Why were English Colonies In The Americas More Successful Than Spanish Colonies?

[Anglojew]

The British and Spanish crowns had huge American Empires consisting of many former colonies. Together, with the notable exceptions of the Portuguese, French and to a lesser extent the Dutch, they formed the large majority of the European colonisation of the "New World." What's interesting is the different ways in which each took to colonising the Americas and how much more successful the British were than the Spanish in three notable ways; economincally, ethno-culturally and intra-colonially.

The Spanish Empire



The British Empire



Economically the British colonies, principly, Canada and the USA, dominate the New World as we can see by the following map;




The reason for this is three-fold in my opinion;

1. The Protestant work-ethic contrasts the "go-getting" North Americans with the "lazy" Spanish-speaking Latin Americans.

2. The division of labour. North American land was largely worked by the land-owner (who used slavery or employed additional help) whereas Latin American land was worked by farmers who leased the land from a larger land-owner. Productivity therefore suffered in this system.

3. Economic barriers created by corruption in generally badly-governed Spanish Latin America compared to well-governed North America. It would be worth going into the different government systems at length but I think that is worth a thread in itself.


Ethno-Cultually the British people were far more successful in keeping their original ethnic make-up and culture (although culture obviously evolves and there was a melting-pot of different Northern European cultures) North America far better retains (especially in Commonwealth Canada) the British "racial" stock. In contrast, Latin America has created a new mixed-racial group where indigenous culture was grafted onto Spanish culture and a new group hitherto unknown of Mestizos was created who now form the large majority of Spanish Latin America with the exceptions of Argentina and Uruguay.

This has been much remarked upon with the consensus that while the British generally refused to intermarry with the natives, considering them heathen even if they converted to Christianity, the Spanish had no such qualms. It also points to different patterns of immigration with the British far more likely to import women and children with the Spanish preferring to have a "second" family in the Americas and eventually return to Spain.

Intra-Colonially British North America can be seen to have succeeded whereas Spanish Latin America largely failed. There have only been two notable wars between British colonies; the American War of Independence (with Canada on the British side obviously) and the American Civil War.

In contrast the list of intra-colonial Spanish wars is immense, including;

1810s and 1820s: Spanish American wars of independence
1810–1815 1810–1818 Argentine War of Independence
1810–1818 Chilean War of Independence
1811–1823 Venezuelan War of Independence
1812–1821 Peruvian War of Independence
1821–1825 Brazilian War of Independence
1820–1828: The Cisplatine War over the status of future Uruguay occurs
828–1829: Gran Colombia – Peru War
1829–1830: Chilean Civil War of 1829
1835: Malê Revolt
1836–1839: War of the Confederation between the Peru-Bolivian Confederation and Chile
1839–1851: Uruguayan Civil War
1851–1852: Platine War
1859–1863: Federal War in Venezuela
1860–1862: Colombian Civil War
1864–1865: The Uruguayan War
1864–1866: The Chincha Islands War between Spain and former colonies Peru and Chile occurs
1864–1870: The Paraguayan War occurs
1879–1884: Bolivia and Peru fight Chile in the War of the Pacific
1891: 1891 Chilean Civil War
1899–1902: Colombian Thousand Days War
1932–1933: Colombia-Peru War
1932–1935: The Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay is fought.
1941–1942: The Ecuadorian-Peruvian war occurs.
1947: The Colorado Party gains the upper hand in the Paraguayan Civil War.
1948–1958: La Violencia in Colombia.
1964–present: the Colombian Armed Conflict between the government and guerrilla insurgencies devastates the country.
1976–1983: The Dirty War in Argentina.
1981: Ecuador and Peru clash again in the Paquisha Incident.
1980–present: The Peruvian Armed Conflict fought between the Shining Path insurgents and the Peruvian government.
1995: Ecuador and Peru dispute territory in the Cenepa War.

I think that any neutral observer would say that the British were very successful in colonising North America but more importanly fostering the institutions required for good governance and economic and ethnic success for the colonists and their descendants whereas the Spanish largely failed.

What are your thoughts?

[Lábaru]

Interesting question, and why Jews have these huge big noses?

[pinguino]

In economical terms? Yes, North America is richer than Latin America.
In demographical terms? No, the former Spanish colonies have a larger populations than the U.S., and 20% of the U.S. population comes from there.
In terms of wars? Just the U.S. Civil War took more lives than many of those wars among Spanish nations added together.
In morality? Give me a break. The U.S. was founded on slavery and in the genocide of the American Indians. And Bush's lacked any morality.

[Anglojew]

Interesting question, and why Jews have these huge big noses?

How are you a Senior Moderator? You act like you're about 12.

[Stefan]

It largely has to do with the reasons and means for which they'd gained independence. Bolivar republics were destined for failure because they appealed to much of the same means for rebellion that we see in communist rebellions of the 1900's. They traded one powerful elite for another even more powerful and centralized elite. Meanwhile the British Empire at the time had certain means of self-governance (even before people rebelled.) Because of this reliance on individualism no group or persons gained too much power and hence there was an equilibrium of a sort, for which there was no longer a necessity of civil wars after the initial one, with the exception of the American civil war of course, because it was inevitable because of the increasing dichotomy of the south and the north, and the contradictory practice of slavery with the American concept of law. However; overall the American racism enabled the U.S more than Latin America's vast promotion and oscillatory transition of multiculturalism, racism, multiculturalism, etc, etc.

Basically Latin Americans, through the means of a state (the Bolivarian Republics) created class dichotomies which lead to class warfare, as a replacement for racial tensions. Because of this, the issue was not resolved as directly as it would be in the rest of the Americas. Furthermore, due to predispositions caused by the different authoritarianism of their predecessor empires, there was far less land ownership in Latin America versus the United States. This even enabled more class differences and resentment.

The Spanish and the British just created the environments. The majority of the responsibility should be placed on those who took control of the regions.

[Anglojew]

In economical terms? Yes, North America is richer than Latin America.
In demographical terms? No, the former Spanish colonies have a larger populations than the U.S., and 20% of the U.S. population comes from there.
In terms of wars? Just the U.S. Civil War took more lives than many of those wars among Spanish nations added together.
In morality? Give me a break. The U.S. was founded on slavery and in the genocide of the American Indians. And Bush's lacked any morality.

I didn't mention morality.

You're missing the point about demographics. In the former British colonies the people retained their ethnic stock to a much better extend whereas in Spanish Latin America a new mixed-race was created which is the majority.

As to the casaulties just the Paraguayan War cost 300,000+ deaths, so you're wrong.

[Anglojew]

It largely has to do with the reasons and means for which they'd gained independence. Bolivar republics were destined for failure because they appealed to much of the same means for rebellion that we see in communist rebellions of the 1900's. They traded one powerful elite for another even more powerful and centralized elite. Meanwhile the British Empire at the time had certain means of self-governance (even before people rebelled.) Because of this reliance on individualism no group or persons gained too much power and hence there was an equilibrium of a sort, for which there was no longer a necessity of civil wars after the initial one, with the exception of the American civil war of course, because it was inevitable because of the increasing dichotomy of the south and the north, and the contradictory practice of slavery with the American concept of law. However; overall the American racism enabled the U.S more than Latin America's vast promotion and oscillatory transition of multiculturalism, racism, multiculturalism, etc, etc.

Basically Latin Americans, through the means of a state (the Bolivarian Republics) created class dichotomies which lead to class warfare, as a replacement for racial tensions. Because of this, the issue was not resolved as directly as it would be in the Americas. Furthermore, due to predispositions caused by the different authoritarianism of their predecessor empires, there was far less land ownership in Latin America versus the United States. This even enabled more class differences and resentment.

The Spanish and the British just created the environments. The majority of the responsibility should be placed on those whom took control of the regions.

Why do you think class divisions developed in Spanish colonies more than the British ones?

[pinguino]

Good point. But I think is important to remark that the degree of development between the Spanish colonies and the British were completely uneven. The British usually developed the infrastructure of colonies, white in the Spanish Empire almost anything was improvised. The levels of poverty of average people, and the degree of development of institutions were completely different. Common, in Spanish America the education was medieval, and there was not industry but basic stuff, while the British colonies already had scientific development and the seeds of the Industrial Revolution.
Remember that at those times almost everything technological Spain needed was imported, from telescopes to clocks! That difference from the starting point was only magnified with the series of problems of the decades after independence.

[pinguino]

I didn't mention morality.

You should

[pinguino]

Why do you think class divisions developed in Spanish colonies more than the British ones?

Because the Spanish colonies were founded around a small parasite elite supported by a sea of peasants (read about the Hacienda), while in the British colonies (if we forget a bit about slavery) the economical nucleus was the small farm and the small economical unit, where the owner produced its own resources.