How do you think Latin America would be if the Anglos colonized it instead of the Spaniards?

[Ruggery]

The tropical parts would have ended up being mostly black/mulatto and similar to Jamaica, while the temperate lands occupied by Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and perhaps southern Brazil, would have ended being a mostly white English speaking Anglo Saxon country like Australia, New Zealand, and to some extent US and Canada.

Maybe Paraguay and the North eastern parts of Argentina would be something similar to the old south of United States (Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Tennesee and Virginia): many Anglo whites, but also good numbers of Afro descendants (many of them black/Anglo mulattoes).

Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, the Colombian/Venezuelan Andean highlands, the Costa Rican highlands, and the Mexican highlands would probably be about the same, but with British/Irish input instead of Spanish on their Euro side.

I prefer Latin America just like it is after been colonized by Spaniards.

I think the same as your climate is a factor in colonization. Argentina would be like Australia, I think that's why they tried to dominate Argentina in the past and turn Chile into a British colony.The difference is that the corruption of the Anglo ethnic group has less corruption than the Hispanic countries, including Spain,(I speak of countries where the Anglos are the majority)Not from countries like india or nigeria.

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

I wouldn't change this:


for this:

[Heather Duval]

It would be full of blacks from Africa.

dont be stupid
in many parts of brazil we received more africans than anything(about 3 millions to rio de janeiro)
we dont have more blacks here because of racial mixings
mixing races= genocide
at lesst racial segregations would keep the black race alive

[Heather Duval]

brazil receveid more blacks than USa lol

[alnortedelsur]

I think the same as your climate is a factor in colonization. Argentina would be like Australia, I think that's why they tried to dominate Argentina in the past and turn Chile into a British colony.The difference is that the corruption of the Anglo ethnic group has less corruption than the Hispanic countries, including Spain,(I speak of countries where the Anglos are the majority)Not from countries like india or nigeria.

I'm happy that Spain colonized the southern cone instead of Great Britain. Even if it's true that Argentina, Uruguay (not so much Chile) are more corrupt than mostly Anglo countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they are still very decent and prosperous countries, not that far in their standard of living from first world countries.

If they were colonized by British, people of the Anglo sphere could fill their mouth saying that all the middle latitude temperate lands around the world (except Russia and the east Asian countries) were colonized by them, and that only them built prosperous countries outside Europe, while Spain and Portugal only created "Banana republics", and that would be unbearable.

[User50]

Those were not settler colonies, and India is richer than Mexico.

Mexico is more than twice as rice per capita as India.

[User50]

KKK
racial segregations
Jim crow
One drop rule

Actually the one drop rule is a pretty unique Southern United States things. Not even an American thing. And it wasn't established until about 140 years after American independence from the UK.

In Australia, which was also a British colony, they did not have a one drop rule in the least. The Australians had a program in the early 1900s to breed out Aborigines blood. They literally kidnapped some half-breed Aborigines and forced them into the white community so that they'd marry white. They hoped the Aborigines would disappear through absorption into the white community.

[User50]

Latin America would still be filled with low IQ Native Americans if it had been colonized by Anglos. I don't think it would be that much better.

[Black Panther]

Those were not settler colonies, and India is richer than Mexico.

India is not richer than Mexico, lol. The average Mexican is 3 times richer than the average Indian. GDP =/= GDP Per capita.

[Kivan]

Not very different. Maybe with more racial segregation and such.