Colonized by Iberian Catholics

t. mestizo

>England doesn't rely on class systems.
How can we save burgers from their own stupidity?

>Population of French Louisiana 1750
5500 colonizers
>Population of the Spanish Louisiana in 1776
50000 colonizers
The French did jack shit in America.Their incompetence was beyond believe

>what is the Mississippi River Basin
>what is proximity to Europe
>what are great lands for farming

Explain why there are no Spaniards in Louisianna today while ther are still French then

French is way more romantic.
Just like how a bunch of Smiths, Jhonson, Ford, and whatever like to claim to be German just cause is more trendy than to be English.

>why there are no Spaniards in Louisianna today while ther are still French then
The Spaniards used German,Dutch,French and Spanish settlers to fill the country and the de facto language of the region was creolle French. Most """Frenchs"""" in Louisiana are probably German or Dutch in reality.

>This level of denial

The Ethnicity are self-reported thus if they were Dutch as you claim they would have reported as Dutch

You're clearly in denial, Ramon

Call me Montoya.
Cause I dont think that you know what that word means.

When did the French or Spanish have large scale immigration into the New World like the English did exactly?

>le self reported meme map

>The Ethnicity are self-reported thus if they were Dutch as you claim they would have reported as Dutch
They are Louisianian creolles. As they speak a variety of French they claim to be French. Why do you think that the New Orleans cost was called the German's coast? The French and the Spaniards (specially the Spaniards) used tons of Germans and Italians for colonization purposes

does native pussy slaying count as resource extraction

Learn history French

French only used French colonists mostly from Saintonge, Normandy, Anjou, and the Parisian Region

>Lutheran's like to watch the world burn
>And to achieve that they need to better themselves by making money and establish themselves as a superpower

yes

>French only used French colonists mostly from Saintonge, Normandy, Anjou, and the Parisian Region
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Coast

>Show him Actual Census
>He show me a coastal name
No wonder that South America is third world

>anglican
>protestant

The census didn't contain nationality. If you bother to read about it Germans were key in the politics of the region and the colonization of it

Not sure if this is news to you (wouldn't be surprised given how moronic Veeky Forums is) but high church Anglicans weren't exactly the ones who left for the colonies

>The census didn't contain nationality
>a census about ancestry
Pick one

Next you'll claim that Quebec was mostly settled with Anglos

I was talking about the original French census.

It has very little to do with religion, and more to do with economics.

The Spanish empire was too large and corrupt and dependent on gold/silver mining to really prosper. They went about raping and enslaving the locals, until they died out. But they never really treated the colonies as anything more than a large treasure box to pull stuff out of from time to time. Ditto for the Portuguese.

The French never really gave a fuck about North America. It just kinda got in the way of India and China. The sugar islands in the Caribbean were more valuable to them than Quebec or Louisiana ever was. Furs and timber, big whoop (I'm Canadian, btw).

The English also failed in their empire-building at first, but they had the 'sweet spot' of a temperate climate, and focussed on cash crops (cotton, tobacco). This required actually developing a civil society in the colonies, which over time became quite strong. Strong enough to shrug off distant control.

>They went about raping and enslaving the locals, until they died out
Do you actually believe this? Because you can go to Bolivia or Ecuador and see nothing but natives.If you go to Canada or the US you see more pacific islanders than native americans

Colonial French Louisiana was ALWAYS a multi-ethnic place. Spanish, African slaves, Indians, anglos, and French too. The French were never ethnically dominant, except in marginal swamp land that no one else wanted. The Cajuns were relatively late arrivals, only giving a boost to actual French-speakers once the British kicked them out of Nova Scotia (Cajun = a corruption of 'Acadian')

'Greater' Louisiana was kind of a no-mans land. Other European powers tolerated French claims, but everyone did whatever the hell they wanted because the French had neither the means nor the interest in actually enforcing their territorial claims. That's why they lost against the British in Canada and why they cut and run and sold off the remainder to the US. At the time, it was already swarming with American settlers, much to Indian chagrin.

Haiti hurt their ego a bit, losing to slaves and all. All that was left were a few sugar islands, until slavery disappeared and they weren't as profitable anymore.

Bolivia and Ecuador were always backwaters. Look at the places they actually focused on, like Mexico, Gran Colombia, and Lima (pretty indio nowadays though). In all those places, a sizeable Criollo population existed.

Obviously they were outnumbered by local indigenous brownlets though.

Depends where you are in Canada, but natives are pretty visible. Usually panhandling, raping and murdering their daughters, or drunkenly yelling at whitey...

Argentina would've been successful had Peron not took over.

>Bolivia and Ecuador were always backwaters.
Bolivia had the biggest silver mines in the continent and Ecuador was extremelly wealthy as well (plantations+ tons of minery).In fact Ecuador had almost the same population as Colombia at the beginning of the XIX century
> Look at the places they actually focused on, like Mexico, Gran Colombia, and Lima (pretty indio nowadays though). In all those places, a sizeable Criollo population existed.
Of course.There was Spanish migration.And also tons of mixing which led to mestizos.But it was mostly through marriages and with concubines not through rape.Your comment seems pretty ill informed

Oh I see, you're triggered by the rape comment. Surely there was not a single rape ever, my bad. We all know how much independence women have in latin america, both today and historically (where they had even more -- no thanks to yankee imperialist scum!)

Bolivia was still a backwater. Just like North Dakota or Texan oil/gas fields are.

There was rape in the US,England or Canada as well.Are you a rape baby? Why do you need to lie? Bolivia had Potosi which was the most important city in South America for 2 centuries

I wanna extract that resource

the Spanish Empire used its colonies (South- and Center America) only for resource extraction. They didn't have the idea of settling down there on the first case. That some did settle down, well that's true and they got children and stuff but that also meant that the people who were born in America had a lower rank on the Spanish's hierarchy. In the case of the English, first of all, the ones who arrived on America were pilgrims that wanted to make America their home, without being among a colonial hierarchy. They organized their politics, economy, and when they got independent, they knew what to do. Spanish colonies got independent on the wrong moment, when they weren't organized, and screwed their future since then due to the ignorance of what to do next.

"Important" ≠ inhabited or cosmopolitan. You're losing track of the original argument in your sulkiness over being triggered by the word 'rape'. Are you a rape baby? Is that why you're taken it so literally?

A big difference is also that those who (at first) went to be leaders in the New World were generally from the very bottom of the barrel in terms of 'nobility' in Spain. I mean, they were minor cadet branches of regional nobel families and shit like that. Basically poor people with a pedigree. Going to America to collect some gold and parrots and shit, convert some savages for the church, etc. was all part of a scheme to climb up the ranks in Spain. They never really had the mentality to form a 'new and improved' version of society like the Anglo dissenting protestants did. They were very much inspired by utopian ideals, at first.

Because, suriname /dutch), jamaica(brit) and dozens of other countries colonized by the english like Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia, Papua New Guinea are all of them are great and sucessful. sureeeeeee

why do you say that?

What advantages did Argentina have that the other countries didn't?

expulsion of the acadians from Canada

Many of them are doing decent for a nation of their status.

Catholics promote race mixing, while protestants promote racism

The US gave daddy yurop money for their stupid war in the 20th century and now daddy yurop has made the US it's favorite son.

Argentina is the biggest or second biggest hispanic country , the one with more farmland, and with huge reserves of oil and ores. It was also the oldest and one of the most stable independent latin american nations. Until the 1940s when it all came tumbling down.

>most stable
You are fucking retarded. Argentina had 75 years of civil war after independence. Stop talking shit out of your ass.

The civil wars in Argentina weren't any more severe than the multiple conflicts between the different states of the US after it's independence.

This "meme" map matches all migrant patterns of various ethnics throughout America almost perfectly. Idk if it's triggered euros with shattered "YOU'RE NOT WHITE" delusions or triggered lefties hating how european that map looks but it's true as the sky is blue.

>"Important" ≠ inhabited or cosmopolitan
But then the 13 colonies were totally irrelevant until the Brits left. Peru and Bolivia had the same population as all the 13 colonies combined and they had tons of local art,paintings and had tons of products and influences from Asia and Europe,so you can say it was definetly more metropolitan. On the other hand the 13 colonies where a bunch of rednecks that produced nothing but wood,cottom and fur to sell it for Britain. Their only """universities"""" just taught theology and law (90% of the Harvard students became clergyman) while the university of Quito and its mining department discovered platinum for example. This idea that the 13 colonies were any developed because the Brits is fucking dumb. It only became relevant when independence was gained

English settlers came to make a new home.

Spanish/Portuguese came only to make money and did not bring any family nor did they try to develop the land any further than their plantations and whatever else was needed for the business to prosper.

More European immigration, more arable land.

Your premise seems to be "SPANISH DE BEST AYAYAYAYA NO MATTER WHAT". Srsly?

Almost all tobacco and a significant amount of cotton being consumed in Europe and traded elsewhere came from early America. Lots of sugar too.

Spanish gold and silver was as much hoarded and plastered onto church walls. All it really did was fuel the moribund inbred royal family for 200 years longer than it should have lasted. "Tons" or "products and influences" is a pretty vague argument to make about Spanish backwaters. Everywhere has art and products. Metropolitan and cosmopolitan do not mean the same thing. Backwater colonial towns in the Spanish empire were not metropolitan. Lima was a large port city and had lots of criollos, like I already said. But so what? It was a parody of the Spanish court, nothing more.

And yea, universities existed to educated

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make though. You're only reinforcing the proof that the Spanish sucked at state-building. Once they left, their 'children' turned into the petty corrupt shitholes they are today.

>Canada
>Mexico
>Brazil
>irrelevant

Perfect bait.

>Almost all tobacco and a significant amount of cotton being consumed in Europe and traded elsewhere came from early America. Lots of sugar too.
No it was mostly produced in the caribbean islands that had better soil and geographical locations than the US south that was totally depopulated back then
>Spanish gold and silver was as much hoarded and plastered onto church walls. All it really did was fuel the moribund inbred royal family for 200 years longer than it should have lasted. "Tons" or "products and influences" is a pretty vague argument to make about Spanish backwaters. Everywhere has art and products. Metropolitan and cosmopolitan do not mean the same thing. Backwater colonial towns in the Spanish empire were not metropolitan. Lima was a large port city and had lots of criollos, like I already said. But so what? It was a parody of the Spanish court, nothing more.
My point was that the Spanish cities in America were way more cosmopolitan than any city in the US.Until independence the biggest city in the US was Boston with 40 thousand people.A regional capital like Caracas had 60 thousand people.You are just lying.The 13 colonies were nothing until Hamilton started to craft the modern US.It was a backward region with a tiny population that had no manufacturing.

> the idea of personal relationships with God promote self-betterment

Not in the southern United States at least...

The US, which is the only first world ex-british colony was largely irrelevant until the 1940s.

And it's "empire" is already collapsing so it didn't lasted very long and will probably be a footnote in history in 500 years.

>18th century colonies were backwaters.
In other news, fire is still hot.

>>the US empire is collapsing
Not really. That's just something silly people like to tell themselves. America will still be a world power 500 years from now, barring some major environmental catastrophe.

The US will be splitted in 3 states by 2050 .

Do you know what cosmopolitan even means? You really don't seem to. Size doesn't matter. Bogota can have 100,000 brown indian manlets, that still doesn't make it cosmopolitan. There are cities in China with over 10 million people that are among the most homogenous soulless places on the planet.

Please stop trying to argue here, you're only embarrassing yourself further.

Again, the original point was that Spain and the Spanish colonies failed to develop. The fact of what they are today, corrupt violent backward shitholes, says it all. How does it feel to know Spain got wrecked by a "tiny population that had no manufacturing". How incompetent to do you have to be? Spanish and Latin American, apparently.

Tobacco was grown on commercial scale in New England (Virginia originally) from the late 1500s. It was very profitable, and only became more so as time went on. Well until the 1950s or so.

dream on.

Because the English established a large middle class whilst the others were simple traders, or lords of these new found peasants

Good luck keeping that "empire" together when you can barely agree on who the next president is going to be. Even with the different cold-war fossils running the show there's nothing they can't do about how much of a barely held melting pot your society is.

You don't have an argument other than "look at how bad they are today!" as if the cold war didn't fucked half the neutral world over.

All your posts arguing with that other retard so far have been nothing but autistic screeching.

Trying to ridicule the facts won't matter. He just told you that the other factors made it possible to succeed. They were tiny population and had no manufactoring even though your buttblasted ass can't deal with it.

>says the bitter Chavista begging his neighbours for last week's newspaper to use as toilet paper

Backpedal more. The point, since the beginning, is that the Spanish and their colonial authorities utterly failed at creating a stable flourishing civil society. They were more obsessed with replicating the Spanish nobility, as centuries of (still existing) caudillo leadership shows.

What he "told" is completely unconvincing. The 13 colonies were not 'tiny' and absolutely did have manufacturing. (Keeping in mind, the whole planet was pre-industrial.) It's like you think if you keep repeating bullshit enough times, that makes it true.

>Backpedal more. The point, since the beginning, is that the Spanish and their colonial authorities utterly failed at creating a stable flourishing civil society.

First off i'm not the guy you are arguing with.

Second off the south american societies in South America were pretty advances for their time and managed to organize their revolution with a lot less bloodshed than the disaster that you and the braindead mexicans did over in North America.

Third, you are not presenting a single argument, you are just saying "HUR DUR SPANISH COLONY A SHIT" with fancy words, there isn't even anything to counter-argue. The vice-kingdoms of Peru and of Rio de la Plata were fairly well structured, organized, wealthy and overall successful, and they didn't even need to wipe out the native populations like the British did in order to do this.

Fourth the corruption in Latin America didn't become rampant until the 20th century: Chile, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela all achieved different levels of success trough their early years, the first 3 were toe to toe with the US for all of the 19th century and even early 20th century. It was Russia and the US messing with the region that played the biggest role in it's destabilization. And I like the US, but this is a fact. the CIA did a number on all LA countries and the rest were done by Russia.

And the most race mixed part of all was colonized by the dutch kek

>secular humanist
A meme.
Also, only 11% of americans belonged to a church when they were still exploring the frontier.

This

Acadian - A'cajian - A'cajan - 'Cajan - Cajun

Source: archive.org/details/historyofnewfran01lesc
Marc Lescarbot had some interesting theories about the success of the French Huguenots in the New World and why previous colonies failed. I did my thesis on the whole thing

Except that all those Catholic countries have booming artistic and cultural achievements in music and literature, a healthy family oriented society, regular public holidays, a decent social net, and guaranteed access to education for everybody as well as a society that values it.

While Protestant countries are a bunch of butt-devistated work horses with a manic dislike of anything that could make life remotely bearable.

Catholics make love to beautiful women, Protestants fuck dem hoes
Catholics spend sunday with their families like a morally upstanding citizen, Protestants spend it pulling overtime like a morally upstanding citizen.
Catholics listen to beautifully arranged and composed music within a long musical tradition, Protestants listen to nigger rap on capitalist steroids.
Catholics respect and appreciate art, Protestants fear and resent it.

Even the poorest people of Argentina have a markedly better quality of life than the middle class of the US or Canada, simply because of their attitude towards it.

>Louisiana is white

hahahahahaha

>New Orleans
Wow so white.

>implying I'm American
>implying I'm over 200 years old and had direct leadership involvement in colonial wars

Spanish colonies didn't need to 'wipe out' the natives, because they were massively thinned out by disease in the first century after contact. The Spanish enslaved the remnants, but they didn't make for good slaves, dying of poxes and fleeing into hinterlands and all.

In North America it's a similar story, except attempts to enslave the natives didn't much exist. By the early 1700s, epidemics had already wreaked their havoc, even far into lands where few Europeans had ever been. Natives were on their back foot ever since.

You're living in a dream world if you think pre-20th century Latin America was some idyllic civil wonderland. In every country that was developed enough, a small circle of 'whiter' criollo elites ruled, owned most of the land, and set policy. You can probably imagine how 'fair' this was or happy the other 90% were. As I've already said, the reason Latin America stagnated is because of this. Spanish (and French) colonies were emulating a monarchal system, with rubber stamp 'parliaments'. Whereas the anglo colonies were using parliamentary systems (with their own various degrees of corruption, of course) which on the whole were a little more egalitarian.

lol @ everything.

Try for this level of shitposting bud.

USA separated by France, but remained independent due to French revolution.
Latin Americans were reconquered by Britain (Bolivar and other British spies and bandits), further pressure of USA wasnt strong enough and brings a lot of coups and wars between British and American followers.

It wasn't a paradise, because Spanish administration has always been a disaster both in and out of continental Europe, but this tired ol meme that the Spanish came and raped and enslaved everyone needs to die. There were abuses committed towards the natives by individual conquerors, but when a spanish colony was properly established and law was upheld the abuses towards the natives were punished, and it was the black slaves who did most of the hard labor.

When I was young I remember US not being in good standing with latin america and there were these crazy guys that put landmines all over from the patagonia all the way upto panama. The only way to get there was via plane and not thru jungle(dangerous).

By selling weapons to Europe during WWI for their gold reserves. So then when you had all their gold you had them agree to back up their currencies with US dollars, making the economic capital of the world.

Everything the US did after that was pretty much just throwing obscene amounts of money at things.

You can make your own shit user