Are British as responsible as Spaniards for the tragic fate of Natives in the New World?

[Lozano]

And why should Escobar be different from the rest of his town?

I don't understand what your question has to do with what I've been discussion but let's better conclude it here

[mitalit]

I don't understand what your question has to do with what I've been discussion but let's better conclude it here

As you have underlined "on average", it gave me the feeling that you said that Pablo Escobar would be more European than that.

[Cristiano viejo]

Despite the dark past, at least the Brits didn't create hordes of mestizos in their path, so overall British colonialism was better than the Spaniards one.

Noooooooo, British did not create hordes nooooooooo we just have to see USA to check they did not

As I always say, USA is 300 years younger than the rest of America. Wait these 300 years and imagine what it will become

The British and French areas of the New World had far smaller Native population than the Spanish.
They also came a century later.

The key areas of population were centered around Mexico and Peru.

So in this case Brits/Amis were guilty but less so than Spanish.

That is very simplistic. Even if minor in number, there were maaaaany Indians in the British colonies. Where are they even today, tell me. Many held in reserves, and of course decimated. British were super cruel with them, and with their environment. British cruelty was such that they decided to exterminate the buffalo as they were the main source of food for the Indians

Most spaniards dont have ancestors ftom conquistadors. Most conquistadors decendants stayed in the new world.

It is most Latinoamericans who dont have ancestors from conquistadores. Conquistadores can be counted with the fingers of the hands. Latinos descend mostly from simple colonists, while Spaniards themselves are a race of conquistadores. Spaniards not only conquered in America, dear.

English genocide is more apparant because they did not allow mixing. And kept any native remaining tribes confined to limited and small territory. And not socially keen on integrating them into their actual communities. Just integrating them in teaching them western culture and ways.

It is false that British (British, not English) did not mix with natives. It happened in America and also in Asia.

[Lozano]

As you have underlined "on average", it gave me the feeling that you said that Pablo Escobar would be more European than that.

No, he does not look that amount of European, in fact he looks way more mixed than his parents.
What I am agreeing with you is that one thing is looking white and another different is being one you seem to not get my point.

[Andullero]

It is false that British (British, not English) did not mix with natives. It happened in America and also in Asia.

But not as extensively. It wasn't due to lack of trying on the Anglos part, though, cuz there were many Anglican missionaries in Virginia and Puritans in New England that attempted to foster an environment of mixing and conversion among the natives, but these would have none of that. The experiments would end with the Anglo-Powhatan wars in Virginia and King Philip's War in New England, and both affairs were a close thing, since on some instances the Amerinds got the upper hand and almost recreated the genocide at Roanoke. From these conflicts is that the colonial tripod identity of "English, Christian and White" would rise and define the rest of colonial British America.

[luc2112]

Spanish and French civilization mixed with natives would just be another corrupt shithole like South America.

The United States is also corrupt in many cases officially corrupt (unaccounted for) probably a higher perpetual income will give you the illusion that there are no corrupt politicians.

[Cristiano viejo]

But not as extensively. It wasn't due to...

It was due to that they emigrated along their families, Spaniards did not.

As the Spanish writer Borja Cardelús wrote in one of his books, La civilización hispánica, many historians have noted the deep differences between the Spanish and the English colonizations:

"The Angloamerican settlers arrived on foot, looking at the immediate land where they could plow and sow, ignoring any other distance, searching the land for a place to settle and live off it with their own hands.

The Spanish colonist arrived on horseback, from whose height infinite horizons can be seen, despising the land that he does not even tread and does not think to work, seeking the quick fortune that hides beyond the line where the sun sets, in unknown places, shrouded by the legend of hidden treasures, fables and chimeras that he is called upon to discover: the Seven Cities of Cíbola, El Dorado, the Fountain of Eternal Youth, the City of the Caesars... It is the difference between the peasant and the adventurer, between the sedentary and the nomadic, between the pawn and the knight."

[luc2112]

Noooooooo, British did not create hordes nooooooooo we just have to see USA to check they did not

As I always say, USA is 300 years younger than the rest of America. Wait these 300 years and imagine what it will become

Yes, Spain spread mestizo in Mexico whose objective was to populate the southern United States, before France and England did so. In the rest of Latin America it was much smaller. Many forget, but New Zealand is very similar to South America, where 20/30% of the population is Maori, they are 30% of Anglo-Euro genes.

[luc2112]

As I always say, USA is 300 years younger than the rest of America. Wait these 300 years and imagine what it will become


.

For USA, what makes the most difference is massive European immigration, with many white descendants.
Genetically USA is similar to Brazil with a difference between 5-10%. Euro-SSA-Mongolian. The difference is that Brazil has more mix. USA currently has about + - 25% of the population of blacks and browns (Latinos/Indians), if blacks mix it will increase the population of browns, they have a lot of melanin.

[Aldaris]

Despite the dark past, at least the Brits didn't create hordes of mestizos in their path, so overall British colonialism was better than the Spaniards one.

There were not many machupichus around, that's the only reason. And that's also why they had it so easy. Not a rocket science here.