Is East Europe poorer and less developed than Latin America?

[Zuh]

I wanted to say "was brutally colonized". Here are parts of a first chapter from book Why Nations Fail on Spanish colonial system of Latin America:

The Spanish strategy of colonization was highly effective. First perfected by Cortes in Mexico, it was based on observation that the best way for the Spanish to subdue opposition was to capture the indigenous leader. This strategy enabled the Spanish to claim the accumulated wealth of the leader and coerce the indigenous peoples to give tribute and food. The next step was setting themselves up as the new elite of the indigenous society and taking control of the existing methods of taxation, tribute, and, particularly, forced labor.


....


For conquest of New Granada (modern Columbia) Dominican priest Bartolomeo de las Casas wrote:



....


To export the Latin American silver, the Spanish needed miners. They sent chief colonial viceroy Francisco de Toledo to Peru. In order to find the labor, de Toledo first moved entire indigenous population in new towns called reducciones, which would facilitate the labor exploitation for the Spanish Crown. Then he adapted Incan institution called mita. Under this system, Incas had used forced labor to run plantations designed to provide food for temples, the aristocracy, and the army. In return, the Inca elite provided famine relief and security. In de Toledo's system, mitas became largest and most onerous scheme of labor exploitation in Spanish colonial period. The mita system was abandoned in 1825.

I don't know about Portugal but Spain never had colonies Spain empire expanded itself Mexico as well the rest of latin america were Spanish proviences like Cataluña Andalucia etc.

Mexico was Spain or common wealth just like Puerto rixo it is with U.S.


The castas yes i do agree with you.

[Zuh]

Moldova Ukraine Romania Albania Bosnia Montenegro North macedonia Serbia etc are poorer human development wise and GDP then half of Latin America.


Half of Europe shame on you.

[Atlantid]

I wanted to say "was brutally colonized". Here are parts of a first chapter from book Why Nations Fail on Spanish colonial system of Latin America:

The Spanish strategy of colonization was highly effective. First perfected by Cortes in Mexico, it was based on observation that the best way for the Spanish to subdue opposition was to capture the indigenous leader. This strategy enabled the Spanish to claim the accumulated wealth of the leader and coerce the indigenous peoples to give tribute and food. The next step was setting themselves up as the new elite of the indigenous society and taking control of the existing methods of taxation, tribute, and, particularly, forced labor.

A lot of Natives died of disease later, they were not massacred unlike the NA Natives. I think the Spanish and Portuguese did as good a job in SA as the British in NA.

What separates North America from the South is that here we have prime land and optimal weather for intellectual pursuits.

[pulstar]

A lot of Natives died of disease later, they were not massacred unlike the NA Natives. I think the Spanish and Portuguese did as good a job as the British here and in the US.

What separates North America from the South is that here we have prime land and optimal weather for intellectual pursuits.

This system never worked with the British. They tried similar strategy when they first settled in Jamestown and it turned into epic failure due to social reasons. Second thing is there were not gold on the Atlantic coast of modern USA and Canada so it couldn't attract mercenary soldiers and adventurers to move in and try their luck.

[Mingle]

Someone on Reddit did a comparison of Brazil and Eastern Europe (excluding Russia) which is probably relevant here:



I don't know how accurate this is as I haven't seen the sources used for this.

If you include Russia and the rest of Latin America, then the gap between EE and LA would be even larger in per capita GDP (keeping in mind that Brazil is one of the most developed countries in LA).

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

I wanted to say "was brutally colonized". Here are parts of a first chapter from book Why Nations Fail on Spanish colonial system of Latin America:

The Spanish strategy of colonization was highly effective. First perfected by Cortes in Mexico, it was based on observation that the best way for the Spanish to subdue opposition was to capture the indigenous leader. This strategy enabled the Spanish to claim the accumulated wealth of the leader and coerce the indigenous peoples to give tribute and food. The next step was setting themselves up as the new elite of the indigenous society and taking control of the existing methods of taxation, tribute, and, particularly, forced labor.


....


For conquest of New Granada (modern Columbia) Dominican priest Bartolomeo de las Casas wrote:



....


To export the Latin American silver, the Spanish needed miners. They sent chief colonial viceroy Francisco de Toledo to Peru. In order to find the labor, de Toledo first moved entire indigenous population in new towns called reducciones, which would facilitate the labor exploitation for the Spanish Crown. Then he adapted Incan institution called mita. Under this system, Incas had used forced labor to run plantations designed to provide food for temples, the aristocracy, and the army. In return, the Inca elite provided famine relief and security. In de Toledo's system, mitas became largest and most onerous scheme of labor exploitation in Spanish colonial period. The mita system was abandoned in 1825.

You're mentioning only Spaniards but you lumped the Portuguese in. That's my issue. The colonial process that underwent through the Portuguese crown was completely different from that of the Spanish crown. I am not saying that the Portuguese never did anything wrong but make no mistake, the Spaniards were in every single aspect more brutal in their colonial process.

[Zuh]

Someone on Reddit did a comparison of Brazil and Eastern Europe (excluding Russia) which is probably relevant here:



I don't know how accurate this is as I haven't seen the sources used for this.

If you include Russia and the rest of Latin America, then the gap between EE and LA would be even larger in per capita GDP.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...s_by_GDP_(PPP)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...elopment_Index

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Spain never had colonies

Time to go back to school.

[Atlantid]

This system never worked with the British. They tried similar strategy when they first settled in Jamestown and it turned into epic failure due to social reasons. Second thing is there were not gold on the Atlantic coast of modern USA and Canada so it couldn't attract mercenary soldiers and adventurers to move in and try their luck.

That's another thing about South America, it's rich in natural resources and very hot, which attracts ruthless men. North America is just prime land for civilization just like NW Europe and Scandinavia.

[pulstar]

You're mentioning only Spaniards but you lumped the Portuguese in. That's my issue. The colonial process that underwent through the Portuguese crown was completely different from that of the Spanish crown. I am not saying that the Portuguese never did anything wrong but make no mistake, the Spaniards were in every single aspect more brutal in their colonial process.

Right, I did only put in the Spaniards, but I find the bold part hard to believe in. As its well known: "Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another".