Latin America

Napoleon didn't invade your dumb island.

Relative to their competency in other aspects of empire they were pretty good. It's surprising they were able to leach from the new world as long as they did for how weak they were.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia
Simon Bolivar is

Simon Bolivar was a piece of shit

t. Dominican

there were no pastaniggers back then in the first part of the 19th century

>it begins

the successful British colonies were 90%+ white

It was called 'upper Peru'
There's no reason Bolivia and Peru are seperate states except for autism.

Bolivar tried in the form of Gran Colombia - a state that was supposed to encompass at least Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador, and ideally probably would have extended all the way down the coast. But he ran into a ton of issues.

The Spanish never ran the colonies with the intention of them being functioning states, so pretty much all existing infrastructure was designed to get whatever they Spanish wanted from the colonies to the ports. Because of this, the natural governable regions of postcolonial South America ended up being smaller than even the modern countries. During Bolivar's campaigns, local warlords became a major issue - someone would sieze power in an area, and, because the infrastructure for intra-colonial movement was minimal, these warlords were very hard to dislodge. And this is just within modern-day countries. In Colombia, for example, Cartagena and Bogata declared independence separately and tried to be independent of eachother for some time, and, while the Spanish controlled Caracas, Bolivar had hostile independence movements in the Apure and near the Orinoco Delta at times.

When you scale it up even further to Gran Colombia, it gets even worse. There were no real roads between Colombia and Venezuela at the time - Bolivar's crossing of that border is often compared to Hannibal's crossing of the Alps because of how desolate it was. Ecuador was similar - the forbidding mountains of southern Colombia left it isolated by land. So in the end, Gran Colombia fragmented along the effective zones of control of the independence movements. Colombia consolidated around Bogata thanks to the Magdalena River, Venezuela, isolated from Colombia by the Andes, was able to break away, and patriots at Guayaquil were isolated enough that they too could declare Ecuador independent.

There's a whole lot more if you'd like me to continue.

Please do.

because the anglo colonies kept the existing aristocracy and institutions in place while the spanish colonies had societal revolutions every decade. I think it was Bolivar who said that latin americans couldn't exist as a democratic republic like the anglo-americans and needed to controlled by a strong centralized power.

>The Spanish never ran the colonies with the intention of them being functioning states, so pretty much all existing infrastructure was designed to get whatever they Spanish wanted from the colonies to the ports.

then why was Iberian Spain still poor and undeveloped as shit. I understand how France and the UK extracted all the resources for their colonies to power their nations but where the fuck did all the spanish wealth and trade go?

>The Spanish never ran the colonies with the intention of them being functioning states,

Stop reading there. Take your Black Legend to other place, angloboo.

>implying the anglos didn't do the same

Why everyone implies balkanization in Latin America was a bad thing?

It's bad enough as it already is. There are only a few productive regions, such as Antioquia, Costa Rica, Buenos Aires, Chile and the Bajío, imagine if they had to sustain an entire country-continent.

>did all the spanish wealth and trade go?

He was going to Spain. He's just a lying asshole who pretends to know what he's talking about (that is, the average historian).

All New World resources were not going to Europe, not even half, the tax at the beginning, was only 20 percent (es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinto_del_Rey). And with the time it got lower.

>where the fuck did all the spanish wealth and trade go?
Into propping up their declining state and funding their escapades in the Low Countries and Italy. For a time it did work - they were a major power for a long while. But turns out
>losing an entire armada
>fighting 80 years of war with the Dutch
>propping up your Austrian cousins as their empire revolts
>centuries of on and off war in Italy
takes its toll on any country, let alone one with the looming demographic issues like Spain had.

>All New World resources were not going to Europe
When was that ever claimed? The issue in Bolivar's time was more that the Crown had a monopoly on any export as well as much of the mining. The

It's trips, so it must be true... right???

Ok here we go. There was a major demographic side to the clusterfuck as well. South American society at the time was in a strict hierarchy defined by race and birth. Spaniards were at the top, followed by Creoles (American-born Spaniards), mixed races, and then blacks and indians at the bottom. This was codified into law with special taxes for certain races (especially the Indians in Venezuela) and restrictions on offices that could be held.

The way this hierarchy was put in place made for an adversarial system that made the population easier to control. And to a degree it did. The first several attempts of Venezuelan independence ended up failing largely because Bolivar and the other leaders focused on the Creole population and ignored the Blacks and Indians. At times you had marauding bands of nonwhites fighting what amounted to a race war, and it wasn't until Bolivar recognized that he needed the support of the nonwhites that he really began to succeed in Venezuela.

Not only was there a lot of racial animosity, but there was also a distinct lack of the kind of enlightenment ideals penetrating the general populace like you had up in North America. Bolivar's famed statement that brings up was because of that. He believed that, while the American federal system may have been ideal, South Americans lacked the foundations for it in their national consciousness. That wasn't the end of it, though - Bolivar pushed for a strong central government at first and ultimately a benevolent dictator, but the idea was that it would only last as long as it took to educate the population to the point that they were ready for a system more like the US.

There were also more isolated but still major issues, like the privileged classes in Peru greatly resenting Bolivar's establishment of the class system they had so enjoyed.

No he wasn't.

t. Serbian

Do go on.

Quints and trips to boot, truly an impressive feat of cementing the validity of the post

Making a colony with a functioning government vs Making a colony for the sole purpose of resource extraction

Many Spanish colonies were extremely successful, Latin America only stagnated in the post-war.

>Argentina was as wealthy as the United States or Australia, and enjoyed 70 years of unbroken Constitutional government until the 1930s. Today it's still a relatively wealthy high income country.
>Uruguay was New Zealand to Argentina's Australia and followed a similar path, booming in the 19th century and stagnating somewhat in the Cold War.
>Cuba was as wealthy as Spain or Finland, it got assfucked by communism.
>Chile was as poor as Peru and managed to catch up with Argentina and Uruguay

Your stereotype stems from the fact that all the news about Latin America ever heard here in the USA are negative - Venezuela's socialist collapse, Colombian and Mexican cartels, and so on. Relative to that, success stories don't get as much publicity.

You are an Angloboo. The Spaniards were no different than the Anglos. They just ruled over different territories.

Colonies where large native empires already existed and there was a large population density: Europeans conquered and exploited the existing native social structures, imposing a caste system and pitting one group against another. This happened in Mexico, Peru, Colombia, but also India, South Africa, British Guyana, Zimbabwe, etc.

Colonies where natives were nomadic and had a low population density: Europeans genocided or displaced the natives and settled in the land. This was the case in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, but also Argentina, Uruguay, South Brazil and Chile to a lesser extent.

If the British had conquered large native Empires like Aztecs or the Incas the policies implemented in Mexico and Peru would have been more similar to those they used in India. It would be the exact same thing. These places wouldn't have magically turned into Anglo paradises.

>Cuba was as wealthy as Spain or Finland, it got assfucked by communism

Cuba was assfucked by the capitalism as well, all the Carribean nations are effectively USA colonies

>it's a "Britain's only colonies were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Hong Kong" episode

...

They were in fact unified for three years

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru–Bolivian_Confederation

What program/site do you use to make those kinds of maps?

Most people just downloads them from Wikipedia.

When was I ever claiming any of that? The only comparison made to an anglo colony was the US, which had very real demographic differences from Spanish America. Nobody but you is bringing up anything about supposed Anglo superiority. And sure, Anglo colonies in Africa like you described largely did become a shitshow. But that's not relevant to the discussion.

Seriously, what the fuck is your problem? Did an anglo fuck your mom or piss in your cheerios?

Spaniards were more interested in leeching resources than in establishing a lasting and prosperous colony. Also Napoleon invading didn't allow the crown to aid the colonies that much

They flooded the market with silver and inflation happened