PDA

View Full Version : IF "Central" America was settled by AngloSaxons, "Central America" term wouldn't exist?



Robocop
02-03-2018, 02:19 PM
I am sure of this 100%, 200%.

If area of so called "Central" America was settled by AngloSaxons (speaking english today like USA) this term "Central" America wouldn't even exist.

1st. There is no such thing as "Central America" considering Geography, there is only NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA.

2nd. This is without any doubt just one out of many examples how GeoPolitics is ran in various parts of world.

3rd. People accept this terms like blind, like they're complete idiots (even many of them aren't), they just accept it, they use it, without any questions asked.

4th. THE FACT is that "central" America is IN FACT a North America, yep, NORTH AMERICA, so why use this term? Because they speak spanish and because they are of half whites and half native indians?

https://i.imgur.com/0mKXcg1.gif

"Clap clap clap clap clap", we just have found A LEGAL racism presented in every school book, in everyday life... and everyone is just oblivious of it...

My DIRECT question to you all here, and please, answer me with yes or no without much philosophy, IF "CENTRAL" America area was settled by AngloSaxons and if they would speak English today, would that term CENTRAL AMERICA even exist?

I'm saying with 200% assurance; NO it would not.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 02:25 PM
I disagree.

Central America is the same as Mesoamerica, and this area was very distinct already before Columbus. So the existence of this term has nothing to do with post-1492 history. At least not in Poland (we always talk about Pre-Columbian Central America and it includes Mexico).

Meso means Middle, Intermediate, or Central: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica

Also, even if Central America was settled by Anglo-Saxons, it would still be populated by Mestizos today.

But these Mestizos would be 50% Amerindian + 50% North European (instead of 50% South European).

Robocop
02-03-2018, 02:34 PM
I disagree.

Central America is the same as Mesoamerica, and this area was very distinct already before Columbus. So the existence of this term has nothing to do with post-1492 history. At least not in Poland (we always talk about Pre-Columbian Central America and it includes Mexico).

Meso means Middle, Intermediate, or Central: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica

Also, even if Central America was settled by Anglo-Saxons, it would still be populated by Mestizos today.

But these Mestizos would be 50% Amerindian + 50% North European (instead of 50% South European).

Simple fact for you: there is ONLY North American continent and South American continent, there IS NO "Central" American continent.

But it is thought in everyday life there is such thing, and you cannot deny it, it is GeoPolitical input which insults intelligence and Geography itself.

This term CENTRAL AMERICA is used today to such degree that EVERYONE FORGETS that Mexico and rest of the "central" american country ARE ON NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT, and you cannot deny this.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 02:37 PM
North America (to the north of Rio Grande) had no more than 3.5 million inhabitants at the time of Columbus:

http://proceedings.caaconference.org/files/2000/35_Snow_CAA_2000.pdf

On the contrary, Central America and South America were inhabited by at least few tens of millions of people.

Jana
02-03-2018, 02:38 PM
Since when is Mexico considered central american ?
I learned in school geography class that central america starts south from Mexico.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 02:39 PM
Simple fact for you: there is ONLY North American continent and South American continent, there IS NO "Central" American continent.

Just like there is ONLY Eurasian continent - there is no European continent. Asia and Europe together are one landmass, one continent.

In Polish sciences & historiography, Central America has always been counted separately (even in books from the 1800s & early 1900s).

Peterski
02-03-2018, 02:40 PM
Since when is Mexico considered central american ?
I learned in school geography class that central america starts south from Mexico.

In Poland we count Mexico as Central American or Mesoamerican (which is the same thing).

I checked Polish Statistical Yearbooks from 1938 and 1939, and Mexico was already counted as part of Central America back then.

This data is from those yearbooks: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?232704-Population-of-the-Americas-in-1936

Jana
02-03-2018, 02:43 PM
In Croatian books Mexico is part of northern America

Central America: Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama. Plus the Carribean...

Jana
02-03-2018, 02:44 PM
In Poland we count Mexico as Central American or Mesoamerican (which is the same thing).

I checked Polish Statistical Yearbooks from 1938 and 1939, and Mexico was already counted as part of Central America back then.

This data is from those yearbooks: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?232704-Population-of-the-Americas-in-1936

Very interestimg, thanks for posting :) so there is no consensus in European geography it seems ?

Robocop
02-03-2018, 02:53 PM
Just like there is ONLY Eurasian continent - there is no European continent. Asia and Europe together are one landmass, one continent.

In Polish sciences & historiography, Central America has always been counted separately (even in books from the 1800s & early 1900s).

You know very well that most of normal world knows for this continents; Seven continents;

https://i2.wp.com/www.7continents5oceans.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/main-image.jpg

Central American continent does not exist and it wouldn't even be mentioned if it was settled by AngloSaxons.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 02:56 PM
I learned in school geography class that central america starts south from Mexico.

And I learned that the Aztecs, Mayans etc. were Central (Meso) American civilizations.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 02:58 PM
Central American continent does not exist

A region called Central America (or Mesoamerica) does exist, just like Central Asia exists.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 03:04 PM
https://cdn.brainpop.com/socialstudies/worldhistory/mesoamerica/screenshot1.png

frankhammer
02-03-2018, 03:07 PM
It is an apt description based on what people see, the connection between the larger two landmasses above and below. Whether it is the tail end of one continent and the isthmus between the two isn't important.

There's no racism here.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 03:09 PM
It is an apt description based on what people see, the connection between the larger two landmasses above and below. Whether it is the tail end of one continent and the isthmus between the two isn't important.

Yes.

And it has also been a culturally separate region for thousands of years. Mesoamerica had advanced civilizations, while North America never had them. North America was sparsely populated before Columbus, while Mesoamerica had millions of people on a much smaller territory.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 03:13 PM
https://i2.wp.com/www.7continents5oceans.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/main-image.jpg

Dumb map which splits New Guinea in half even though it is one island.

Why did they split it in half? Just because one half is part of Indonesia?

By this logic, entire Asian part of Russia should be assigned to Europe.

Jana
02-03-2018, 04:25 PM
What Croatian wikipedia says about Central America: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srednja_Amerika

Central America covers the land bridge between North and South America as well as the West Indies, and geographically and geologically the land towards isthmus of Tehuantepec belongs to the continent of North America. Historically, Central America can be considered as an independent continent. Mainland starting from the isthmus of Tehuantepec to Coal Darien on the border between Panama and Colombia is called Central America.

This land bridge is predominantly Spanish-speaking. The only exception is Belize where English is spoken. English, French, Spanish and Dutch are spoken on the islands of the Caribbean.

States on land bridge from north to south:

southernmost part of Mexico
belize
Guatemala
Honduras
Salvador
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Panama

According to our geographers, border between Central and Northern America is isthmus (strait) ot Tehuantepec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isthmus_of_Tehuantepec

Demon Revival
02-03-2018, 05:16 PM
Belize is English speaking and no one considers it any less Central American. I agree this term is useless anyway. There is only North America and South America.


https://cdn.brainpop.com/socialstudies/worldhistory/mesoamerica/screenshot1.png

Problematic classification. Because:
-Not all of Mexico is Mesoamerica
-Most of Central America isn't Mesoamerica

Odin
02-03-2018, 07:17 PM
1st. There is no such thing as "Central America" considering Geography, there is only NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA.

North America as a continent was formed million years ago.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/Seas/wis-map2.jpg

On most maps, Central America doesn't include any parts of Mexico, since they classify by country, and according to that practice, Mexico is entirely a part of North America. So it varies. Some geographers put the border between North America and Central America in the Sierra Madre of Chiapas.

2nd. This is without any doubt just one out of many examples how GeoPolitics is ran in various parts of world.

It's really arbitrary anyway, sort of like the geographical divide between Europe and Asia, which at certain points, it is more clear than others.

3rd. People accept this terms like blind, like they're complete idiots (even many of them aren't), they just accept it, they use it, without any questions asked.

Regardless of whether they lump the US and Central America in the same category so to say, the fact is the Mexican-American border is 1,954 miles long, with approximately 350,000,000 legal crossings per year.

4th. THE FACT is that "central" America is IN FACT a North America, yep, NORTH AMERICA, so why use this term? Because they speak spanish and because they are of half whites and half native indians?

Culturally it is not North America at all. Geographically it is. But to me it being in the cultural zone of Latin America makes its geographical location in North America meaningless.

IF "CENTRAL" America area was settled by AngloSaxons and if they would speak English today, would that term CENTRAL AMERICA even exist?

A continent is a large geological land mass, it has nothing to do with people. That's like asking if Canada is part of North America and using French Canada in an argument to prove it isn't.

RMuller
02-03-2018, 07:41 PM
Since when is Mexico considered central american ?
I learned in school geography class that central america starts south from Mexico.

Mexico is North American .

JohnSmith
02-03-2018, 07:44 PM
I suppose it really doesn't matter much.

Annie999
02-03-2018, 07:49 PM
I agree with you.

In school I was taught that America was divided in 3; South, Central and North. I do believe there are clear cultural differences between South and Central America, enough to make them 2 different regions. However I can also see how the entire continent could be divided only in 2 (South and North) so I have no real objection to the ones that prefer to do that.

Anyways, I also agree that if anglos colonized Central America, it would be only South and North, definitely.

Robocop
02-03-2018, 08:40 PM
I agree with you.

In school I was taught that America was divided in 3; South, Central and North. I do believe there are clear cultural differences between South and Central America, enough to make them 2 different regions. However I can also see how the entire continent could be divided only in 2 (South and North) so I have no real objection to the ones that prefer to do that.

Anyways, I also agree that if anglos colonized Central America, it would be only South and North, definitely.

:thumb001:

Demon Revival
02-03-2018, 08:46 PM
I agree with you.

In school I was taught that America was divided in 3; South, Central and North. I do believe there are clear cultural differences between South and Central America, enough to make them 2 different regions. However I can also see how the entire continent could be divided only in 2 (South and North) so I have no real objection to the ones that prefer to do that.

Anyways, I also agree that if anglos colonized Central America, it would be only South and North, definitely.

It was less clear before when you take into account Central America originally is an American concept which was used for the bananization and control of trade. Central America was never a fixed geographical region.

All of Central America was formerly either part of Mexico or part of Colombia. The breakaway Federal Republic of Central America was created, while Panama was directly extracted from Colombia to create and monopolize the channel.

http://puu.sh/zg0cL/dea62bcf9a.png

Central America is just some artificial bullshit that was used to justify the creation of many useless, futureless banana states.

"Gran Colombia"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Gran_Colombia_1820%2C_guerras_de_independencia_182 1-23.jpg/1024px-Gran_Colombia_1820%2C_guerras_de_independencia_182 1-23.jpg

Peterski
02-03-2018, 09:02 PM
Before Columbus North America to the north of Rio Grande had only between 1/9 and 1/16 of the entire population of the Americas (depending on estimate). The remaining 8/9 up to 15/16 lived in what later became Latin America. Distribution of Native population in 1492:

Variant with 1/9 of Amerindians to the north of Rio Grande:

1) USA and Canada (to the north of Rio Grande) - 11-10%

2) Mexico and Mesoamerica / Central America - 39-45%
3) Andean (western) part of South America - 36-34%

4) All other regions of South America - 12-10%
5) The Caribbean region (West Indies) - 2-1%

Variant with 1/16 of Amerindians north of Rio Grande:

1) USA and Canada (to the north of Rio Grande) - 6-5%

2) Mexico and Mesoamerica / Central America - 41-47%
3) Western (Andean) part of South America - 38-36%

4) All other regions of South America - 13-11%
5) The Caribbean region (West Indies) - 2-1%

^^^
As you can see, between 3/4 and 4/5 of Amerindian population lived in two regions: Mesoamerica (from Mexico to Panama) and in the western (Andean) part of South America (from Ecuador to Chile).

Today Amerindian ancestry is most prevalent in the same areas, where population density and size of population were the largest back in 1492. And it has nothing to do with who colonized them, Iberians or Anglos.

Another thing is that most of post-1820 European immigration went to North America:

http://imgur.com/ox82gKv.png

Peterski
02-03-2018, 09:06 PM
How do you imagine Anglos colonizing Mexico?:

Even with more European immigrants, there would still be millions of Natives left. Look for example at South Africa (colonized by Afrikaners and later by Anglos) - Blacks and Coloureds (mixed race people of Boer, British, native African and Asian ancestry) vastly outnumber Whites.

skain
02-03-2018, 09:08 PM
I disagree.

Central America is the same as Mesoamerica, and this area was very distinct already before Columbus. So the existence of this term has nothing to do with post-1492 history. At least not in Poland (we always talk about Pre-Columbian Central America and it includes Mexico).

Meso means Middle, Intermediate, or Central: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica

Also, even if Central America was settled by Anglo-Saxons, it would still be populated by Mestizos today.

But these Mestizos would be 50% Amerindian + 50% North European (instead of 50% South European).

I doubt that Central America would be mestizo if it were colonized by Anglos. Anglos used a lot of slave labor, Central America would be full of descendants of slaves

Peterski
02-03-2018, 09:11 PM
Anglos used a lot of slave labor

That's not true.

Spain and Portugal transported much more slaves to Latin America than Anglos did to their colonies. As this map shows, only 5% of all slaves went to English colonies, and for example 35% to Brazil:

https://billygambelaafroasiaticanthropology.files.wordpres s.com/2013/11/trans-atlantic-slave-map.gif

Another more detailed map:

http://www.slavevoyages.org/static/images/assessment/intro-maps/09.jpg

http://www.slavevoyages.org/static/images/assessment/intro-maps/09.jpg

Edit:

Okay that includes also a lot of slaves transported to British Caribbean:

http://jones.lostsoulsgenealogy.com/aa/image16_19.gif

Demon Revival
02-03-2018, 09:14 PM
That's not true.

Spain and Portugal transported much more slaves to Latin America than Anglos did to their colonies. As this map shows, only 5% of all slaves went to English colonies, and for example 35% to Brazil:

https://billygambelaafroasiaticanthropology.files.wordpres s.com/2013/11/trans-atlantic-slave-map.gif

Another more detailed map:

http://www.slavevoyages.org/static/images/assessment/intro-maps/09.jpg

http://www.slavevoyages.org/static/images/assessment/intro-maps/09.jpg

Edit:

Okay that includes also a lot of slaves transported to British Caribbean:

http://jones.lostsoulsgenealogy.com/aa/image16_19.gif

It says "60% West Indies". That's mostly Anglo territory. Then you also have to take into account French Nigga places like New Orleans and Haiti.

Peterski
02-03-2018, 09:16 PM
Belize was an Anglo colony by the way, and look at its population today, mostly Mestizos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Belize#Ethnic_groups


Most Belizeans are of multiracial descent. About 52.9% are Mestizo, 25.9% Creole, 11.3% Maya, 6.1.% Garifuna, 3.9% East Indian, 3.6% Mennonites, 1.2% White, 1% Asian, 1.2% Other and 0.3% Unknown.[2]

In the case of Europeans, most are descendants of Spanish and British colonial settlers, whether pure-blooded or mixed with each other. Most Spanish left the nation just after it was taken by the British colonists.

https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/african-slave-trade-11.jpg

skain
02-03-2018, 09:23 PM
That's not true.

Spain and Portugal transported much more slaves to Latin America than Anglos did to their colonies. As this map shows, only 5% of all slaves went to English colonies, and for example 35% to Brazil:

https://billygambelaafroasiaticanthropology.files.wordpres s.com/2013/11/trans-atlantic-slave-map.gif

Another more detailed map:

http://www.slavevoyages.org/static/images/assessment/intro-maps/09.jpg

http://www.slavevoyages.org/static/images/assessment/intro-maps/09.jpg

Edit:

Okay that includes also a lot of slaves transported to British Caribbean:

http://jones.lostsoulsgenealogy.com/aa/image16_19.gif

LOL. Even today central america is not mestizo. They are triracials in average. But a lot are self-haters, they hate their African ancestry and say they are mestizos

skain
02-03-2018, 09:24 PM
Belize was an Anglo colony by the way, and look at its population today, mostly Mestizos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Belize#Ethnic_groups



https://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/african-slave-trade-11.jpg

Because several Guatemalan and Mexican immigrants went there

Peterski
02-03-2018, 09:26 PM
LOL. Even today central america is not mestizo.

Wrong, for example Guatemala is even more Native than Mestizo.

Mexico is also a Mestizo country with not so much of Black ancestry.

skain
02-03-2018, 09:28 PM
Wrong, for example Guatemala is even more Native than Mestizo.

Mexico is also a Mestizo country with not so much of Black ancestry.

I say central america. Mexico is not central america. Guatemala is more indigenous then others

Annie999
02-04-2018, 02:47 AM
It was less clear before when you take into account Central America originally is an American concept which was used for the bananization and control of trade. Central America was never a fixed geographical region.

All of Central America was formerly either part of Mexico or part of Colombia. The breakaway Federal Republic of Central America was created, while Panama was directly extracted from Colombia to create and monopolize the channel.

http://puu.sh/zg0cL/dea62bcf9a.png

Central America is just some artificial bullshit that was used to justify the creation of many useless, futureless banana states.

"Gran Colombia"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Gran_Colombia_1820%2C_guerras_de_independencia_182 1-23.jpg/1024px-Gran_Colombia_1820%2C_guerras_de_independencia_182 1-23.jpg
The way I see it Central America has enough cultural differences and characteristics of its own in comparison to South America to be concidered a different region. To me it doesn’t matter who created the terminology as long as it makes sense, which in my opinion it does. However as I explained before Im also OK dividing America in only 2 regions: South and North.

Latinus
02-04-2018, 02:50 AM
Would it be, racially speaking, the same as the US: majority white?

Demon Revival
02-04-2018, 06:45 PM
The way I see it Central America has enough cultural differences and characteristics of its own in comparison to South America to be concidered a different region. To me it doesn’t matter who created the terminology as long as it makes sense, which in my opinion it does. However as I explained before Im also OK dividing America in only 2 regions: South and North.

The thing is it doesn't make sense.

Has it really enough cultural differences? Is the difference between Costa Rica and Argentina (central vs. south) really more than between Argentina and Bolivia (south vs. south)?

Split a piece of another North American nation (Mexico) with balkanization and trade purposes, and then rip off another from a South American nation (Colombia) to create a Latino Hong Kong... does not truly make a real region.

Central America may have differences with Argentina or Chile but not with Colombia (in the case of Panama and Costa Rica). And Guatemala is basically an extension of Mexico. The other nations are a bit more tricky but for the most part they're just a tropicalized, caribbeanized version of Mexico.

I do not think that suffices to officialize a real "macro region". I understand why some people would use it by convenience but in reality there are no solid reasons to do so. Random breakaway regions of Mexico and Colombia clustered together shouldn't be considered a full-blown sub-continent.

zhaoyun
02-04-2018, 07:38 PM
The reason why the term Central America exists is because there are a number of small states in between Mexico and South America. If all of those states were just a part of Mexico, or if there was just Panama in existence, then the term Central America wouldn't really be meaningful.

CostaRicaBall
12-16-2019, 05:28 PM
If Costa Rica didn't deafeat filibusteros, Central America would be North America.

Iskander
12-16-2019, 07:35 PM
Would it be, racially speaking, the same as the US: majority white?

It's the main point, imo.

True that mesoamerica was far more densely populated than the north, but on the other side anglosaxon model of civilisation is (in its core) quite less interracial than iberian standards.

Around the world (Oceania, South-Africa etc.) whatever the size of native populations, anglosaxon settlers tended to not mix with them : rather, they formed separate "all-white" elites in those gegraphical contexts.

So i highly doubt we would see today a anglo-mestizo country in central America : more probably there would be a high social belt (20-30% of pop.) mostly european (genetically at 95-100%) and…...70-80% of mostly pure amerindians all around (segregated fro most of modern era - till 1920, to say) and in the last 80 yrs just in lower classes or just in poverty.

sean
12-16-2019, 08:02 PM
Somewhat. Geographically, it is North America. On a cultural view, its Central. Central America starts south of the Yucatán Peninsula. Mexico often gets lumped in with it due to culture, not geography. Even Confederates planned to conquer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Circle_(proposed_country)) Central America and the Caribbean and move their capital from Richmond to Havana.

I always trust geography more, though Mexico is not included as part of North America, as recognised by the UN. Thanks to geography there is basically no country in South America or Central America that will ever be capable of challenging Anglo America or being anything close a rival like China is.

Synapsid
12-16-2019, 09:04 PM
It's the main point, imo.

True that mesoamerica was far more densely populated than the north, but on the other side anglosaxon model of civilisation is (in its core) quite less interracial than iberian standards.

Around the world (Oceania, South-Africa etc.) whatever the size of native populations, anglosaxon settlers tended to not mix with them : rather, they formed separate "all-white" elites in those gegraphical contexts.

So i highly doubt we would see today a anglo-mestizo country in central America : more probably there would be a high social belt (20-30% of pop.) mostly european (genetically at 95-100%) and…...70-80% of mostly pure amerindians all around (segregated fro most of modern era - till 1920, to say) and in the last 80 yrs just in lower classes or just in poverty.

What would the intellectual foundation of a segregated society be in this scenario? When it came to jim crow and apartheid, Anglo-Germanic used the Lack of complex culture of Blacks/sub-Saharan as an excuse for anti-miscegenation and segregation. What arguments would they use against mesoamericans (aztecs/nahua, mayans, Mixtecs etc)? After all, they independent developed complex culture on their own. would British attitude towards them be more similar to the their attitude to S.Indians (i.e. once civilised and more respect than blacks)?

luc2112
12-16-2019, 09:59 PM
It's the main point, imo.

True that mesoamerica was far more densely populated than the north, but on the other side anglosaxon model of civilisation is (in its core) quite less interracial than iberian standards.

Around the world (Oceania, South-Africa etc.) whatever the size of native populations, anglosaxon settlers tended to not mix with them : rather, they formed separate "all-white" elites in those gegraphical contexts.

So i highly doubt we would see today a anglo-mestizo country in central America : more probably there would be a high social belt (20-30% of pop.) mostly european (genetically at 95-100%) and…...70-80% of mostly pure amerindians all around (segregated fro most of modern era - till 1920, to say) and in the last 80 yrs just in lower classes or just in poverty.

The Iberians used the native population for colonization (it was a colony and not a future country for settlement). You are ignoring historical factors.

luc2112
12-16-2019, 10:06 PM
What would the intellectual foundation of a segregated society be in this scenario? When it came to jim crow and apartheid, Anglo-Germanic used the Lack of complex culture of Blacks/sub-Saharan as an excuse for anti-miscegenation and segregation. What arguments would they use against mesoamericans (aztecs/nahua, mayans, Mixtecs etc)? After all, they independent developed complex culture on their own. would British attitude towards them be more similar to the their attitude to S.Indians (i.e. once civilised and more respect than blacks)?

Anti-miscegenation and segregation is unique to afro-black that one is very complicated people. With the amerindians it depends. What was the amount of euro immigration to the country in question? Amerindians were culturally below that Europeans and this country will take longer to develop.

Tenma de Pegasus
12-16-2019, 10:10 PM
People should start to think Haiti, Belize, Jamaica, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras are all North Americans.

Oneeye
12-16-2019, 10:11 PM
If Eastern Europe was Muslim, would it be called Eastern Europe?

luc2112
12-16-2019, 10:29 PM
Socio-economic Division is Latam and North America (but not correct, there are english speaking countries like jamaica and french latin speaking as part of canada).

South America, Central America, and North America are geographically appropriate. The equator line runs north of south america.

Cristiano viejo
12-16-2019, 11:01 PM
I am sure of this 100%, 200%.

ok but remarking that 200% means nothing, and not even a thousandth more than just saying 100%.

Robocop
12-19-2019, 03:25 AM
If Eastern Europe was Muslim, would it be called Eastern Europe?

Well Western Europe is Muslim but we still call it Western Europe. :confused:

Oneeye
12-19-2019, 09:33 PM
Hahahahaha!

bandeirante
12-20-2019, 07:52 PM
It's the main point, imo.

True that mesoamerica was far more densely populated than the north, but on the other side anglosaxon model of civilisation is (in its core) quite less interracial than iberian standards.

Around the world (Oceania, South-Africa etc.) whatever the size of native populations, anglosaxon settlers tended to not mix with them : rather, they formed separate "all-white" elites in those gegraphical contexts.

So i highly doubt we would see today a anglo-mestizo country in central America : more probably there would be a high social belt (20-30% of pop.) mostly european (genetically at 95-100%) and…...70-80% of mostly pure amerindians all around (segregated fro most of modern era - till 1920, to say) and in the last 80 yrs just in lower classes or just in poverty.

belize: triracial!!! anglo colony