Spaniard colonialism versus English colonialism

[mayfly13]

Colonialism in North America versus South America
in India versus Philipine

How did they differ?



Colonialism in any shape of form is unethical and brutal, no doubt so there's no point debating it again, most threads on Lit discussed it for years.

But after reading JonnySavage's comment in one of the Columbus threads
-- in which he was explaining who was what (Italian, Spanish, Italian)
it dawned upon me that most of us are pretty ignorant on these matters.
So they would make for a fresh, never discussed before topic.

 

[pecksniff]

One difference, I suppose, is that if the Spanish had colonized India, they would have forced everybody to convert to Catholicism.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Civilization is civilizing, but the effect is evolutionary, so it requires centuries. The Roman Empire imposed civilization on the Celts. The Holy Roman Empire imposed civilization on the Germans.

I define a civilization as a city based culture where the government has the effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The Germans demonstrated an embarrassing lapse under the Nazis. Nevertheless, today Germany has a much lower crime rate than the United States. The high crime rate in the United States is caused mainly by the high percentage of Negroes and Hispanics.

The East Indians have a tradition of civilization that is at least four thousand years old. Nevertheless, the British Empire tutored the East Indians in the ways of democracy. The European empires in sub Saharan Africa ended centuries too soon.

 

[pecksniff]

The European empires in sub Saharan Africa ended centuries too soon.

What, you think things would be going better there if they were still colonies?

After WWII, the British gave up their colonies because they confronted the fact that they were not profitable -- having them was more a matter of prestige than anything else.

 

[oggbashan]

The Spanish Conquistadors killed far more of the native population in Central and Southern America than the English (and French and Dutch) did in North America.

In India, the British, Dutch and French initially worked with local rulers instead of displacing them. But they were still seen as invaders who were not bringing civilisation but replacing an existing civilised set of states.

The Belgian Congo was possibly the worst example of European colonialism in Africa.

The Roman Empire was multicultural. Anyone, whatever their race or colour, could rise in the Empire and become a Roman Citizen (and even Emperor!). But the Romans, like the Greeks, depended on slave labour. But Roman slaves could become free.

The Arab conquest of Spain was largely tolerant of race and religion, unlike some other invaders.

The Japanese takeover of Manchuria and parts of China in the mid 20th Century was brutal.

 

[pecksniff]

The Spanish Conquistadors killed far more of the native population in Central and Southern America than the English (and French and Dutch) did in North America.

To be fair, in all cases, diseases did most of the killing.

 

[oggbashan]

To be fair, in all cases, diseases did most of the killing.

Indeed they did, but the Spanish were much more likely to massacre the local populations.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The English brought families. The Spanish did not.

 

[The_Trouvere]

What, you think things would be going better there if they were still colonies?

After WWII, the British gave up their colonies because they confronted the fact that they were not profitable -- having them was more a matter of prestige than anything else.

Things would be going better for the Negroes in the colonies. The European imperialists built roads, water purification plants, electric power plants, schools, and hospitals in sub Saharan Africa. Since independence the African Negroes have had trouble maintaining these.

 

[pecksniff]

The English brought families. The Spanish did not.

Oh, the Spanish brought families -- their (pureblood white) descendants became the criollos. But the Spanish Empire's idea of maintaining control over its colonies was to limit all colonial government jobs to peninsulares or gapuchines -- Spaniards born in Spain. The Latin American rebellions against the Spanish Crown were led by criollos who resented that arrangement, who thought they should be the local ruling class -- raising the status of the Indians and mestizos (who were practically serfs at the time) was not a consideration. To this day, there is a racial caste hierarchy (not legal, but social and economic) in most Latin American countries.

The real difference was, the Spanish conquered the native population, for labor, while the English pushed them aside and took their land and worked it themselves.

 

[mayfly13]

Indeed they did, but the Spanish were much more likely to massacre the local populations.

Oh, the Spanish brought families -- their (pureblood white) descendants became the criollos. But the Spanish Empire's idea of maintaining control over its colonies was to limit all colonial government jobs to peninsulares or gapuchines -- Spaniards born in Spain. The Latin American rebellions against the Spanish Crown were led by criollos who resented that arrangement, who thought they should be the local ruling class -- raising the status of the Indians and mestizos (who were practically serfs at the time) was not a consideration.

I'm pretty sure of that.
My perception too, as a layperson who doesn't know History, is that the Spanish were far more brutal and genocidal towards locals.

However, I also feel that the attitude became gradually diluted over the years especially in the early 20th century, that their former colonial territories became a more authentic melting pot/ more multicultural than former British colonies.

Because I watch South Americans on TV and my perception is that they seem more ethnic-blind when interacting with each other.

?? Maybe it has to do with the fact that inter-ethnic dna mixing occurred more frequently in South America,
or that Spanish (despite their European superiority) often looked just as dark as locals,
or that Spain had a less class based society than England? (many Australians and New Zealander descendants of colonists maintain that 'we're higher-class inner view , they act more British than the Brits. Whereas most British immigrants, who come from --so-called-- middle-lower class Britain are quite open and cool).

Or maybe it's just advertising, and South America has it's own problems from that pov.

 

[pecksniff]

or that Spain had a less class based society than England?

No, it's not that -- the goal of the Spanish was to reproduce feudalism in the New World, with criollos owning the encomiendas and Indians and mestizos working them. When the English wanted to do anything like that, they didn't use the Indians, they imported slaves from Africa -- blacks had better resistance to Euro diseases, and did not have relatives over the hill who might try to free them.

Another difference is that the pre-colonial population happened to be much denser in the territories the Spanish conquered -- total genocide was not an option.

 

[mayfly13]

No, it's not that -- the goal of the Spanish was to reproduce feudalism in the New World, with criollos owning the encomiendas and Indians and mestizos working them. When the English wanted to do anything like that, they didn't use the Indians, they imported slaves from Africa -- blacks had better resistance to Euro diseases, and did not have relatives over the hill who might try to free them.

Another difference is that the pre-colonial population happened to be much denser in the territories the Spanish conquered -- total genocide was not an option.

wow, those observations are gold.
from my pov, but I'm sure others feel it widened their horizons too
thanks! and for the other ones


btw
Lit. is a unique place, people regularly waver from troll-banter mode to writing really interesting things.
But that's it's charm.

 

[Champakian]

I regard it all as European colonization.



They all look alike to me...

 

[Champakian]

Things would be going better for the Negroes in the colonies. The European imperialists built roads, water purification plants, electric power plants, schools, and hospitals in sub Saharan Africa. Since independence the African Negroes have had trouble maintaining these.

Racist.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Most of the geo-political problems in the world today can be traced to British imperialism. That's one Evil Empire.

 

[Champakian]

I think they can be traced to people.

The British and the Spanish are just people.

People being people towards other people(s)...

 

[JohnnySavage]

Yea, but our Brit posters enjoy shaking their fingers at the US while ignoring their own atrocities. Atrocities that the US continues to pay dearly for, trying to resolve.

 

[Champakian]

Yeah. I put Butters on ignore. Is it still shaking its finger
now that it has become part of the problem?

 

[JohnnySavage]

Her, Ogg and occasionally Dolf.


I don't think any of them are evil and I'd share a meal with them. Butters, I think is underedcuated and has blinders on. Dolf is very judgmental. Ogg... he just remembers the good old days that never really were that good.

 

[oggbashan]

Yea, but our Brit posters enjoy shaking their fingers at the US while ignoring their own atrocities. Atrocities that the US continues to pay dearly for, trying to resolve.

Not all of us Brits. We are ashamed, for example, of the Opium Wars, and our involvement, until we decided to send the Royal Navy to stop it, the slave trade and bought the freedom of slaves throughout British territories, long before the US freed their slaves, many of whom had come on British ships.

The actions of the East India Company in India was exploiting India, and our response to the Indian Revolt was barbarous.

But we gave our colonies their independence after WW2, sooner perhaps than we had intended, but throughout the 20th Century, the UK policy was that what had been UK colonies should eventually be self-governing. In Africa particularly, the state of each nation after independence was possibly due to too much, too soon, when democratic principles hadn't taken root.

 

[Champakian]

We taught you how to "give" independence.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Not all of us Brits. We are ashamed, for example, of the Opium Wars, and our involvement, until we decided to send the Royal Navy to stop it, the slave trade and bought the freedom of slaves throughout British territories, long before the US freed their slaves, many of whom had come on British ships.

The actions of the East India Company in India was exploiting India, and our response to the Indian Revolt was barbarous.

But we gave our colonies their independence after WW2, sooner perhaps than we had intended, but throughout the 20th Century, the UK policy was that what had been UK colonies should eventually be self-governing. In Africa particularly, the state of each nation after independence was possibly due to too much, too soon, when democratic principles hadn't taken root.

That's not really true, is it. The East India Company and its successors is how "Official" British Government maintained slavery, while saying it wasn't. Britain had slaves in India well into the 20th century.

 

[oggbashan]

We taught you how to "give" independence.

No, you didn't. You fought for it (with your French allies). If better counsels had prevailed in the UK parliament (many of which supported the 13 colonies claim for self-government) the US war of independence would have been unnecessary. Part of the problem was the lack of fast communications between Westminster and the 13 Colonies. Many of the 13 colonies' demands were about to be conceded, with reluctance, when the fighting started.

Every other former UK colony was given their independence without a war, except for some resistance movements - the Mau Mau, Indian peaceful Protests etc, that didn't influence the eventual granting of independence.

 

[Champakian]

You sound like one of our trolls here who lose an argument
and then claim that they "won."