The worst thing that could happen to the Hispanics was the wars of independence. The only ones who won with these wars were the Anglos (both American and British) who plundered the territory as they wished.
We did not win anything, we lost everything rather.
But Brazil was never under Spanish domain. Why do spaniards we wuz about it so bad? It was literally just the northeastern-southeastern coast.
>Why do spaniards we wuz about it so bad?
First, Portugal is part of Spain. Second, Brasil and Portugal are Hispanic. The image represents the Hispanic countries, not the parts of the empire.
Say Portugal and Spain go to war in modern times. Who wins?
Everyone else.
Technically some areas were under their domain during the Iberian Union, that doesn't mean claiming it was part of their empire isn't a lot of we wuzing tho.
The Spanish colonial empire was big enough as it was, there's no reason to claim things they didn't do.
yo! Chile was never part of any viceroyalty, it was always alone as the Captaincy General of Chile, reason that made us distant to all our neighbors in the future
why is the St James cross there? iirc he is only the saint patriarch of chile and some spanish provinces
It's the Cruz de Santiago, a symbol of spaniard crusaders during the reconquista and all around a popular hispanic emblem
Also, it's fairly aesthetic
so is Santiago the hispanized name of St James then?
>The worst thing that could happen to the Hispanics was the wars of independence.
100%. The independence leaders were major planters who just wanted free trade and the breaking of the Spanish trade block. By the end of the 19th century every new country was in debt to British banks and the export economy turn the whole region in underdeveloped plantation economies with invested interest to keep their people low-wage workers, with all interstate trade in Latin-America dropping to near nothing.
I try to explain this to my fellow Latin-Americans but they cant except it. The people of Latin-America would have had more influence under a European colonial state than their independent country.
If only Carlos III took Count of Aranda's Spanish Commonwealth idea seriously.
yeah, good look triying to convince south americans that their "liberators" were just some jackasses that wanted the power to themselfs.
Cuba should join us again, is not that late
that goes for the North American colonies too though
>that goes for the North American colonies too though
Just the South. The Northern states were highly protectionist, industrial and development minded. They made citizens to pay taxes in money rather than in-kind, forcing them to become commercial farmers to some level. They pushed for tariffs against British companies and major infrastructure projects.
South is pretty akin to Brazil, though obviously not as bad.
That's irrelevant. No cumskins belong to America.
I think he meant that the American Revolution was just a power grab
SO YOU B SAYIN WE WUZ TUGAS N SHIET
>portugal is part of spain
Spain, fuck off, they've been our friends for centuries, they're not yours.
its not too late ...
>Second, Brasil and Portugal are Hispanic.
No.
There was literally nothing wrong with any of this.
>free trade and the breaking of the Spanish trade block
So people weren't allowed to trade with the Anglo and then they were. This is a good thing unless you enjoy oppressing your fellow countrymen.
>every new country was in debt to British banks
Did someone force them to take loans? How much debt could corrupt regimes take on before lenders started to doubt whether they could keep up payments? Goodly Anglo financiers would lend small amounts based on the assumption at least some of it would find its way into infrastructure instead of the generalissimo's palace. The better their access to credit the more they would invest in their country.
>export economy turn the whole region in underdeveloped plantation economies
Same as free trade. Why should your fellow citizens be forced to invest in domestic industry when there are better opportunities elsewhere like the booming industrial revolution in England?
>keep their people low-wage workers
It was the same across the world at the time, and where would you get the money to pay them more? Seems like a commie fantasy.
>Latin-America would have had more influence under a European colonial state
Whomst would this influence serve? They had different interests to Spain.
>interstate trade in Latin-America dropping to near nothing
Brazil shits coffee, why would they need Colombian coffee? They needed goods from other places which can produce different things or more cheaply.