>>1245488
There seems to be a correlation

>>1245488
Australia refutes the argument

>>1245488
You got the Brazilian flag. Portuguese did settle quite a bit. They even made Brazil a kingdom at one time, the capital of the empire being there when the royal family moved there.

There were also many Portuguese residents in the African colonies, which were forced to return to great damage of the Portuguese economy which just couldn't provide labor for so many people. Portugal remained a country of emigrants.

>>1245488
Argentina and Chile were almost completely exploitative colonies/psuedo-colonies up till the 1860's...

I personally think culture and the favorable agricultural/mining environment is what separated them from Hues and Congolombians.

>>1245488
well, yes.

Settling Colonization - United States of America
look how that turned out.

Exploitative Colonization - Pretty much all of Africa
look how that turned out.

>>1245774
>Portuguese did settle quite a bit.

No they didn't because there was not enough people in Portugal to make Brazil an actual settling colonization colony.

>They even made Brazil a kingdom at one time, the capital of the empire being there when the royal family moved there.
Only when they were literally forced to do so by Napoleon.

>>1245760
This. What ruined Latin America was race-mixing.

>>1245760
Australia was considered a prison, and those guys there had no better thing to do than to try to survive. Australia doesn't really refute the argument, as it wasn't quite exploitative. Australia just kinda... happened.

>>1245488
Ehh it's more developing a policy that isn't meant to screw over many people helps a lot.

If you make laws to economically disenfranchise a ln indigenous population and enact laws that retards growth and steal their assets don't be surprized the said population can't do much at all asides from getting taxed.