maori still exist.
British only genocided natives in areas where they couldn't utilize the existing elites to control the local population in order to profit from the territory. See what happened in Belize when the Brits interacted with Native Americans that had farming and some semblance of a governing body. See Guyana to see what happened when natives didn't really have a governing body but also lived in areas that where of little interest to colonists.
It would be safe to assume that everywhere from Mexico to Northern Chile would be somewhat similar to Belize, inhabited mostly by Native Americans, with a minority of Blacks and mixes of both. The Caribbean, Venezuela and Brazil would on the other hand be populated mostly by Blacks, Indians (from India) and maybe some Chinese.
The only parts that could have a chance of being USA-like would be Southern Chile and Southern Argentina, where natives were pretty much nomads like the North American equivalents.
The biggest difference in this alternate history would actually probably be in the rest of the world, since Britain would be ABSURDLY powerful much earlier. Possibly leading to full-on global domination.
>>373850
This is completely retarded.The Spanish Crown only took 1/5th of the gold mined and actively mobilized a ton of its population to the Americas with the purpose of expanding its territory. Effectively crippling its own ability to defend the Iberian Peninsula later on. It is almost the opposite. Spain was trying to built
Go to any Latin American country and you will find multiple 400 year old churches literally covered with gold on the inside in all the major cities, as well as universities almost as old where the main halls are made out of shit like Portuguese Marble. That sort of infraestructure, luxuries enjoyed by the local elites and paying the British for the weapons and mercenaries used during the Latin American independence wars (which were absurdly costly) is where most of the mined gold went.
The spanish colonies extended from San Francisco to Tierra del Fuego, the british had 13 colonies barely larger than the UK, you can't compare them.
>>373734
You're ignoring a major difference between pre-Columbian North and South America: population density. In Mexico they couldn't have exterminated all the natives even if they tried - it made more sense to exploit them. North American natives were much more spread out and much less sedentary, so tribes could readily move west and colonists were not nearly as outnumbered.
Obviously it's significant that North America was settled voluntarily by families, whereas Latin America was conquered by armies of single men, but I'd wager that this dynamic would have had the same effect even if the areas of British and Spanish colonization were swapped. Latin America's legacy of powerful pre-Columbian states and more obvious profitability rendered much about the Spanish's approach to it inevitable.
>>373851
Because genociding the locals would be retarded as fuck.
They wouldn't have settled there because the climate is nothing like England's.
>>373825
You can track it on charts, the GDP of India actually declined in the nineteenth century.
Like India, because they would still be plantation and extraction colonies.
>everywhere in the world gradually gets better with time
>Europe conquers world for over a century
>takes credit for the progress that would have happened regardless
Stay classy, Europe.
>>mfw no one even mentioned that the colonies that were succesfull were settlement colonies rather than exploitation colonies
>>373719
Argentina is pretty stable dude
>>373774
>india became better under brits
wut?
Have you ever been to india m8?
Its a complete shithole now
>>373838
Yes, we do have a pretty good idea of what would have happened in India had Britain not arrives. It would have remained fragmented in and would have had various petty-kingdoms and Rajas vying for influence in their own little corners of the subcontinents. Let us not forget that the Mughal Empire was already on life support when the British arrived, and local lords already had great amounts of autonomy. The British were able to use the lack of a unified opposition to their advantage, making it obvious that these small states didn't like each other much or at all.
What I would expect to happen in India had Europeans stayed out would be quite a bit of warfare, and not much in the way of industrialization because of the general instability that would be rampant in the sub continent. There would be no unified Indian identity, no British direct investments (in the form of railroads, and resource extraction technologies), no Hindi or English as a unifying language, no example of a democratic government, and no forced cultural shift that stopped some of the more barbaric aspects of Indian culture. India would be much worse had the British no arrived, and they certainly would not have industrialized.
>>373851
>that Britain also applied in its colonies that aren't mentioned above
>>374245
Yeah, no. The last credible chart that measured the GDP of the British Raj showed an increase in GDP of about 1% per year. Of course, this didn't do much since population increased at around the same rate. In other words, India stagnated, which makes sense since it didn't industrialize. Pre-industrial societies and economies do not experience the kind of growth we generally think of. Their economies grow with population since their technologies do not produce significant gains in production efficiency. In other words, the relative decline of India and China is not due to Europeans "stealing their wealth." It is exclusively because the West industrialized and was thus able to produce much more with much less, thereby overshadowing these once titanic economies.
The spread of Industrialization was also not due to the confiscation of wealth from the colonies. It happened during the mid-18th century, before European colonized much of the old world. Even without colonization, Europeans could have simply traded with the natives for their raw materials without the use of force, and this would have resulted in an arrangement very similar to that brought about by colonialism. Empire wasn't even necessary and was often a net loss for the colonizers.
>>373684
good
>>374585
But who knows really?
>>374585
Do you know why the Mughals were on their way out? The Maratha Empire. A strong unified state was taking over the sub-continent as had happened many times with many other states in India. India was unified under one state before the British came and was under the process of being re-unified under the Marathas. Until the British destroyed them and took that power for themselves. India had been united under one power and one identity many times before the United Kingdom even existed.
As for industrialization Japan and China managed just fine without direct European colonization. Why would India be different? India didn't need Britain's help.
>>374664
Japan and China managed just fine without European colonization
China didn't. Did you forget the "century of humiliation"? China was just as subjugated as any other European colony, it just wasn't done formally, preferring instead to be done in the guise of spheres of influence. Japan only modernized after the Americans came by and forced them to open their markets and fighting a bloody civil war to purge reactionaries. Still, Japan's modernization was precarious in the beginning and it was out of pure chance that it happened at all. It was much more likely that it wouldn't and had the Americans of Europeans not forced it to open it up then it would have remained backward.
I'll give you that the Maratha were a strong player in the politics of the subcontinent, but after their initial victories against the Mughals their rise to power had been significantly slowed and they were starting to experience strong opposition even before the British intervened. The British, after all, didn't take them down on their own. They had plenty of local allies that wanted the Marathas knocked down a peg. It is more likely that the Marathas would have retained a sizable chunk of the subcontinent, but they would have nowhere the influence of territorial extent of the British. It was also nowhere near a strong and unified state as most of it was composed of vassals and not directly controlled. And even assuming it had expanded further and survived, it is extremely unlikely that it would have industrialized. China certainly didn't and it was left alone longer than India, so what makes you think India would be special? Also, none of the other benefits I listed would have existed.
>India didn't need Britain's help
Given how well India has managed to govern itself in recent times, I'm going to say it very much did need its help and still does. At least they would have learned how to use a toilet.
>>374734
first sentence is supposed to be greentext *
>>374658
We don't know for sure, 100% but we can make educated guesses. This scenario is the most likely given the circumstances at the time.
>>374734
>it was out of pure chance that it happened at all.
You can't just say shit is just chance when it disagrees with your point though.
Also England helped modernize Japan in order to fight the Russians if I'm not mistaken.
>>374750
Yes, but we're talking about a scenario in which Europeans wouldn't have intervened. The person I was referring this to seems to think that Japan modernized without the help of the west and it gave me the impression that they think it would have happened regardless, which is certainly unlikely considering how isolationist Japan was.
>>374734
>britain governed india better than post independence India did.
do you go to the /pol/ school of history?
education HDI and it's economy shot up after britain left, and it industrialized rapidly.
>>374774
I think you both are being a tad silly. You don't need to be conquered or controlled by European countries to get European technology nor are Europeans "helping you" by selling you tech or by allowing a few of your citizens to attend European schools, at least no more so than a mattress salesman is helping me by selling me a mattress. Had Europe not colonized the world other peoples would have still been able to modernize.
>>374742
and most educated guesses can be btfo by another set of educated guesses and what ifs because what ifs are futile point of historical masturbation.
>>374734
>Given how well India has managed to govern itself in recent times, I'm going to say it very much did need its help and still does. At least they would have learned how to use a toilet.
India is actually doing pretty fucking well for it's size despite earlier setbacks.
>>373684
wouldn't they turn out much like Britain's African colonies?
>>374820
Two different time periods and rhetoric+reasons.
>>374806
the brits think India was better when it was a de facto police state with starving peasants, and the middle class ate out of their hands.
>>374835
Good thing that isn't happening now huh, oh wait, yeahhh.
>>374806
>India is actually doing pretty fucking well for it's size despite earlier setbacks.
It really isn't. Not even compared to China which had very similar set backs that India had, I would say even worse since they were under communism unlike India.
>>374845
>its totally worse now
>even though social mobility in india is far higher now than it ever has been in history and has the bureaucracy that is actually beholden to it's people/local government than some fucking viceroy who governs for a queen on the other side of the world.
>>374852
yes, you can do a lot when you can suppress dissent and negate human rights with an iron hand.
>>374845
But India now is richer then ever with a growing upper class, growing economy and great progress. FFS the Mangalyaan was their first interplanetary mission and they got it right on the first which is also a first as well as the first Asian nation to reach Mars orbit try with only a 70 million dollar budget as well as the 4th space agency to make the voyage to Mars.
They havei ssues but they re dealing with them and Modi is doing a pretty fine job.
>>374734
I just notice a trend here. Japan got the lightest touch and seemed to do the best long term. China was never formally occupied. While they had massive civil unrest for 50 years, at the end of the day they've come out the other side intact and powerful. Not as wealthy as Japan but alright. India got the full on occupation for 150 years and by every measure has come out worse than her peers. I suppose Britain needed to be there has an incentive to change and to provide the tech but their actual direct colonization seems insignificant. For all their direct investment China and Japan have better infrastructure and industry by a huge margin. I mean of course they got lots of investment from the good old USA but they didn't need to occupy them at all in China's case and for Japan a comparatively short 10 or so years. I guess Britain needed to "arrive" but I really don't think they needed to stay that long.
And maybe their more recent lack of ability is a sign that Britain didn't leave the place as unified as you would like to think. I'll be back later if the thread is still around.
>>374788
>education HDI and it's economy shot up after britain left, and it industrialized rapidly.
It still isn't industrialized, and the increase in the HDI is a direct result of the globalization of the post-WW2 era, something America deserves credit for. That, and revolutionary technologies that were invented in this same era (better pesticides, etc.) which are, again, thanks to Europeans and Americans. So, India's relative success in recent times isn't really a result of Indian leadership. It's happening in spite of it. It's really a kind of no-colonialism, since American and European money and business are developing India.
And no, I don't even go on /pol/. I just try to have an objective view of history.
>>374855
Because increases in social mobility and easy in economic growth isn't due to technological advances, right? I mean, the world back then was the same as it is now. Those evil British just couldn't stand Indians bettering themselves, right? There was no civil service in the Raj and there wasn't a growing caste of educated middle class Indians there at the time. Gandhi was totally taught in Calcutta somewhere.
>>374868
its because ISRO does theorycrafting on insane levels.
>>374876
>HDI is directly because of america
yes, the protectionist indian economy increased because of america, even though India began opening up it's economy in the early 90s.
>education
the state governments focusing on education was due to their own impetus,done by indian leaders across a broad spectrum, not based on the well wishing of europeans.
>revolutionary technologies
like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flood
>>374893
yeah, the brits totally let indians study for free and didn't neglect technical education and focused on producing clerks.
Gandhi was totally on a scholarship by the benevolent raj.
>objective view of history.
yeah you sure showed me.
>>374870
The reason why India is relatively worse than China, I think, is due to the fact that India took longer than China to open up its markets and leave behind its socialist tendencies of state ownership and excessive regulation. China flung its doors wide open and it is experiencing the economic benefits now. India still has reservations. Current growth doesn't have much to do with the past here.
>>374487
Kek
>>374908
>yeah you sure showed me.
>Only I have an objective view of history. You disagree with me so you're obviously biased XDDDDDDD.
>the brits totally let indians study for free
I wasn't aware the Brits themselves had free education. Wow, this is news to me. Bernie would be proud.
>neglect technical education and focused on producing clerks
I'm genuinely curious, did Britain actively dictate the education of its citizens? I don't think so. I think the produced what they needed.
>focused on producing clerks
So it wasn't all take, take, rape, take, steal? Hmm.
>yes, the protectionist indian economy increased because of america, even though India began opening up it's economy in the early 90s.
The significant increase in HDI that has been seen since then is certainly thanks to the world order the Americans have built. Trade has never before been freer and the Indians are benefiting from it, just like everyone else. Also, when HDI is as low as it is in India, even marginal increases look revolutionary. India is still among the lowest, despite all the growth.
>>373684
Probably like Guyana or Belize, which are just as shit as their Latin neighbours.
>>374876
No matter what good India does you will always shift it away from them to deny them of it.
>>374951
I'm not denying them of anything. I'm making relevant observations. India, if we're honest with ourselves, hasn't done much of global importance in recent times. This is objectively true. The system they are currently benefiting from was also not created by them. This is objective fact. I'm not denying them anything, there is nothing to deny them of. Why should be lie just so they feel better about themselves?
>>374941
>the brits themselves
so it was a business transaction, nothing noble about it.
>Did britain actively dictate the education of it's citizens
We are talking about colonial India, where the colleges were opened for training clerks and book keepers, not for engineers and scientists.
>so it wasn't all take, take
what do you think those clerks were gonna do you gigantic faggot?
>>374963
>done anything of global importance in recent times.
it has done plenty, its just not newsworthy in the same way as america does or china is doing.
>this is objective fact.
then explain the entire BRIC boogeyman?
>>374627
>literally in its worst state at the time of independence
>less than 1% of the population is educated
>almost all capital is lost, with little to no resources as all of them are taken to england
>british infrastructure only supported the high class, while it completely destroyed the previous infrastucture and institution
>high corruption and low transperency in the british system
>cannot go back to previous system as it would require complete revamping of the current one, so not worth the hassle
Face it man, british colonialism was only good for britain itself, it didnt bring 'knowledge' and 'made india's infrastructure' no matter how much you want it to be
Western 'intellectuals' predicted india would fall into complete civil war in 10 of independence, while it is in much much better state now than when the brits left
>>374585
>no forced cultural shift that stopped barbaric aspects of indian culture
The brits actually encouraged and supported the caste system.
It wouldnt be as big now if wasnt for them.
Also why was there a need for unified india?
Europe isnt unified but it does well doesnt it?
And the marathas were already toppling the mughals and had more than 3 quarters of india just before the brits arrived, so it isnt like it would have fallen into civil war for centuries if not for the brits either, given how much marathas liked to use new technology, i dont think not industrialising would be a problem either.
>>374963
I think youre the one lying to yourself m8.
>>373734
>Genocide the natives policy
>New Zealand
retard spotted
>>374963
>India, if we're honest with ourselves, hasn't done much of global importance in recent times.
Which poor developing country has done much of global importance? Developing new things requires money
>India, if we're honest with ourselves, hasn't done much of global importance in recent times.
Just because it wasnt logical to overhaul it and apply a different one, and still it has many holes and is still the cause of widespread corruption and class divide
> This is objective fact. I'm not denying them anything, there is nothing to deny them of. Why should be lie just so they feel better about themselves?
>my opinion which i based on /pol/ is objective fact as firmly beleive we are a superior race. Also indians actually destroyed india and britain is giving them loads of money right now and theyre just dropping it into a gutter.
(Note:- they're not distributing any 'free money', just to make sure you dont actually start beleiving the last lines, which probably did since you didnt show that you even had the intellectual capability to understand sarcasm)
>>375303
Youre replying to a brit, he would most likely try to defy it without any logical explanation,why are you even
I dont know what theyre teaching in brit schools which makes so many of these retarded revisionist come up on this board
>>373795
>Places that industrialised in the 18th + 19th C
Britain
W. Europe
USA
etc.
>Places that didn't
India
China
Africa
etc.
I wonder why the places that didn't industrialise saw their share of global GDP fall, can anyone explain?
>>375368
How does it prove that british rule was beneficial for india in the slightest?
Are you implying brits didnt take anything from india at all and they industrialised solely on their own from only the resources they could get on their island?
>>374232
What is Australia? What is Rhodesia? What is India?
>>375314
>only my country teaches history properly, everyone else is revisionist!
Not who the guy is replying to but also a product of brit schooling. The empire is really not taught in a positive fashion in the UK. Throughout society probably about 30% hate it and feel guilty, another 20% are not bothered but find it interesting, 10% like it and the rest don't care.
The British Empire did some pretty nasty stuff but was motivated by money and opportunism rather than a desire to conquer the world. Britain ended up with an empire almost as an accident of wars with our European neighbours.
What Britain gave to India was the concept of India. Without british influence India today would be multiple different countries. I won't try and defend much else but be aware that if ghandi had appeared in a french or Spanish colony he would have been shot early on.
A key british value is the idea that everyone is subject to fair representation under the law, and that everyone (even kings) is subject too it. This was (mostly) applied to colonies. Ghandi's peaceful revolt against british domination just wouldn't have worked against most other rulers.
The British Empire has a mixed heritage. It built schools and railroads, crushed revolts, outlawed local practices it felt un civilised, used it's military to get chase economic (rather than political) aims, put locals in positions of power, outlawed slavery 60 years before the US and used it's navy to try and stop the slave trade, used it's navy to sell opium to the chinese.
To say the empire was evil or good is to improperly understand it in my view. It was both at different times with no driving unifying ideology as to what it was for.
>>375842
Memes.
>le ebin shitposters
>le kill the niggers
>DESIGNATED
>>375952
So pointing out that brits settled in Australia and Africa so would probably be comfortable with south Americas climate makes me a shit poster?
There was quite a lot of immigration from Britain and particulary Ireland to various south American countries. I really don't think the climate would have been a problem
>>375938
>gandhi liberated india through peace
epic meme.
>outlawed local practices that it deemed uncivilized
yes, and they started the entire zamindari system in india and destroyed previous methods of schooling in india, which proved ruinous to society as a whole.
>key british value
which is why the brits had seperate laws for seperate religions in india.
>>375842
the brits didn't settle in india at all, look up nabobs.
Would be interesting to see how an ''Anglo'' version of South America would interact with the US/Canada
>>376002
South Africa is relatively temperate. That's why Europeans settled there instead of settling in large numbers equatorial regions. Also the east coast of Australia is pretty temperate too. It's still an awful awful continent though which is why they sent mostly convicts.
Anglos only settled in large numbers where they could make use of the same agricultural practices they made use of in Angloland.
>people actually arguing that getting exploited was good for the countries getting exploited
How does this even happen?
>>374623
>Empire wasn't even necessary and was often a net loss for the colonizers
Source?
>>376095
Yep I agree with you. The getting rid of local practices they found uncivilised wasn't meant as a positive. Though in the case of the thugee and the Hindu practice of burning there widows on her husbands funeral pyre it might be.
Wasn't meaning that paragraph to show the empire in a good light, but to contrast the different sides to it. You could make one about the US with similar ease as both have had a very mixed impact on the world, much of which depends on where you are sitting.
Brits didn't move to India on the huge scales of North America or Australia but a substantial amount lived in India for generations. Look into the biographis of a lot of British people in the period and you find they were born and raised on India. Most left after Indian independance but not all. There are still a small community of anglo-indians who stayed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Indian
A bigger reason behined brit immigration was opportunity and space, which was more available to brits in North America and Australasia. I don't think the climate was that big of a inhibitory factor.
>>376146
It is not like South America is made up entirely out of tropical jungle. In fact, most Native Americans and Spanish didn't really settle the tropical areas of the continent when possible, outside of port cities that were usually also placed in the driest and most temperate areas possible, and really couldn't be anywhere else. Portuguese settled tropical areas mostly out of need, as Brazil didn't really have much as far as mountain ranges go.
The inhabitants of tropical regions in South America were usually semi-nomadic or fishing/crabbing Native Americans that were relatively small in number and ended up quickly wiped out by exposure to mosquito-carried African diseases, and admixture with African slaves that Spaniards started importing to try to kick start the tropical plantations.
The reason you nowadays have a lot more South Americans living in tropical areas is that modern pesticides and antibiotics made life in these regions considerably easier, so there was migration from the highlands, as well as an explosion of the local population.
>>376393
they kept regressive laws for the most part, like the absence of divorce and stuff like that, went against customs and washed their hands off social and political changes in india until they threatened the status quo too much.
>opportunity and space
the thing was the anglo indian community was only a thing for the most part because of the colonial presence for the most part. except in the case of bengal which had a relatively large anglo-indian community.
Relatively being the key word here.
The brits by and large had a hands free approach to india, which worked for a very short period of time.
>>376422
Okay, so maybe there could have been an English speaking Argentina if things had played out differently.
>>376343
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
>>376431
Didn't say the laws were good, just that they were respected. Look at Britain's domestic laws at the time and they were pretty terrible as well. Hanging people for stealing sheep, putting debtors in work prisons which would fuck them for life etc
I agree with immigration being due to the colonial prescense, sort of what I meant by opportunity and why you didn't see greater immigration to s.America. they wanted to move to nations where white protestents where boss. The US became a big place for immigration after independance as the change of administration didn't change the fact that it had lots of space and was primarily WASP and went out of its way to remain so for some time.
>>376453
>implying the jews weren't treated well by the greeks and the persians.
>implying they didn't integrate so much into greek society that they wrote parts of the OT in greek
>implying jerusalem was even all that important at that period in history
>>376473
yeah, they preferred to move to places where they could trade upwards in life, like the nabobs.
>>373734
Brazilian natives pretty much disappeared under Portuguese rule, dude. They even implemented "whitening" by trying to increase immigration from European countries, which actually worked pretty well considering the number of slaves they brought over.
So if you think being white is the only thing playing into it, you're wrong.
And aside from that, the British rarely went out of their way to kill large groups of people. They encroached, and inadvertently spread disease, sure, but genocide isn't an applicable term.
>>375303
I like how any sort of dissenting opinions are automatically silenced by calling someone a /pol/tard. He never said anything about race and he never said anything about Britain's investments in India going to waste now. What he is saying is that western countries are objectively better than India, and they still are. Are you going to deny that?
>>376358
http://www.nber.org/papers/w4420
Not him, but there's this. It's well known that most colonies were unprofitable.
>>375314
>retarded revisionist
>I have the only unaltered and true concept of history. Only my opinions are valid everything else is revisionist and biased. It's all a way to keep non-western countries down!
This is what you sound like. Considering how butt-blasted you got when he started talking shit about India I'm guessing you're Indian. In that case, your history is likely the one that's revisionist.
>without any logical explanation
To me, at least, a lot of the things he said made sense. They were not illogical, you just happened to disagree with them. Again, you don't hold a monopoly on what is correct.
i love it when new worlders or nations with less-than-successful colonies shit on britain.
>you done it better than everyone else ergo you are bad!
>>376809
The "it" is what people don't like. Just because someone is a top tier asshole doesn't mean they aren't an asshole.
>>376818
Every nation's done horrible things over the course of their existence, but apparently only UK should be frowned upon because of them.
success breeds jealousy.
>>376834
And every country gets shit for being an asshole. Learn to take the piss.
>>376809
Every country gets shit on by everyone else.
But the brits are the only ones to get all pissy about it. What is the deal with anglos not handling the banter?
>>376809
Good, but it's missing piles of dead Sikhs, Gurkhas or Scots and Irish to climb over.
>>376809
Have you seen how the Spanish colonies shit on Spain?
And that is regardless of how the "evil Europeans" who "suppressed, pillaged and raped" the Native Americans were their own ancestors and not the ancestors of the modern Spaniards.
>>376771
>yes, and a large part of that has to do with india having a stagnant economy for generations.
This is true.
>yeah, right. Colonialism being good is objectively logical.
Just about as logical as colonialism always being bad. The world isn't black and white. Colonialism did both objective good and objective bad. Stop trying to demonize it and make it out to be the worst thing that ever happened, it isn't by a long shot.
>>376981
the good was far outweighed by the bad.
>>373719
I can disagree with your teacher's views. Infrastructure can be rebuilt so quick most wars never leave a mark. If latin-american indepence wars caused the backwardness, then why ins't Japan backwards? Or Europe, after two major wars, including fucking carpet bombing and total war doctrines? USA had it rough during its independence compared to most south american countries.
It has more to do with the mindset and culture of our peoples than anything else. We are corrupt and egoistic by nature. We never developed our own concepts of nation and national identity. I'm brazillian and I can tell you that we tried really hard. In the 19th century, brazillian academia would try to convince people that Brazil was a white country, that we were supposed to be the major power in South America, that our right to rule and be great was given to us by God. That worked for a while, but you can see for yourself what brazillians think of their own country nowadays.
It's the same everywhere in Latin America. Very few are proud to live down here and even fewer work towards a better future. It has a tendency to get worst, it seems.
ex-British colonies in South America / Central America / the Caribbean are are fucked up as the rest of 'Latin America'.
>>376981
>>377014
Countries progress with time. Europe can't take credit for the progress that would have happened whether they were there or not. It didn't take westernization doesn't require Europe conquering your country.
The world benefited from European technology and governance principles, but not from colonialism.
>>376848
>spot the /pol/tard
>>376875
If you listened to a Spanish anime dub you'd hate them too.
>>376521
>They even implemented "whitening" by trying to increase immigration from European countries
Completely futile if you're mixing with the backwards natives. Race-mixing always occurs almost imperceptibly slowly, but ends in shitholes like Latin America.
>>377107
>The world benefited from European technology and governance principles
Yes it did, and by a huge extent. But ingraining these principles and technologies in backward societies required colonialism. Take Africa, for example. It was a place that was relatively stagnant for a long period of time and large portions of the interior were completely isolated from the rest of the world. European colonialism exposed these parts of Africa to the technologies and governance principles of European. Sure, you could argue that it would have happened eventually regardless, but that isn't certain nor would it have happened as quickly as it did with colonialism. The same logic can be applied to India, and other such parts of the world. Colonialism did plenty of bad, but I think the good outweighed the bad.
Colonialism established global trade, cultural exchange, and eventually globalization and freedom of trade. You could argue that this would have, again, happened regardless but I'm skeptical.
>>377086
I don't disagree with you over this being mostly a cultural thing (although I don't fully agree about the aspects of the culture that I consider the problem), but
>USA had it rough during its independence compared to most south american countries.
is flat out wrong..
Hispanic America Independence wars consisted largely of years of Loyalists cities sacking Independetist cities and vice-versa, with both armies constantly winning and losing ground. With sackings that lasted as far as three days in some cities.
The United States lost an estimate of 25 000 people during its independence wars.
Mexico lost between 250 000 and 400 000 people, Venezuela lost 250 000 people, Colombia lost 200 000 people, Ecuador lost 100 000 people, etc. (admittedly I listed the countries with the highest fatalities), basically reducing to zero the chances of any country in the region industrializing at that point in time.
>>377459
it depends on what you define by "good" and "bad"
>>377455
>but that isn't certain nor would it have happened as quickly as it did with colonialism
I don't see why that would be such a bad thing. A slower, more natural spread of technology and ideas probably would have given native societies more time to adjust. The lightning fast speed at which the Europeans arrived with their new ideas and tech is usually what caused the local social order to crumble. The ends justify the means because it took less time? All the devastation was worth it because we saved some time? I feel like I'm missing something here.
>>377459
that entire argument falls apart because the loss to life and culture was accelerated by superior european values.
The brits love to harp about how they stopped sati, but they never own up to the fact that they accelerated the famine conditions in india, and ruined a large part of arts and craft in the subcontinent, like the production of wootz steel, the starvation and near destruction of the cloth producers in the subcontinent, not to mention the ossification of the caste system.
>>374623
>The spread of Industrialization was also not due to the confiscation of wealth from the colonies.
Did the British not dismantle the Indian textile industry in the late 1700s, turning India into a pure supply economy to fuel the replacement British textile industry?
>>380821
pretty much.
like india
piss poor shitting on streets
They would have been rising super powers like India.
Our colonies are best colonies
>>380832
you mean sending probes to mars.
>>373734
You are out of your fucking mind. The British made many treaties with the Native Americans, Just like the French did in the French and Indian War (almost as many sided with Briton). Also, Briton engaged with Native Americans during the (American) Revolutionary War. They did not intentionally genocide every Native American tribe - that is Leftist bullshit. Keep in mind that 90% of Native Americans died from viruses without ever seeing a White person, so it appeared that the place was nearly empty. And no, the viruses were not spread intentionally as a matter of policy, with some minor exceptions that occurred long after the first 90% were killed off.
>>380835
no, i mean their citizens are so poor they shit on the streets
i dont give a shit what they send where, you wouldnt either my chav friend if you couldnt afford living in your comfy state owned house living on welfare
>>380918
that has more to do with their cities having very high population densities, rather than them being so poor.
but then shitposting about how brits civilized natives is so much better, even when the evidence is to the contrary.
