Why are countries discovered by Anglos more richer than those discovered by Iberians?

[Incal]

Because Anglos, along with Jews, are the most money obsessed people in the world (that's why they get along so well).

[Hialt]

(musings of an English major, daydreaming in class)
God is good. "God," in English, is sounds nearly identical to the word, "good." Has this unlocked eternal truths in the English-speaker's brain?

[Autrigón]

STFU stop justifying your own flaws and mistakes, Anglos didn't create a trillion mestizos just like Spaniards did

The genetic contribution of Spaniards in "Latin" America is minimal. Take in consideration that for example in the XVI century Spain had a population about 5 millions of habitants. If you leave aside women, children, old people and the soldiers who were fighting in the continuous european wars…That leave only available a small group of Conquistadores to explore and conquer new lands in America.
For God sake Hernán Cortés conquered with 400 men the Aztec Empire (populated for about 7 millions) and Francisco Pizarro conquered with 168 men the Inca Empire (populated by 10-12 millions) . Even in the next centuries the spaniards in south America were always like a drop in an ocean of Amerindians.

So now, are you seriosly telling me that a small handful of spanish penises were able to fertilize an entire continent full of Amerindian tribes and black slaves?? I didn't know that my sperm were so powerful.

[newdbr]

Look at Iberian colonized nations in Latin America, like Venezuela, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru, which are hellholes compared to the anglophones like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ.

I'll admit, even our own French colonies aren't the most successful nations, but they're not too bad. But Spanish/Portuguese colonized nations are laughably unsuccessful with poverty, high crime rate (murder and drugs) and poor economy. Maybe Argentina and Uruguay aren't so bad in all fairness. But that isn't saying much.

Oh, the US is more affiliated with the UK (despite being founded by the Spaniards), because the founding forefathers were Anglo-Celtics and most Americans claim English and German ancestry....But really, if the USA became Iberian-ised, it would've been another Mexico, another poor Latin American country.

as already stated, no indigenous left in america or australia especially since spanish intermixed with natives unlike anglos. but moreso the reason is protestantism knocked catholicism off and protestantism focused more on secular prosperity and technology especially where jews thrived bolstering these things.

[FinalFlash]

Former Spanish and/or Portuguese colonies aren't all shitholes. If given the choice to live between certain latin american countries or French territories/colonies, I'm choosing the former each and every single time.

[alnortedelsur]

Look at Iberian colonized nations in Latin America, like Venezuela, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru, which are hellholes compared to the anglophones like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ.

I'll admit, even our own French colonies aren't the most successful nations, but they're not too bad. But Spanish/Portuguese colonized nations are laughably unsuccessful with poverty, high crime rate (murder and drugs) and poor economy. Maybe Argentina and Uruguay aren't so bad in all fairness. But that isn't saying much.

Oh, the US is more affiliated with the UK (despite being founded by the Spaniards), because the founding forefathers were Anglo-Celtics and most Americans claim English and German ancestry....But really, if the USA became Iberian-ised, it would've been another Mexico, another poor Latin American country.

NO, in that scenario US would have been more something like the southern cone.

Iberian ex-colonies follow a similar patroon as the former British colonies, in which Spanish former colonies located in tropical latitudes, are today's classic third world countries (but very far from being hell holes like tropical former French and British colonies), while former Iberian colonies located in temperate latitudes (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Southern Brazil) are more developed, and have a lot of European ancestry (great part of it from Iberia). Argentina/Uruguay are mostly white/Euro-mestizo, with their European ancestries being mostly Spanish and Italian, and Chile is a mostly Euro-mestizo country, with most of European acestry being Spanish with some little hints of German, British, Croatian, etc.

Same patroon can also been observed in Northern parts of Mexico, located in middle latitudes, where the average regional admixture is more Spanish than Amerindian.

You're welcome for my lesson

[Hasien]

again with this absurd assumption?, Spaniards were very few for a whole continent full of indigenous people, while European migration to North America was massive in a practically empty territory

In Spanish America the Indians were labor and sex, while in Anglo America they were a nuisance. That is all.

How tiresome are in this forum to compare pears with oranges

How can there be a few as you claim, while there's millions of Latin Americans with at least 50% European ancestry It just doesn't make any sense.

Latin america would've been like the Philippines If that's the case.

Are you new into this?

[Andullero]

NO, in that scenario US would have been more something like the southern cone.

Iberian ex-colonies follow a similar patroon as the former British colonies, in which Spanish former colonies located in tropical latitudes, are today's classic third world countries (but very far from being hell holes like tropical former French and British colonies), while former Iberian colonies located in temperate latitudes (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Southern Brazil) are more developed, and have a lot of European ancestry (great part of it from Iberia). Argentina/Uruguay are mostly white/Euro-mestizo, with their European ancestries being mostly Spanish and Italian, and Chile is a mostly Euro-mestizo country, with most of European acestry being Spanish with some little hints of German, British, Croatian, etc.

Same patroon can also been observed in Northern parts of Mexico, located in middle latitudes, where the average regional admixture is more Spanish than Amerindian.

You're welcome for my lesson

The notion of French people pointing fingers and deriding other people about failed colonialism is laughable to an insane degree to begin with.

[Tenma de Pegasus]

French clearly created the worst countries to live in the World, the poorest nations of Americas, Africa and Asia are FRENCH creations hahah

[alnortedelsur]

The genetic contribution of Spaniards in "Latin" America is minimal. Take in consideration that for example in the XVI century Spain had a population about 5 millions of habitants. If you leave aside women, children, old people and the soldiers who were fighting in the continuous european wars…That leave only available a small group of Conquistadores to explore and conquer new lands in America.
For God sake Hernán Cortés conquered with 400 men the Aztec Empire (populated for about 7 millions) and Francisco Pizarro conquered with 168 men the Inca Empire (populated by 10-12 millions) . Even in the next centuries the spaniards in south America were always like a drop in an ocean of Amerindians.

So now, are you seriosly telling me that a small handful of spanish penises were able to fertilize an entire continent full of Amerindian tribes and black slaves?? I didn't know that my sperm were so powerful.

Not everything is limited to the conquistadores spreading their sperm during the conquest, and that's it. In the centuries of Spanish rule, many more Spaniards settled in Latin America besides the conquistadores. If what you said was true, ALL Hispenic America from Rio Grande to Patagonia would be as non-Euro like Guatemala, Panama, Peru and Bolivia, and that's not the case.

There are many parts of Hispanic America with more Spanish than Amerindian contribution, and with exceptions like parts of southern Mexico, most of Central America (excluding Costa Rica) and the Central Andean countries, in much of the rest of Hispanic American countries the European contribution at least 50% or above of the total gene pool.

All the temperate lands (due to latitude or altitude) that were not dominated by great Amerindian civilizations ended up with a genetic make up with more Spanish than Amerindian contribution and little to non African input, due to three key factors:

-The lower population density of the local Amerindians (who ended up more decimated by diseases due to their lower numbers)
-More settlement by Spaniards (during the centuries of Spanish rule, not only conquistadores) due to the temperate climate
-And lack of African trade in those places (since African slave trade was mostly limited to tropical and fertile lowlands in or around the Caribbean sea).

North/West Mexico, the Costa Rican highlands, the Colombian/Venezuelan Andes, Paraguay (subtropical), Uruguay and most of Argentina and Chile, are all temperate places with well over 60% of European contribution in their general gene pool. All those areas are far from being as little European as southern Mexico, Guatemala, Peru or Bolivia.

And that without mentioning other parts, like many parts of the rest of Venezuela (its non Andean parts), most of the rest of non-Andean Colombian (excluding the Pacific coast in the westernmost parts of its Caribbean coast), etc, which are areas that are at least 50% Euro. Plus Cuba and Puerto Rico, that are well over 60%, because they belonged to Spain for much longer than the rest of Latin America, and received big waves of massive Spanish immigration after the independence of the other Spanish colonies.

You're out of your mind if you think that nearly all Hispanic America is like Guatemala, Panama, Bolivia or Peru.