Is it fair to say that Protestant work ethic (salvation through hard work) created the new/modern world?
How come traditionally catholic countries/empires (ie France and Spain) left relatively unsuccessful colonies in comparison to protestant ones (British empire)?
Why is this?
Because the Americans genocided the non-whites.
>>495978
>Is it fair to say that Protestant work ethic (salvation through hard work) created the new/modern world?
It is reductivist bullshit. Fuck off and read 5 monographs.
>>495978
Go.
Fuck.
Yourself.
>>495985
it's a legitim8 question, m8
France and Spain had drastically different mindsets when it came to new world colonization, so I don't think religion had much to do with it. I remember when I was studying Canadian history I read a very interesting comparison of Christopher Columbus' letter to the queen of spain about the Taino natives of Hispaniola to Jacques Cartier's letter to the king of france about the Iroquoian natives he encountered in modern day montreal.
Columbus' letter talks about how the natives seem to be friendly and rich and how it would be such an exceedingly simple matter to conquer them, yet Cartier's letter talked about how the natives seemed friendly with a tremendous wealth of furs and advised setting up a potentially lucrative trade network based around the St. Lawrence.
>>495978
>salvation through hard work
Literally the exact opposite of the core teaching of Protestantism.
>>495978
stop being such a reductionist as to simplify hundreds of years of history into 1 single variable. Protestant work ethic certainly played some small part in the industrialisation, but it was just that, a small part of the complex whole.
As far as American colonies go, at least for Spain compared to Britain, it's much more than just the protestant mentality.
One major factor was that North America and Australia were severely depopulated, enabling the english to just bring in their system of law/governance/etc. and basically create another liberal(ish), laissez faire(ish) country.
In SA on the other hand, the were large populations with pre existing system of hierarchy, so the Spanish merely supplanted the figureheads, esentially maintaining feudalistic systems. Those were super effective in terms of raw material extraction and plantation work, but once industrialisation set in, they were severely lacking.
That's just one factor, there's tons of political and social change that happened very differently in different parts of america after the europeans left of course.
The Spanish and French didn't have near the amount of colonists that Britain had. The only settlers were mostly traders and conquistadors. It also didn't help that Spain over-extended itself. France started to gain colonists, but Britain c*cked them out of their new world colonies. Not really much to do with religion m8
>>495978
oh god this better be bait.
Protestantism is salvation through Faith Alone, while Catholic teachings emphasize salvation through Faith and Works.
next, the Spanish Empire was by far the richest of the Imperial powers with all their colonial holdings. Hell the price of fucking gold shot down drastically just because the Spanish found so fucking much of it to fill their treasury. On top of being the crown jewel of the Hapsburg's power on the European continent. Spain was no failure, and neither was France.
There is very little play in how religious differences played into the overall success of the European Empires, it was generally all the same formula of Europeans having firearms and all their opponents using sticks and arrows.
>>495978
>Protestant
this is Christianity for bankers and by bankers.
it is thus the opposite of Christianity.
>>495978
>salvation through hard work
This is literally the opposite of what that fat hack taught.
>Tried to exclude James because it opposed sola fide.
purely chicken/egg scenario
those countries would've been productive even without Protestantism due to their circumstances
