Why did the Hispanic colonies not turn out as good as the others?

Also explain why french colonies are even worst.

>Quebec

Quebec and?

Algeria?

Yeah, fucking 1st world.

You guys forgot that countries like Argentina were powers not so time ago.

Why are dutch colonies so shitty?

Quebec is shit.

t. literally everybody else in Canada

You mean as compared to the USA and Canada, right?

Brazil is a shithole like the rest of latin america. It's just bigger and that makes it look better. The India of south america.

Constant governments that were/are both corrupt and unstable are a big part of it.

Communism.

>200 years later
>Spain
Stop with the meme.

Native populations were far higher to begin with and didn't die out so heavily from smallpox. More survived to get fucked over, and the resulting systems were shit (colonial caste system etc.)

wrong

probably right

their empire was heavily centralized tho, which is why even spaniards hate Madrid

eh, they're part of BRICS for a good reason

right

half right

half right

>and didn't die out so heavily from smallpox
wrong
you're forgetting there were many mestizos from the get go that had immunity from their father's (and why not, sometimes mother's, see "O Guarani) genes

the real answer is the cold war

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_the_Indies
the English had different property laws....

Shitskins, englisbh colonies with whites e.g. USA, Australia, Canada fared much better, in contrast to India or Ghana. The white Spanish colonies like Argentina have done better than the poorer, darker skinned places such as Bolivia and Venezuela.

Latin America was screwed long before the XX century. I'd say the problems began with the colonization model that pretended to implement some sort of feudalism in which the Spaniards were mere rentiers in an extractive economic model that persists today (look at Venezuela)

>mere rentiers

It goes further than that. The point was extract gold and silver. Everything was modelled after that. And later on for profitable crops like sugar cane or tobacco.

There's a reason why Spain went primarily after Mexico and Peru and showed no interest in North America; no gold, no silver, no nothing, only lots of primitive indians. Spain was happy to leave those meagre crumbs for the french and english.

Ultimately those crumbs went all to the english because not even the king of France could convince his people to board a ship and migrate there, whereas England had plenty of religious sectarianism and poorfags dreaming of gtfo of there even for some shithole in the woods in the frontier lands with the injuns.

The shithole however, turned out to be pretty good for farming and agriculture and the burgers bred like rabbits.

>wrong
>proceeds to agree with people who say the same thing
*grumble*

>Patagonian weather is the same as Amazonian weather.
K.

Do you really think it has something to do with the colonial overlord and not with the colony?

South America's only use was precisely to exploit it's natural ressources. This was true even after the colony and would have not changed with a different overlord. The english had slave plantations in the caribean like the spaniards, and would have had mines in Peru if they got it. The territory of the modern USA had a very different use, being a better place to populate with europeans. But Spain never had the population surplus of England, even nowadays most of Spain has an extremely low population density and is less populated than smaller countries like the UK, Italy or Germany.

Well the area around Uruguay/South Brazil/NorthEastern Argentina is just as good for european-style farmland as atlantic northamerica, it has many useful fluvial routes, and all around surrounded by otherwise complementary terrain i.e minerals from the andean region, pastures and natural resources from Patagonia, commodity crop plantations and natural resources from northern brazil...

Thing is, it didn't receive much immigration during colonial times and was kept a relatively low population density until well into the XIX.

Quebec is irrelevant lol nice place to go once in a while I guess
Algeria is good for African standards in all honesty. Then again, most of North Africa is(save for Libya nowadays)

Do you guys think there's a correlation to the expulsion of Jews and the poor economic sustainability of the Spanish empire?

Yes. Yes it is that.

I know that Philip II's self imposed inquisition of Moriscos and protestants trashed the domestic economy a bit.

>Argentina is white

White Anglo Saxon Protestant Superiority.

Catholicism is a disaster

what others?

Out all brit colonies only those which were composed of almost entirely of Europeans turned out good, the rest are shitholes

all the French Dutch, italian Belgium etc colonies are also shitholes

This, the spanish used their colonies mainly for extracting natural resources, south america had almost no non-extractive industries.
I read somewhere that you couldn't manufacture almost anything in the viceroyalty of peru, everything had to be brought from spain, construction plans, tools, weapons, etc. They even banned wine making because it grew too large and was a threat for the spanish wine industry. Trade between the viceroyalties of new spain and peru was also banned.
I guess it was a way to keep the colonies to becoming too independent from spain.

>I guess it was a way to keep the colonies to becoming too independent from spain.

I don't blame them for making that conclusion. If I was a colonial power I'd make sure my colonies could only survive sucking on my teats.

Government system, egoism, lack of identity, social castes basically.

Since the very beginning of colonization, becausre of the distance and inpossibility to enforce the authority of the crown, no one gave a fuck and went on to create their little empires for personal enrichment (see encomienda and leyes de indias).

This division went on to the moment of the independence. Caudillos (borgouise) had lots of frictions since the very moment independence was declared (see patria boba).
They managed to unite under Bolivar because they were going to lose to the spaniard forces during the reconquista, and so they went until south america was liberated.

Then those frictions among each motherfucker came up again and gran colombia separated very quickly, then there's the shitshow between Santander and Bolivar (that would go on to conservative vs liberal civil wars all across the following century).

That's the basic gist of it. War after war for power because we were never truly united in the first place, so when we got the countries for ourselves no one cared to make them good for everyone. Then we reach the cuban revolution+cold war and the commies start wrecking shit up. And to our disgrace, narcotraffick boomed, so the guerrillas lost their ideological values and dedicated to dirty business together with cartels.

...

Except these policies ofter lead to corruption and oligarchy, Viceroys held way more power and wealth than the King and had to be replaced constantly just for the next guy to be even more corrupt than the previous one, a real pain in the ass for the Crown.

Civil wars,weak states that were pimped by bigger countries,conflicts between the native population amd criollo population and later populist leaders like Perón. Argentina and Cuba were pretty developed for the time.

>Texas,Florida,California,the netherlands,Italy
Spain can also go with meme answers

Hispanic colonies turned out to be incredibly rich, but were economically dependent on European trade, and the collapse of European economies in the 20th century fucked them over while they were relatively unindustrialized (they got wealthy from trading raw materials and didn't need to industrialize). Couple that with various civil wars, outside intervention in the cold war, and coups by oppressive dictators and you have some shitty colonies

> is there any correlation between deporting most of highly education population and economical stagnation?
Nope

Consider that North America was much closer to Europe.

Educated*

Yes and the sad thing is that most of that gold went to finance wars in Europe, caused inflation or was wasted.

Spain can't into a good economy

Well, that depends which colonies you do compare...

Because the Dutch never bothered with state building in their colonies until the early 1930s, instead only bothering with squeezing cash and resources from their colonies. They never had the whole pro-motherland white man's burden that the rest developed, opting primarily for an infrastructure that favoured a large body of foreign (huguenot, north german, dano-norwegian, and other assorted VOC employed nationalities) mercenary/settlers, and native nobility -- aslong as they were useful. Cross reference the haphazard settlement of sef efrika by the VOC after it became something more than a refueling station, with Indonesia which was a hybrid of native princes, Chinese trade republics, and other types of importer nationalities in a greater colonial structure.

Tl;dr fuck statebuilding gibe cash.

colonization was built around exploitation and not settlement

See, this is why I'm always cautious of saying SPICS R SHIT COLONIZERDS :DDD

Africa. Kek.

America just has the best possible geographic position

...

I don't know why but, when they got independence, places like Cuba or Argentina were among the richest countries in the world. So don't blame Spain

they were true, extraction colonies, the silver and gold mines and shit like tobbacco and coffee were what came from the spanish colonies.
There was less of lagre settlements of anyone with sufficent capital, to advance economic development.
The US and Canada have had a constant influx of immigrants into the country for more than 200 years...
cheap labour as well as elites. Those are optimal conditions. (along with geographical, geological etc. factors)
In the Spanish colonies it was mostly a small landowning white elite.
Not to forget that the British were economically better off than the spanish, after they learned what inflation is the hard way.

Weather and demographics motivated the local populations to rely entirely on the mass production of commodities as the economic base of the countries.

The population of illiterate, poor as shit farmers exploded after the discovery of vaccines and modern antibiotics, and most commodity prices went to shit after the green revolution. Meaning that between the 1920s and the 1980s, the lowest class in these countries were doubling their numbers per generation, while the local economies barely experienced any growth.

>an event that happened in 1492 relevant in any way to the colonization and administration of lands that had not yet even be discovered
>jews were highly educated people and all of them were merchant-usury-bankers.
>implying many places in Spanish America weren't the best and most advanced ones in the entire continent until well into the XIX.

grain producing temperate regions on the north east coast of the US provided the best locations for urbanization and manufacturing

In fact, all commere was between Spain and America was a monopoly of the Casa de Contratacion in Sevilla. No other port was allowed to trade, not even other ports in Spain.

However, that changed after the Borbonic reform in the XVIII, liberalising trade between Spain and the Viceroyalties. I'm not sure if that included inter-viceroyalties commerce.

Basically they fucked up hard after independence. In 100 years the Southern Cone, which was the poorer part of the Spanish Empire became way richer than Mexico and other colonies. The problem was that in the north was the huge amount of caudillos and feudal spanish mindset that led to the fragmentation of Mexico and Gran Colombia. Meanwhile the old Plata Vice-royalty was in the middle of a 20 year civil war that shaped a solid national identity after it was over, despite the loss of Southern Brazil to the Empire of Brazil and the independence of Uruguay. After that they had a bunch of fertile land that was empty and all the chances to build a prosperous nation and they did, but in the 30s Perón came and fucked everything up.

Mexico fucked up hard. They lost tons of prosper land in 30 years,which was perfect for inmigration.That land would have allow them to be the strongest country in north america.

The BRIC are all shitholes. That's the point, shitholes where nobody sane would want to live but powerful thanks to size and enormous population.

You do know what the Pampas are, right?

>Perón
>30s
This is a History board.

>The US fucked Mexico up hard
ftfy

Mexico actually had a bigger population than the US before independence. If the indepence war didnt happen they wouldnt have been cucked. It is partially their fault.

I was under the impression that it was due to the colonies political structure/climate, referring to how they fell to military juntas and dictatorships often and their shitty elites trying to keep milking their countries.

Argentina was pretty much first world until it fell to a junta that set it far behind, its only catching back up now.

That's the thing, for all of its poverty (especially in the countryside) Cuba was one of the wealthiest Latin American states before Castro took over. More doctors per capita than the Uk (still does desu), high rates of cars and TVs per capita. Let's not forget that the trade unions supported Batista.

Poverty is something relative. Cuba was a net inmigration recipient country,and the poor there were wealthier than in parts in Europe. It was Spain's colonial jewel,and when it was lost a whole literary movement appeared. Cuba was like the Singapore or Hong Kong of the 1980s. Growing economy,huge capital investments and a pretty prosperous place. Then Batista's autism caused the revolution,and the rest is history

>Why did the Hispanic colonies not turn out as good as the others?

As opposed to british india/egypt?

I'm not a historian, but these are my opinions.

America has a lot more fertile land. Latin America is largely tropical, which any ecologist will tell you is terrible land for farming. Very low nutrients and common flooding make farming almost impossible, despite a longer growing season. The pampas and parts of Mexico are about the only places, other than small pockets elsewhere. Which explains Mexico and Argentina's slightly higher prosperity. Brazil is just massive and has lots of human capital and land to work with.

Whereas America's entire middle region was once fertile farmland. There's just a lot of it. Also America was an early industrial power, which helped it become a world power more quickly. There's such a thing as the cycle of poverty I believe holds true for nations as well as individuals. America was rich early on and was able to maintain its power, whereas many Latin American nations didn't have as much power to begin with.

Also government stability plays a factor. America had an unstable time, which culminated in the Civil war. This was a massive schism that almost destroyed the country, and set a big precedent for the future of politics. I feel Latin American countries never experienced such devastating warfare on such a large scale. Instead they have prolonged relatively small but entrenched conflict and corruption. Compounded with other factors above, it's created a bad economic climate.

They are getting better all the time though, and I feel they will become a major player in future global politics.

Canada is shit.

t. Quebec

bad geography, also Mexico lost the war

it should be noted that they later moved to the Netherlands and the North American colonies they set up (New Amsterdam)

The equuation with British colonies is quite simple
The four colonies they populated with whites turned successful, the hundreds other ones are utter shitholes (with the exception of a few city-states there and there)

Remove british from the comment and it's still true. Settlement colonies will always be more succesful and developed than exploitation colonies.

They destroyed their own economy by inflating gold, then tobacco, then sugar. The competent members of the royal families died out. They tried to dip their toes in the pacific. Like everything in history, its never just one thing.

>bad geography
There's all types of geography in the territories that were Spanish colonies.

Latin American here

if you want a serious answer

A) The Spanish colonies are radically different from the British Colonies that became the USA.
The british colonies that became the USA were always a European society, full families emmigrated, they wanted to work, be farmers, and the only non whites were the black slaves who were one fifth of the population.
It was a white european society, and natives were not a part of it. If the USA had not become independent nowadays it would be like Canada, Australia or New Zeland, not that different apart from the blacks.

The Spanish colonies were completely different, the colonists were mainly single men, they didnt bring their families, and they came here because they wanted to get rich, stop being poor, not just become a farmer. They didnt want to work, they wanted to find gold, or make the natives work for them, or centuries later become merchants in a monopolist system, or burocrats of the Spanish colonies.
And natives, unlike the future USA, were the majority of society (although it changed through the 3 centuries, and depending on the region)
Also, there was a lot of interracial sex from the beginning, the conquest screwed native men the worst, because the women were taken by the conquerors.
Another important factor few people mention is that even though Spain was the earliest colonizer, since 1492, fewer Spanish men moved to the Americas than Brits to the future USA, or even Portuguese to Brazil (when gold was found in Minas Gerais in the XVIII century, Portugal had to stop emmigration due to fear of depopulation)
the spanish colonists were a small elite that was spread thinly from Mexico to Argentina or Chile, and the majority of the population depending on the region was either mestiza (mixed spanish-native), native (in Peru, Bolivia and Central America, as in, Nicaragua, Guatemala etc), or black/mulatos, in the caribbean island and coast of Venezuela and Colombia.

basically, the USA is a european society, while Latin America, while stile being western, is a new thing.

The British were a global power more recently than the Spanish.

They were sitting on California for hundreds of years and hadn't even come close to settling it and never found gold. It wasn't there's on anything but paper.

Within a year of California falling into US hands one of the largest deposits of gold ever was discovered by a miller.

Absolutely 0 population density. Spain made almost no effort to increase population of Spaniards in these regions. Majority population where undereducated or slaves to work the land. The colonies where only used for export and literally nothing else. There was no attempts from Spain to improve the land, the infrastructure or the socio-ecanomic status of the people living there. They where only interested In bringing religion and extracting wealth. The wealth extraction eventually killed Spain and left them without viable exports besides agricultural material. The silver mines where worth far less due to inflation and a lot of the land was nearly uninhabitable and unavailable for farming.