How would the world be different if the UK had colonised South America instead of Portugal and Spain?
It would be a futurist utopia
South America would actually have functioning countries within it
>>52485280
>Territoire français obligatoire
Fucking kek
>>52485280
it would be repopulated with niggers like those Caribbean islands
Look at english Guyana and you will know
would be the same thing but whiter and speaking english. look at india and african countries colonized by uk.
>>52485482
this desu
They'll be an earthly base for the ayy lmao's like Belize.
It would be a futurist utopia
>>52485421
This. Remember that actually exist an ex-UK colony in south america and its the same shit, maybe worse.
>>52485482
Wouldn't have been the same in Africa or India, the natives would have died to smallpox all the same and the colonisers would then repopulate the land.
>>52485280
it would be the same shit as the caribbean countries.
What fucked South America was the massive slave labour.
Thats why southern US is so shit in the first place too
No native Americans?
That's great.
Also, Australia and New Zealand are pretty cool places
>>52485630
pretty sure what fucked south America over were our interventionist policies
There has to be an European majority for a colony to have success (USA, for example). Brazil had few native populations so we had to bring mass numbers of African to use as slave labor turning the Europeans into a minority.
forgot pic
>>52485280
It would be as shit as the average anglo colony
>>52485369
This. There is no way UK would ignore cold places like Spain did.
Patagonia would be like Falkland Islands, first world.
>>52485706
>brazil had few native populations
No, there was a lot but you killed most of them
>>52485788
Subtropical places would be first world too.
Australia is tropical and subtropical.
>>52485482
>>52485784
Lets be realists.
This area would be first world and probably better than New Zealand.
>>52485280
probably worst
>>52485963
>>52485280
The "UK were better at colonization" meme must stop
>>52486000
Of course no.
UK made a lot of white settlers unlike the rest
Look at Guyana
>>52485630
IT'S A LITTLE LATE TO NOTICE IT, PORTUGAL
THANK YOU...
>>52486035
Bahamas is an Island full of niggers and it's first world as fuck.
Consider only New World, please.
What if the Dutch had colonized it?
>territoire Français obligatoire
Noice
>>52486035
Well, still better than us
>>52485963
This. Patagonia would be really first world. If you deny that you are ignoring Oceania.
>tfw not living in South York
>>52485963
No, the patagonia is resource wise, useless.
Only after 1908 when they found SOME oil the area became a little more important.
>>52485963
If it had a population of 10x the size of NZ it would have a gdp of 1.8 trillion
Pretty sweet
>>52486146
Are you implying New Zealand is full of resources?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skD9X-vUT5E
.
>>52486035
every British colony where the majority of natives died of diseases became first world and some became first world
if the british got to south america before spain/portugal there is no doubt it would be on the same level as the anglosphere
>>52485472
>Muh Guyana
Bahamas and Barbados are way better than Latin America and both are full of niggers.
>>52485280
>this asslicking
how the world end up like this?
>>52485421
and paraguay is filled with europeans right?
>>52486084
Slavery was abolished in Portugal in 1761
>>52486261
I have to admit, the fuckers know how to colonize !
If only Frenchmen were as good...
>>52485280
It'd be something like former British colonies in Africa or India.
I don't know why some people think that by being a British colony you're automatically a 1st word developed country.
Pic related are all the countries that have gained independence from the UK.
Now how many of them are prosperous?
>>52486188
In terms of per capita, yes. Check page 179
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/214578-1110886258964/20748034/All.pdf
>>52486439
>>52486444
Because you are dumb and you only think about British colonies in OLD WORLD, not NEW WORLD.
1 - They killed all the natives - Excellent.
Even Niggers are way better than Native Americans.
2 - they created white settlers EVERYWHERE in New World. Just look at Falkland Islands, it's first world.
3 - Language, everyone would comunicate with Canadians and Americans.
>>52485963
Only if we 'displaced' the indiginous population, like we did in Clapland, Current Year, Spider Island and Middle Earth.
Genocide makes for the best colonies.
>Caribbeans
People who complain about these territories don't realize that they had a very different purpose
>>52485421
The caribbean is a better place to live than south america because of us
>>52486597
It's not genocide. It's homogeneus populations and a central government.
>>52486670
Manlet mestizos tend to think they are better than British slavery colonies in New World. They aren't.
>>52486439
All of those countries with significant colonial populations are first world. Most of the places on that map were owned by the UK purely to secure trade that passed through
>>52486439
Falklands vs Argentina argument
British territories were used as trading states for the pure purpose of exploitation and not colonization
>>52486593
did you read what I posted?
>http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/214578-1110886258964/20748034/All.pdf
>Argentina natural capital: 10,312 USD per capita
>New Zealand natural capital: 43,226 USD per capita
Remember, this is natural resources.
>>52486261
>every British colony where the majority of natives died of diseases became first world
....That's fucking wrong also you seem to think the whole "new world hasn o resistance to old world diseases" thing for some reason also extends to Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand.
It doesn't.
I have no idea why you'd think it does.
>>52486818
I think its a shame we didnt get to colonise south america. Some of our african colonies are better than south america, so just imagine what south america would be like
>>52486899
Patagonia is an excellent strategic point, you dumb
It's nice to see these wonderful posts by Joao von Klausgeraubterich
>>52486826
>>52486826
>Most of the places on that map were owned by the UK purely to secure trade that passed through
That's the only reason why Brits would have colonized South America.
It's more there were two British invasions in Buenos Aires in the early 1800's for that very same reason.
South America would be the same shithole it's today if it had been colonized by the British. The only difference is that we'd speak English instead of Spanish. Period.
>>52486987
>Patagonia is an excellent strategic point
nah, tierra del fuego is
patagonia a shit
>>52486987
>Le strategic point meme
>>52486826
>with significant colonial populations
I wonder what factor is key here?
>>52486270
go live there then
I hope you leave very soon
>>52487168
u seem upset
want 2 talk about it?
>>52487078
Britain was based in New World, deal with it. Even their slavery colonies are based in some aspects.
Portugal at least removed annoying Native Americans in most Brazilian territory and maintain Brazil united.
Spain was so fucking dumb that they ignored Patagonia. A free access to Asia.
France was the worst by far.
>>52485963
delet
>>52487249
>britain
you mean american colonists right?
>>52487249
>Spain was so fucking dumb that they ignored Patagonia. A free access to Asia.
We'd end up like India.
>>52487249
:^(
>>52487381
you were ignored
shut up
philippines didn't happen
eastern galleons didn't happen
>>52487374
Australia and New Zealand are New World too.
>>52487436
no they're not
>>52485694
I don't think so.
These countries were fucked up since their inception (just look at motherland for further validation, a shit country among european nations). What your government did was make things even worse than they already were (which seems impossible but still...)
>>52487119
>That's the only reason why Brits
No, they had several wars to deal with from several factions
>South America would be the same shithole it's today if it had been colonized by the British
You keep forgetting that the Falklands still exist
>>52487400
India was heavily populated before British rule, Argentina would end up closer to Aus/NZ. Maybe Peru would end up like India.
>>52486035
Crazy how poortugay used to actually do stuff...mostly raping niggers but still
>>52487249
>expecting Argentina to have a serious discussion involving Britain
waste of time
their fake tan president feeds them propaganda from the minute they're born
>>52486274
>and paraguay is filled with europeans right?
it actually is,
remember that time 60% of the population died at the war? welp..
>>52487424
I know, the brazilian is just being retarded
>>52487495
>You keep forgetting that the Falklands still exist
you mean that military base with a small fishing town of like 2000 inhabitants?
>>52487495
The falklands did not have a native population, were colonised pretty recently, they have a small population mostly composed of scots and they're a fucking overseed territory not a sovereign country.
Literally nothing like the rest of South America. It's like pointing out antartic scientific expeditions.
>>52487436
always people that escaped/immigrated from the UK or was imprisoned there
you should talk about those colonists, not their home countries, which took little part in establishing the foundation for nowadays countries
>>52487381
>argie education
>>52487529
Of course you are filled woth Europeans Paco Quispe.
Retards acting like former British Africa and India (loo be upon them) are first world.
>>52485280
It would be a futurist utopia
>>52487628
They are talking about the pacific route you dumb shit.
And Spanish territories in the americas bordered the two fucking oceans.
>>52487470
Yes we are. Anything that Europeans colonized is new world by definition.
"The New World" as a specific place name may just refer to The Americas, but as a descriptive term, "new world" does accurately describe us.
>>52487628
I still don't undesrtand why Spain ignored Patagonia, man.
>>52487735
>a cold wasteland at the end of the world
mmh
>>52487628
> Ignoring the antarctic canal.
Argentinian education everybody.
>>52487735
because it's a barren desert and they were just interested in the silver up north
>>52487735
deserted and arid wasteland.
>>52487735
Too cold for them.
>>52487735
Cold, dry, no resources and inhabitated by violent natives.
Gee, I wonder
>>52487805
lots of space though
>>52487595
>overseed territory not a sovereign country.
Kinda like all the commonwealths of the UK?
>>52487651
You kinda forget that India had a huge population before the Brits entered
>>52486901
it only encompasses the americas and australia, specifically the places where the British made great countries and Spain/Portugal made terrible ones
>>52487590
At least they're white.
>>52485280
>Chile and Argentina together
>ignoring the fact that there's a huge mountainrange dividing both areas
Good map, OP
>>52487863
european immigration (and lack of a large native population) made you great countries, not colonization
>>52487735
1. The viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata was fairly streched out. The country was sparsely populated
2. The native patagonians were fairly agressive
3. Patagonia had almost no resources, there was too little to gain.
4. The profitable colonies were depredated by pirates and britsh corsairs, and not to mention portuguese competition. So spain was already fighting in several in most of the world.
5. Don't forget spanish empire rose to power before the industrial revolution. The middle ages ended when spain got to Cuba (if you consider the 1492 date) so they weren't using the technology the british and french used later to form their colonial empires.
And despite all of that, they managed to have the truly first global empire.
>>52487856
Are you implying that an island in the ass of the world, inhabitated by a bunch of inbred scots, with the population of a fucking small town and whose main commercial activity is fishing is somewhat comparable to a country the size of Argentina or Australia/Canada/NZ?
>>52486593
Not in the Carribbean they didn't. If Britain discovered Brazil at the time of Cabral they would have imported Slaves just the same as the Tugas.
I think South Africa would probably have been the best example of what would have happened in Brazil. A high percentage of English settlers would make the country first world, but it would be beset by all manner of racial issues. In the end either it would balkanize into something like a white English colony in South Brazil and Pardos and natives everywhere else, or stay together and slowly decline as South Africa has been doing.
As for what would have happened if the new world was somehow magically discovered after Slavery was abolished,, well that's another matter entirely. Most of the natives would have died out due to the new diseases, so perhaps it would be a majority ethnically English colony.
>>52485280
I think Brits thought more in the future.
"What would we do if UK is fucked?"
We can imigrate to our white settlers in New World.
The others created shitholes don't thinking in the future.
Spain and Portugal took the good parts -- The ones filled with natives to exploit and things to loot. The british had to bring in their own their own people to work for them, which generally had no interest to be slaving around for a king an ocean away. That's why Latin America is so different from the US and Canada today.
>>52487651
South Africa was for many years though. Namibia and former British East Africa are doing better relative to the West African French colonies.
>>52487973
>would make the country first world
You can't consider yourself as a first world country when most of your population's life is less than utter shit, such as the case of South Africa under the apartheid.
>>52488008
>That's why Latin America is so different from the US and Canada today.
what are you talking about? Canada was a subject of UK up to 1931, and it still is a formal subject of the Queen of the UK
>>52487999
that's not how immigration works though
Britain as a country did dog shit for their colonies, hell the US is so great just because it revolted against their masters
>>52487973
>le SA was 1st world meme
stop
>>52487735
A better question would be why Spain ignored Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc.
>>52487970
For living standards in such a small scale? Its kinda impressive especially for its distance with the mainland. Anglo culture is much more better and efficient at exploitation of the land instead of Spanish moors
>>52488037
So was Argentina.
In fact if we go further back a lot of South American countries were comparatively not shit before the Monroe doctrine
>>52487973
Brazil wasn't different from South US.
Portugal just have a small population unlike Britain so we didn't have a strong segregation, they needed to make mulatto babies before European immigration.
>>52488241
Again, no. Only the Spaniards and their sons where living fine in the colonies, more than 60% of all the population of the colonies were poor as dirt. That's nowhere near as an ideal thing.
>>52488223
>actually comparing a 2Kinh island with a 40million country
Pointless arguing with you.
>>52488397
Mayan, before the Monroe doctrine over 60% of the population anywhere was poor as shit.
>>52488124
Living standards for white South Africans were first world at the time. The infrastructure in the major cities before and during Apartheid was first world. You had first world areas in which white people lived and then you had villages outside the cities where blacks lived in destitution.
>>52488241
I'm aware, which is why I think there's far more to it than British colonialism. Hong Kong, for example, owed more of its success due to the enterprising local business community than British colonialism.
>>52488316
The South of US wasn't segregated. They racemix a lot before American Civil War.
Segregation was created after American Civil War. Because the North forced whites to live together with blacks.
>>52488523
Of course there's far more factors when it comes to Hong Kong. The merchants from China who fled there after the communists won the civil war, the location as a trading port etc but you get my point.
>>52488116
It's a bit more than independece. When the spanish colonies gained independence the same people basically controlled them, and the exploitive economies continued, while the birtish colonies quickly established more rights for the people.
>>52488578
but that's wrong Felipao
>let me tell you about your country
>>52488578
Blacks lived as slaves in the South. The only race mixing was plantation owners impregnating their physical and sexual slaves.
There was nowhere near the rights given to Mulattos as there was in Brazil
>>52487731
>Anything that Europeans colonized is new world by definition
so Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore and Macau are new world?
>>52488116
>still is a formal subject of the Queen of the UK
not quite how it works lad
>>52488658
All African Americans from the South are mulattoes. Mulattoes were more expensive in slavery colonies, especially mulatto women.
If Britain invaded Brazil we would be like another South Africa. Because they forced Afrikaners to live together with slaves. Abolition was not peaceful.
>>52488674
Mulattoes didn't have rights here before 1888
i wouldn't exist and that would be great
>>52488491
They were uneducated slaves on the bottom of the caste system. It was like this, Spaniards(Peninsulares)>Their sons (criollos)>Different degrees of mestizos, the whiter the better>Amerindians>Blacks, something that has lasted up until now.
Sure, it was heaven on earth for them, I guess that is why they started independentist movements, dumb belgian.
>>52488523
>Living standards for white South Africans were first world at the time
I know that, but that doesn't turn South Africa into a first world country, you are ignoring that the majority of their population weren't living like that.
Under apartheid, nonwhite South Africans (a majority of the population) would be forced to live in separate areas from whites and use separate public facilities, and contact between the two groups would be limited.
From 1960 to 1983, 3.5 million non-white South Africans were removed from their homes, and forced into segregated neighbourhoods, in one of the largest mass removals in modern history.[9] Non-white political representation was abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, beaches, and other public services, and provided black people with services that were inferior to those of white people.
That is not first world.
There are millions of mexicans living with first world standards, does that makes us first world? Hell no, the majority of people lives like shit.
>>52488636
>while the birtish colonies quickly established more rights for the people.
Lol no, the US needed a 5 year long civil war for that. In other parts of south america the slavery ended 50 years before that.
>>52488636
Under Mexican rule, slavery was illegal in Texas and the other territories, that's part of the reason the illegal american immigrants wanted to secede in the first place.
>>52488741
No, only Oceania and The Americas are the New World.
>>52486092
Belize then.
mnost english and french colonies lie in africa. theyre all shit. overall spanish colonies top any other's. lol not even joking. some countries just have had minor inconveniences... like a barrage of slaves and native american free loaders.
>>52485280
A lot less diddling the natives.
>>52488994
No, as I said, independence is one thing. But when they colonizers first came to the british colonies, the brits tried to mold their colonies the way the spanish colonies were set up, but it really didn't work. Again, independence is one thing, personal freedom is another. You should read about the what happened with Virginia Company and the first colonisations, where they tried to bully the settlers to do as they wanted, but ended up having to give them incentives to come and work. Incentives like land and some kind of democracy.
>>52486035
The difference is that GB can call out more than 0 good colonies as opposed to the others.
>>52489567
Chile, Uruguay and Argentina are nice. They are safer than you too.
>>52485280
British Big Designated Guyana
God save the loo
>>52485280
they invaded here in 1807 and couldn´t handle the bunda, didn´t rape a single woman, fleed back in a few months
>>52485366
>>52485369
>>52485788
>>52485842
>>52485963
>England starts colonizing the North of the American continent after the Spanish discover it and their main adversaries are a bunch of nomad tribes, seize only the eastern coast and create 13 colonies by eradicating any single native they find. Same applied to Australia which is basically a barren land with 2 fucking apes inhabiting it.
Spain settles on the south of the North subcontinent, central america and also most of the whole southern subcontinent having to defeat 3 separate empires, one of them having a capital 3 times as large as one of the biggest cities in Europe (Sevilla), while fighting 2 different wars in the european continent and having to deal with the english trying to fuck their shit up every single time they can. Also impose order on a native population that actually has a culture and can pose a threat to the colonizers.
>Decades later Englands first colony gains independence and makes an example out of them while the british are more concerned fighting a bigger war against the french. Spanish colonies follow suit after and painfully they have only their corrupt criollos to lead them who have learned a twisted way to govern themselves from the decadent 18th century spanish governors. Throughout 19th and 20th century the U.S.A undermines any chance of prosperity, power and unity in latin america with the sole purpose of being top dog in the american continent.
HURR ANGLOS ARE BETTER COLONIZERS!!
>>52490226
eh, we helped to drive them out
and by "we" i mean all the provinces: Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Salta, Paraguay, Charcas..
...man why are yoruguas such ungrateful bastards?
>>52485694
Actually, the UK fucked us up quiet a bit before you got the chance to.
Most of the new Latin American countries got indebted to the UK when trying to form their new governments, many of them getting bankrupted in the process, which prevented them from ever being truly rich.
The Cold War powers that be really shat on us on the 20th century though, and are the real reason everything here is so shit.
In any case, UK colonization may have only made us more savvy about finances, but not necessarily a better place.
>>52485280
see Guyana, the poorest country of South America along with Bolivia.
>>52490487
Your, I mean, my ancestors were heavily aided with smallpox and all the other diseases they carried. They would have probably still won have they been disease free (arguable) just by the huge advantage in technology. But it would have been 100x more difficult and it would have taken a lot more time and lives. Cortés was also a brilliant general, but, he also got lucky when he stumbled upon an army of allies right next to the city he was trying to conquer.
You make it sound as if conquistadores were this super invisible army made entirely out of Rambos, when in reality, they were a great army with a huge technological advantage who got extremely, ridiculously lucky.
You are semi-right about everything else.
>>52486944
such as? all of them have much lower HDI. Bolivia has a higher HDI than South Africa, Botswana's HDI is El Salvador tier.
>>52486670
>>52485421
These tiny islands/city-states don't count, any South American capital city is much richer and more developed than them, having 10 or 100x their population.
At least the spanish didn't fill their colonies with niggers. Thank god.
>>52493931
they did, but only on those places where they could afford to buy slaves (Lima, Cartagena, Cuba...)
>>52494044
Well, they didn't for the most part. Good for the US.
>>52486670
>The caribbean is a better place to live than south america because of us
>>52492072
literally none. as a matter of fact, latin america as a region is still more developed than asia
>>52494230
Where exactly?
What part of the caribbean is better than south america? I would rather live in buenos aires, rio de janeiro, mexico city, or any other latin american capital than shitty islands in the pacific.
>>52494395
The islands that are still part of the Netherlands are pretty okay, I think.
>>52494230
That post is actually much more fitting under an Argentine flag.
>>52494395
>Saudi Arabia
>dark blue
What.
I know they're rich as fuck, but doesn't the authoritative theocratic government deduct a few points?
>>52494453
thats exactly what i was saying (or trying at least)
>>52494395
thanks you are right
i was just laughing cause for what i know caribbe is a shitty place to live, bad eductation, bad healthcare, niggers etc
at least comparing it with arg
>>52494395
Shit, I meant the atlantic.
>Inb4 american education
>>52487628
jajajaj que pelotudo
>>52487879
what about the chilean living there?
>>52486035
Why is France so shit?
>>52486261
British colonies where the natives mostly died had centralized governments. So did Portugal's.
Spanish colonies didn't, and it was on purpose so that no single colony could wrestle power away from the crown. That's the reason Central American and north South American balkans exist.
Gran Colombia had stayed in one piece, they'd all probably be on the level of the southern cone. I don't think we can say the same for New Spain (Mexico + Central America. Caribbeans and the Philippines were technically part of it too, but they stayed with Spain until the US got them) though, but the question here is why couldn't Mexico get to that level.
Some Mexican can probably clear this bit of history up.
>>52488992
>Sure, it was heaven on earth for them, I guess that is why they started independentist movements
Actually, the ones who started the independence movements were the criollos themselves. Most Amerindians actually preferred to keep being under the Spanish crown.
>>52495915
There is an entire thread about that
>>52492352
But you might be more interested in this post >>52492629
And actually, one of the reasons we failed so bad, was that we were terribly centralized. All the Northern territories were lost because anyone was hardly inhabiting them besides, ironically, illegal American immigrants. Being centralized was also one of the main reasons inequality arouse in Mexico in such an extreme manner, and why we were, and still are, divided. We had to wage war with multiple separatist states at the same time besides Texas. It's quite complicated honestly.
>>52496151
>Most Amerindians actually preferred to keep being under the Spanish crown.
[citation needed]
The caste system was terrible for them. If it was bad for Creoles themselves, it wasn't any good for the Amerindians.
>>52496177
>decentralization
Unsurprising. So basically, we're fucked up because the Spaniards did in the Americas what the British and French did in the Middle East and Africa.
>>52496223
The criollos weren't any better rulers for the Amerindians though. Granted, I'm not sure about Mexico, but Central American independence was 100% about Criollo elites being able to control the trade without interference from the crown.
>>52489448
>eheh no, spanish colonies are god tier colonies ;))))
>>52494990
Rude m8
We've always wanted to conquer Europe instead of "the world", unlike Portuguese..Dutch...Brits...
>>52496282
>The criollos weren't any better rulers for the Amerindians though.
You are right, that's why Iturbide only lasted in power of the "First Mexican Empire" for very little time. When the "empire" dissolved, all the Creoles ruling Central America stopped caring about belonging to Mexico and you proclaimed independence from us. To this day, governments of my country, and I assume yours, still treat amerindians like shit.
Anyway, goodnight anons.
>>52496375
How'd that go?
>>52496425
>To this day
lel, they were genocided by a crazy occultist president back in the 30s
The ones that survived abandoned their traditions and basically disguised themselves as mestizos until they got assimilated completely.
>>52496517
They came pretty close, to be quite honest.
>Portugal, Huezil, Angola, Mozambique
third world
>Spain, Latin America
third world
>France, Africa, Guyana
third world
>England, USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, Singapore
first world
>>52496552
Just like Nazi Germany came pretty close, right?
>>52496517
Boarf...coalitions, as always
>>52496576
>muh cherrypicking
>>52496577
Germans had allies jej
>>52496629
>Italy
>ally
>not a fifth column
>>52489604
thanx bro
>>52496651
Well, that's still an ally
Plus they had Japan, not the same continent but...
France literally fought alone against the whole Europe
>>52497013
>France literally fought alone
>>52497098
Bitches =/= allies
>>52497124
>"so, where ya want 'em?"
>>52497124
old guard or new guard?
>>52497144
Errr ?
Fuck it, I'm hungry now
>>52486261
>Belize
>Caribbean Islands
