Why Spanish colonial empire has splitted in 15 countries while British American colonies only in loyalists (Canada) and...

Why Spanish colonial empire has splitted in 15 countries while British American colonies only in loyalists (Canada) and rebels (USA)?
Why Latinos don't want to unite?

Because they were/are different

Because the Latinos have a big dumb independence sense for some reason.

Spain organized their colonies in America more like other Europeans organized colonies outside the Americas, explicitly to burn through the locals and gain natural resources. They split into the various economic units, usually with the same kind of rule following independence. The countries were set up so there was no alternative.

The parts of the USA that were like this relied on slave labor so heavily they tried to get it legalized on a Federal level.

pic related
also weak institutions and geography

What? I'm not well versed in United States history but didn't federalism took a while to take hold? I always thought that in the start of the union the states where very separate entities.
On the second question: it's because there was/is more racial/economical political diversity in LatAm than there was in the thirteen colonies.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were nearly independent.

This didn't work, so you had the 1789 Constitution with a stronger federal government.

It's important to note that constitutional rights only limited the federal government until the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court's doctrine of incorporation.

Even between themselves they have real independent ideas for some reason, considering they are not that different, like, why is culturally different a venezuelan from a colombian? Now they are, because they created their own culture based on that start idiotic independentism, but at the starting point, for example?

I am kind of sleepy and I don't know if I'm getting my point across, but what I am trying to say is that their culture is manufactured and they had no reason to go in different ways and weaken themselves at the start of it all.

Not at all.
Even within countries, you can see cultural differences. It is not the case of small latin american countries (Uruguay, central american ones, ...) but in the rest of the cases you can see differences amongst nationals in a country, let alone differences amongst countries.

> their culture is manufactured and they had no reason to go in different ways and weaken themselves
by that logic the roman empire had no reason to split up

It did because it got weak from external pressure.

Latin America wasn't getting completely rekt at the time, maybe central America, yeah.

But those are countries with evolved culture.
Latin America got wiped of everything and only some pre-spanish traditions dating to the natives remained.

What's different between England and Scotland? What's differnt between US and Canada? What's different between Austria and Germany?

i.e, your ignorance =! argument

Because who should rule over who? Independentists were wannabe-dictators (caudillos) wanting power to themselves.
You sound naive.

New GRANADA, not Grenada.

Anglos don't know, don't care.

every local elite went MUH REPUBLIC backed by english loans, but already in colonial times existed tensions and rivalries between cities and regions so it would have happened eventually

I think that's because the colonists took advantage of Spain getting wrecked by Napoleon. The british colonies, on the other hand, were still in effect under control of the homeland.

Because the result would be a bigger shithole than it already is

> kingdom
Those were viceroyalties, viceroys weren´t kings and didn´t act independently from the king of Spain, they couldn´t sign treaties or anything.

Bolivar was a mistake

>Why Latinos don't want to unite?
Because we're different people, for example bolivia and peru are indian, uruguay and argentina are mediterranean, etc.

>argentina are mediterranean

i dont think so

North americans have almost no native admixture, the spanish colonies have a ton because there was a lot of natives in mexico and peru and almost none in north america.

He tried

Would be dope

>Capital: México
Malditos chilangos

>Capital: México

>The senyera
Fucking disgusting.

Biggest city tho

Not the senyera. Its the spanish flag without the emblem, as 20 stripes (20 countries)

How about this?

Leave Bolivia out and it's a deal

> Capital: Mexico
No way
Cosco is the rightful capital

The place is huge and extremely diverse in culture and geography

Capital:La Habana
And it would be pretty accuarate

You're completely ignoring the various Caribbean countries, Belize, and Guyana

also Newfoundland was separate from Canada until the 1940s

I mean, it was separate in that it operated in nearly the same way the Canadian colonies operated pre-confederation. It was essentially a self-governing British territory.

You're watching the US begin to balkanize right now.

They are very different apart from catholicism being the majority and speaking spanish there's little in common. Hell, just looking at Mexico that country has like 5 different regions that are as different as if they are countries of their own. In fact, balkanization of the country is probably best in its future. These cultural differences date to precolumbian times, which evolved during the colonial period.

Santo Domingo is older

But La Havana was alwats way more relevant.

I have heard the partial reason that the literal pronuciation of Spanish (saying a word how it looks) actually enables the formation and continuation of distinct accents among Spanish speakers. This helps cause a view that they are separate ethnic/cultural groups.

That's a bunch of horseshit, really. Brazilian Portuguese probably has more accents that American Spanish, and yet Brazil is a single country.

It really doesn't have anything to do with cultural differences between these countries, but more of the way their independence was achieved. A lot had to do with key political figures of their time or just greedy generals.

>Meanwhile, Russia/Germany/Japan/etc. stay as one country despite having literal pronunciations.
>China loves to think they're one country, despite having dialects that are not mutually intelligible.

I've never realised how much I wanted this until now

>capital: mexico

what, all of it?

If you are going to alt history it you might as well leave Tenochtitilan intact and have it be called that rather then Mexico city, or at least have it be New Spain

There was a time when Mexico City was almost renamed Tenochtitlan but it didn't pass.

Why everybody keep asking the same shit about Spanish America?, we never were an unified colony for start. And we don't have much in common besides speaking spanish with different accents.

You're all brown Mexicans south of the border to us so your (((differences))) don't matter.

I see, it was muricaposting all the time. You guys must be salty for the mexicanization of your country I guess.

>And we don't have much in common besides speaking spanish with different accents.
You have everything in common.
>we never were an unified colony for start
Neither was Brasil and yet that's one single country.

yeah no OK you may have a point

>Urugay and Argentina
>Mediterranean

Top kek

Well, there were already political systems in place when the spanish conquered the Aztecs and the Inca, whereas in North America they were displacing tribes rather than occupying territory.

>You have everything in common.
kek,that's some top autismo.Do you actually think that people of some caribbean island, someone from Bolivia, Mexicans and people from Paraguay or Uruguay have everything in common besides being part of the Spanish Empire? In how many place sof LatAm have you been? I know that the United Latin America discurse sounds nice, but never was a realistic thing,or an actual goal.

>someone from Bolivia, Mexicans and people from Paraguay or Uruguay have everything in common
Yes. They do.
Not only were they all colonized by the same power, who imposed the same language, religion and race policies, you also reacted to this "invading power" the same way (by remaining literally the same as before except with no formal ties to Europe).
You all still apply the same absurd mythos to justify your independence, by claiming to be remnants of the indigenous aboriginal peoples. Some of this is partialy true in some places (like Bolivia), others it's just plain silly (like Argentina).

Let me ask you: why do you think Brasil is a single country?
Brasil also has certain places with more influence from the indigenous peoples. others from African slaves, others from the Netherlands and France (yes Brasil was actually colonized by more than one power, god forbid), and others even from posterior immigration. Regionalism is also strong in Brasil, people from the Northeast claim a more "folk" and "original" culture, while people from the South usually (i.e. online) come from more economically developed backgrounds and with a lot of mixing from german, italian and japanese immigrants (just to name a few).
Yet nowhere in this world will you hear any of this as a claim for Brasil to split up into various countries. That simply doesn't exist.

We could replace Brasil with Canada, South Africa, even India, China, etc etc. Many many MANY countries in this world who used to be colonies in some way, have nowadays regionalisms, traces of the way colonization happened throughout their spaces.

In fact, Hispanic America could very well work like a federal republic, literally wouldn't make much of a difference except for the most developed countries like Argentina and Chile.

You will notice I didn't consider the Caribbeans. They are only different because of the disputes with other foreign powers. Some of them were also given independence much later on.

Latin american laws and constitutions are practically the same in every country. Social life, family and class structure are the same, also traditional culture and religion.

>Social life, family and class structure are the same, also traditional culture and religion.
You have no idea what you're talking about,the differences in all this aspects can be huge even between close countries.

It can be different even within the same country, so why use it as a basis at all amirite? The stereotype of the perfect family is literally the same in all of those countries anyway.

I live in south america and have visited 9 out of 10 countries (haven´t been to bolivarian paradise yet). While some countries have slightly better living standards than others, societies and culture aren´t much different.