"Latin America is to Spain what the Caribbean is to Britain". Discuss.

[Tooting Carmen]

Contrary to the frequent misconception that the relationship between Latin America and Spain is fairly analogous to the relationship between North America and Britain, I'd argue the former is actually more analogous to the relationship between the Caribbean and Britain. In both cases (aside from Argentina, Uruguay and some regions of Brazil), they are white-minority countries which nevertheless have a European language, religion and (more debatably) culture overwhelmingly predominating. Furthermore, given this unique dynamic, it is no accident that Afro-Caribbeans and mixed-race Latin Americans are by some distance the non-whites who are most enthusiastic about miscegenation (with the possible exception of some Southeast Asians).

[Hasien]

Most Latin american countries are fairly Hispanized so it's not like we all some sort like of Philippines 2.0

[Tooting Carmen]

Most Latin american countries are fairly Hispanized so it's not like we all some sort like of Philippines 2.0

Yes I know - hence why I think the comparison with countries like Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad and what they are like viz-a-viz the UK is better.

[Andullero]

Contrary to the frequent misconception that the relationship between Latin America and Spain is fairly analogous to the relationship between North America and Britain, I'd argue the former is actually more analogous to the relationship between the Caribbean and Britain. In both cases (aside from Argentina, Uruguay and some regions of Brazil), they are white-minority countries which nevertheless have a European language, religion and (more debatably) culture overwhelmingly predominating. Furthermore, given this unique dynamic, it is no accident that Afro-Caribbeans and mixed-race Latin Americans are by some distance the non-whites who are most enthusiastic about miscegenation (with the possible exception of some Southeast Asians).

I'd say no, because the Caribbean archipielago were mostly exploitation colonies for the British, French and Dutch. Latin America, as it is, is a patchwork of different administrative, economic and settlement patterns carried out by the Iberian powers at different stages. You'd have more of a point if you said Latin America is to Spain what the Commonwealth (as a whole) is to Britain.

[Diego Garcia]

Well, first of all I don't consider the term Latin America to be a valid denomination for Hispanic America or Ibero America, for that term was created by the diplomacy of Napoleon III with a politicosocialeconomic interest, which was to intervene in the politics and economy of the old spanish territories. Never before it was used till then.

Southwards Rio Grande, even in a big part of the old spanish territories in the south west of the current USA, population is a product of the miscegenation, since it was firmly encouraged by the same hispanich monarchy, since the times of Isabel I of Castile, it stays even in her last will. So, most population over there are mestizos, between peninsulars and natives there. Linguistically, although many of the native languages were recorded, given a grammar, an alphabet, and even taught in the several universities created in Hispanic America before their independences, Hispanic America are predominantly spanish speakers. The same concerning to the religion --catholic. And in many aspects the culture of those countries and the spanish one is quite related to each other. Of course, in Hispanic America it was given sort of cultural sincretism. But basically their culture is hispanic, as a whole.

So, I think it is around the ethnic question this issue is concerned.

And yes, the white population in the Americas --save in the south cone-- is of mestizo origin --mainly peninsular and native and some african, depending on the area-- is not a majority. The majority of their populations are mestizo origin, ethnically speaking.

On the other hand, I haven't fully understood what kinds of relationships or comparisons you're attempting to do between Caribbean area-Britain and I dont know how many things else... the Hispanic Caribbean, represented by Cuba mainly, but also Dominicana and Puerto Rico are undoubtly more close to Spain than... to Britain? The rest of the caribbean territories not that much since they were in hands of powers that didn't have any intentions to integrate those islands' populations to the metropolis, like Haiti --full of black slaves working for the french owners, that became the 2nd independent republic in the Americas very soon--, Jamaica --exactly the same as Haiti but in hands of british owners since the Cromwell's times-- and a myriade of small islands, belonging to either Britain, Holland or France, also with a high black african population and with the same goals than in Jamaica and Haiti.

Cuba, Dominicana and Puerto Rico had nothing to do with the rest of the Caribbean in hands of other european powers, except the presence of black population on them as well, but in far lower percentages than in the rest of the Caribbean Sea and with a absolutely different treat to them, according to the spanish laws since the times of Isabel I of Castile, from her own last will and posterior laws.

[Tooting Carmen]

I'd say no, because the Caribbean archipielago were mostly exploitation colonies for the British, French and Dutch. Latin America, as it is, is a patchwork of different administrative, economic and settlement patterns carried out by the Iberian powers at different stages. You'd have more of a point if you said Latin America is to Spain what the Commonwealth (as a whole) is to Britain.

I disagree there. Aside from Southern Africa, most of Britain's Old World colonies actually had remarkably little British settlement - even India had no more than 250,000 British people living there at any one time. More crucially, however much they may have been influenced by the British, they still maintained their pre-colonial languages, religions and cultures in a way that neither the Caribbean nor most of Latin America did at all.

[Gaditanian]

I'd say no, because the Caribbean archipielago were mostly exploitation colonies for the British, French and Dutch. Latin America, as it is, is a patchwork of different administrative, economic and settlement patterns carried out by the Iberian powers at different stages. You'd have more of a point if you said Latin America is to Spain what the Commonwealth (as a whole) is to Britain.

Totally Agree

American territories of Spain was never considered colonies, their citizens were Spanish as the same level that the people of Spain, doesn't matter if they were indians, mogrels or creoles.

Spain left there a deep heritage with hundreds of buildings, churchs, fortress, universities, etc

[Tooting Carmen]

Totally Agree

American territories of Spain never was considered colonies, their citizens were Spanish as the same level that the people of Spain, doesn't matter if they were indians, mogrels or creoles.

Spain left there a deep heritage with hundreds of buildings, churchs, fortress, universities, etc

Until the 1960's, Commonwealth citizens were all British citizens with freedom of entry into the UK too. And don't you think that the British influence in the Caribbean in particular - whether in terms of churches, parliamentary democracy, law or language - was also pretty substantial?

[Andullero]

I disagree there. Aside from Southern Africa, most of Britain's Old World colonies actually had remarkably little British settlement - even India had no more than 250,000 British people living there at any one time. More crucially, however much they may have been influenced by the British, they still maintained their pre-colonial languages, religions and cultures in a way that neither the Caribbean nor most of Latin America did at all.

I am not only speaking about race and culture here. It is idiotic to compare the administrative, judicial body polític and economic regime of New Spain (mainly depending on gold mining, and also and important settlement area for Spanish immigration) with the one of the Captaincy General of Chile, which was a cattle ranching área afflicted by a very fragile military situation due to the state of war with the mapuche throughout the entirety of the colonial era. Just like there were Dominions (white settlement colonies) in the British patchwork, so there were ones on the Spanish Empire (mainly the southern cone) and so on. It was not an uniforme edifice at all, either way. You are making the mistake of comparing one part of the British Empire (the exploitation/Crown colonies) with the entirety of the Spanish imperial edifice, which is mistaken at all levels.

For the record, the Spanish administration divided itself in three regimes: Viceroyalites, Royal Audiences (Reales Audiencia) and Captain Generalships. The latter ones were mainly military garrisons on economically depressed áreas suffering from a constant state of war (in the Caribbean, against pirates from rival powers and in Guatemala and Chile, due to Amerindian rebellion).

[Tooting Carmen]

I am not only speaking about race and culture here. It is idiotic to compare the administrative, judicial body polític and economic regime of New Spain (mainly depending on gold mining, and also and important settlement area for Spanish immigration) with the one of the Captaincy General of Chile, which was a cattle ranching área afflicted by a very fragile military situation due to the state of war with the mapuche throughout the entirety of the colonial era. Just like there were Dominions (white settlement colonies) in the British patchwork, so there were ones on the Spanish Empire (mainly the southern cone) and so on. It was not an uniforme edifice at all, either way. You are making the mistake of comparing one part of the British Empire (the exploitation/Crown colonies) with the entirety of the Spanish imperial edifice, which is mistaken at all levels.

For the record, the Spanish administration divided itself in three regimes: Viceroyalites, Royal Audiences (Reales Audiencia) and Captain Generalships. The latter ones were mainly military garrisons on economically depressed áreas suffering from a constant state of war (in the Caribbean, against pirates from rival powers and in Guatemala and Chile, due to Amerindian rebellion).

OK, if I were to have said "Central America is to Spain what the Caribbean is to Britain" would you be happier? (Even in Costa Rica, the European element is often grossly overestimated, let alone the others).