Why are anglos regarded as "the good colonisers" and the spanish and portuguese as "the evil blood-thirsty, religious fanatic colonisers"?
Is it holywood propaganda at it's best?
>>858914
Yes.
Next question.
>>858914
Black legend
Yellow journalism
>>858914
>Is it holywood propaganda at it's best?
Nope. It's mostly true.
>>858914
Because we were good colonisers and left successful first world democracies in our wake.
>>858914
French are the good laissez faire colonizers
English are the questionable capitalist colonizers
Latins are the genocidal crusader colonizers
>>858914
>Why are anglos regarded as "the good colonisers"
Are they? By whom?
>>859047
Just ask anyone. They will say that Anglos treated natives with benevolence and they just saw natives as naive children.
Meanwhile the latins are savage beasts that slaughter anyone who crossed their paths
Black legend, combined with Anglo-American domination of the media and entertainment.
And Spaniards aren't the only victims of this shit, Germans and Russians are as well.
>>859061
Just asked my roommate. He said Puritans killed thousands of Native Americans with blankets covered in smallpox.
>>859072
Oh, i see
>>858914
Most of the killing was done by illnesses, The Spanish bodycount was higher because they faced larger, more advanced civilizations.
Both treated the natives like shit, but the British colonies were way more successful.
>>859068
Gave a read to that "black legend".
Damn, everyone hated the spanish back then. It's not much different from today.
(lel even in the past they kept calling them moors)
>>859038
Are you positive about that statement?
>>859109
If you build a house for a homeless person and then they burn it down out of spite, you still built them a house.
>>859038
>Canada, US, Australia, Hong Kong
Yes.
>Zimbabwe, Kenya, Nigeria, Jamaica, India, Sudan, Malaysia, Papua
Fuck no.
>>859038
>Because we were good colonisers and left successful first world democracies in our wake.
INDIA
N
D
I
A
>>859126
Only thing I got from this map is that white people > Latin Americans > Asians >>>>>> niggers.
>>858914
I do think that the view of political expansionism is due at something more outstanding.
The perpetrators had been and has been accused by the felonious act of perpetrating an age of manipulation and enslavement.
Why did we say that the anglo are the good colonisator ?
Because of, yes, the reasons are eluded by the majority.
It is true, the views are biased by the cultural history.
>muh black legend
That's eternal anglo bs tier.
Louis Bertrand's 'History of Spain'
The worst characteristic which the Spaniards acquired was the parasitism of the Arabs and the nomad Africans: the custom of living off one's neighbour's territory, the raid raised to the level of an institution, marauding and brigandage recognized as the sole means of existence for the man-at-arms. In the same way they went to win their bread in Moorish territory, so the Spaniards later went to win gold and territory in Mexico and Peru.
They were to introduce there, too, the barbarous, summary practices of the Arabs: putting everything to fire and sword, cutting down fruit-trees, razing crops, devastating whole districts to starve out the enemy and bring them to terms; making slaves everywhere, condemning the population of the conquered countries to forced labour. All these detestable ways the conquistadores learnt from the Arabs.
For several centuries slavery maintained itself in Christian Spain, as in the Islamic lands. Very certainly, also, it was to the Arabs that the Spaniards owed the intransigence of their fanaticism, the pretension to be, if not the chosen of God, at least the most Catholic nation of Christendom. Philip II, like Abd er Rahman or El Mansour, was Defender of the Faith.
Finally, it was not without contagion that the Spaniards lived for centuries in contact with a race of men who crucified their enemies and gloried in piling up thousands of severed heads by way of trophies. The cruelty of the Arabs and the Berbers also founded a school in the Peninsula. The ferocity of the emirs and the caliphs who killed their brothers or their sons with their own hands was to be handed on to Pedro the Cruel and Henry of Trastamare, those stranglers under canvas, no better than common assassins.
>>859158
I'm not even Spanish but almost everything that guy wrote can be applied to the Anglos and the French as well. Russians too, when it comes to colonizing Siberia.
>>859158
So, now arabs are mongols?
Because the British tended to colonise places like North America and Australia where the natives were easily killed off and replaced with British settlers, who already had Western institutions and customs and had a clean slate on which to build a successful Western society. They also tended to colonise places like Hong Kong or Singapore that could be developed as trading posts and thus left behind highly successful capitalist societies.
When both the British and Spanish colonised societies like India, Africa, and Mesoamerica, they didn't have a clean slate to build on because there were too many natives to kill off. Instead they had to impose their civilization over the natives, which was usually a failure. So these colonies ended up as massive shitholes. The British colonies actually ended up worse than the Spanish ones here, probably because the Spanish had much more time to impose their civilization in their colonies than the British did in theirs.
So ultimately the Spanish were left with fairly shitty former colonies, while the British were left with a few great ones and mostly utter shit ones. The Eternal Anglo can easily ignore their shithole colonies like India, Nigeria, Burma, etc and show off their better ones like America, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc, because they're experts in self-exoneration. On the other hand the Spanish have nothing to show for their legacy but fairly shitty Latin American countries.
>>859133
>Argentina
>White
also
>UAE
>White
Face it, the only colonies that were succesful were the ones devoid of people
>>859061
Im pretty sure that most people think either all colonizers were saviors or devils. I've never really seen anyone make this kind of distinction between anglos and latins before.
>>859179
I also mentioned Latin Americans you dumb illiterate fuck. Argentina falls into that cathegory.
>>859176
>mfw even their tiny neighbours managed to lure the spanish and build the biggest south american country (Brazil)
>>859184
Often it's done with anti-catholic intent.
>>859179
If you consider the US white, yes, Argentina is white
>>859194
I don't think so. I mean nominally yes, Argentina is more "white" since it has less mestizos and niggers, but most American whites come from British and Germanic stock while most Argentinian whites are poopskin Spaniards and southern Italians.
>>859109
It was good at first
>>859209
Until Britain betrayed it by supporting Mugabe.
>>859204
Then you can go back to /int/
>>859239
Not even trying to /int/post, you could see that southern Italians were actually lynched like niggers in the US less than 150 years ago while in Argentina they're considered the pinnacle of European stock. Those two countries in question just have a different standard when it comes to whiteness.
It's also interesting to see the difference between colonial Brazil and colonial Anglo America. In America, if you were "not quite white", you were black. In Brazil, if you're "not quite black", you're white.
You can see this in practice when Steph Curry is considered a black American but Ronaldo is considered a white Brazilian.
>>859251
Protestants and catholic have been lynching each other since half millenia.
>>858914
Look at your colonies, look at former English colonies. One set are developing or at least have a future. The other is still mired in centuries long problems and conflicts
>>859251
White and black have change in the US too. People who were considered not quite black were considered white before Americans began to became more and more uneasy with blacks.
And fuck census.
You can pick whatever you want.
For example, the "white" population in Puerto Rico skyrocket when the Americans took it.
>>859261
Name a single spanish colony with designated shitting streets.
>>859267
>People who were considered not quite black were considered white
This is simply not quite true, the threshold for whiteness was being 7/8 white in the Jefferson days and over the time it evolved into one drop rule which is even stricter than the racial standards in nazi Germany.
Also, ever noticed how American black people are often much lighter skinned than actual Africans? Blacks in America have a shitload of white blood, the average American nig is 15 to 20% white (not an asspull number, there's actual genetic research supporting this), but thanks to the one drop rule, they became fully black socially.
>>859176
>they didn't have a clean slate to build on because there were too many natives to kill off
The Spanish could easily have killed off all of Mesoamerica. They just didn't because muh slavery.
>>859282
Wasn't it because they were horny and wanted some of that native pussy?
>>859061
By "anyone" you mean descendants of the colonists?
>>859288
Not centrally. There were only a relative handful of Spaniards and transatlantic passages were slow and inefficient so they enlisted local populations for labor and warfare.
>>859251
It's almost as if all these dead titles like "white" and "nigger" don't really mean anything.
It's almost as if the concept of race was created during the same era that created phrenology, and that that light traveled along "aether".
>>859321
Phrenology still live strong in leftists hugboxes.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/ironically-a-mans-face-can-tell-you-if-hes-likely-to-act-like-a-racist
>>859045
>Haiti
>>859321
Phrenology =/= physical anthropology.
>>859045
>Latins are genocidal
Only in the Caribbean. Except for that, Anglos were way more genocidal.
>>859272
Rather have shit in the street than get shot in the street like what happens every day in El Salvador or Honduras
>>859334
No one fucking trusts Motherboard as an unbiased news source
ITT: Retards thinking that the colonizers bear complete responsibility for what their former colonies look like now
![wskaznik+WHR[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7XBY7rS.jpg "wskaznik+WHR[2].jpg")
>>859418
>There's been studies comparing faces of criminals to non-criminals, surprisingly enough most people guessed right which ones are criminals.
Which one is which-
>>859431
Neither.
Also
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/criminals-look-different-noncriminals
All comes back to sectarian disputes
Brits at the time were mostly anglican/protestant
Spaniards and French were Catholic
Protestants and Catholics don't really get along as is, much less when you have entire nations posting propaganda against the other side.
Do the math
>>859362
It's true, the Spaniards were much more interested in boning the natives or enslaving them than killing them. We tried to enslave them too, but the fuckers died too quickly from disease, so we had no real reason to keep them alive.
>>859061
The Latins mostly indoctrinated the natives them mated with them.
Image related is countries attacked by Britain.
And the British are the only colonial power to virtually complete a genocide on an entire continent. North America (north of the Rio Grande) and Australia.
>no mentions of dutch colonization itt
niggas went hard af dutch golden age & creation of voc set the foundations for britfags to prosper
yo fuck the portguese for real tho they couldn't even hold shit for land in the indian ocean my nigga the zamorin of calicut shat on them portugal had a trading post empire at best and even then my nigga grotius shot that shit down for the dutch real quick
spain's colonization was equally shite but at least they had potosi and some other shit but oh wait the dutch were financing all of their voyages and they went bankrupt lmao
iberian empires = irrelevant outside of accidentally discovering shite, which in itself was p much the most important event in recent history
as for hollywood propaganda, fuck that shit--but as for reading on this topic, check out de vitoria n other iberian jurists, everyone was obviously immoral by modern standards but some dudes actually tried to fight the 'just war since they're not catholic so it's all chill senpai' propaganda lmao
>>859734
>iberian empires = irrelevant outside of accidentally discovering shite, which in itself was p much the most important event in recent history
The silver trade to China was irrelevant?
>>858914
Britain did end slavery tbf. Can you imagine any other empire in history doing that?
>>859126
PNG was a German colony before being administered by Australia though. In that regard the Philippines might as well be put in the Anglosphere as well.
>>858914
>>859038
>>859045
Anglos left successful countries where they genocided the natives and replaced them with whites (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ)
Everywhere else, they didnt kill the natives and thus the place remained backward shitholes (Zimbabwe, Burma, Guyana, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, India, Bengladesh...and 142 out of the 149 British colonies there was).
The secret to have successful colonies is to have white people
That's racist but the reality is racist
Evolution made white people biologically superior
>>860362
You almost got it right, then you went full /pol/.
>>860362
It's not "white people are awesome" but rather "black people are total shit". Hong Kong is still extremely developed and prosperous even though the local Chinese are not white.
>>860362
Guyana isn't a backward shithole
>>860417
>GDP per capita 7 thousand dorra
lmao
>>859854
mentioned potosi which enabled it, any empires in that situation would've done the same thing had they discovered the world's largest silver supply lmao b4 that europe didn't have shit that china wanted. that's why the dutch were able to take over the southeast asian trade so easily, see also: delftware and other knockoffs of chinese products once the dutch gained further establishment in the trade. iberian colonization was no doubt significant for killing a fuckload of people but they did very little in the form of innovation
>>860310
sure, yet they continued to slaughter a fuckload of people, see also: mau mau rebellion and brit propaganda to cover up similar events
british "benign colonialism" is p much the biggest meme of 20thc historiography, now it's all about that revisionist global history wave
>>860362
lmao
>>860362
Utter shit
>>859321
>the concept of race was created
I think this is my favorite dank maymay.
It's because historians are all normies
Jamestown: "Now that I have a productive export business, it's time to marry an adult woman"
Hispaniola: "No, see, this carib slavegirl is 10 years old, so technically it's ephebophila"
>>860362
>they genocided the natives and replaced them with whites (USA)
Except Americans imported black people to mix with
>>860362
Wow you mean that people who were forced to adopt a foreigner civilization and way of life are doing worse than people who are keeping theirs?
>>859038
>Good colonizers
>are the main responsibles for the mess in the middle east
Pick one
Logic points to several different points that may make a fact clearer:
-Most latins in the new world are descended from natives.
-if you see censuses of time before 1800s. Youd see many white married natives. This is in latin america.
-slavery did not exist into the 1800s in latin america.
-latin america is more diverse than anglo america and in one social group youd see people of mixed ethnic background.
-as for democracy. Democracy has always existed before the anglo person. Anglos were far worse. Just ask a person who has studied african american history or naive american history.
>>858914
>>862953
>british empire
>a picture of gandhi for india and a picture of nelson mandela for south africa
>>862961
Nice rebuttal bro
>>858914
The Britbongs figured out by the end of the 19th century that the best kind of colonization did not come from overt political control but economic ties and mutual development (particularly in the "anglosphere" colonies). Not to say they did a perfect job by any means, but keeping indigenous populations down with military force is expensive but getting the indigenous to work for you in a system that keeps them dependent on your money while offering cheap resources and labor is a far more profitable venture than maintaining garrisons. America picked up on that which is why 21st century American imperialism is all about leased bases, a military that is designed to be mobile and supplied via the air, and lots of "free-trade" agreements.
