Would Central and South America have been better off if Britain had colonized them instead of Spain/Portugal?
The most successful New World countries were originally colonized by Britain.
USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Everywhere south of USA on the American continent is third world, maybe second world at best.
Would they have been better off if Britain or/and maybe the Nordics and Germans had got there first.
Founded is a better word than colonized before some pedant jumps in
- USAFisnumber1Lv 72 months ago
Spain and Portugal went for the short term profit. They went for the gold and silver. They wiped out the native populations that got in the way. They had no plans for the future other than how to get more gold and silver. They were short sighted. The British and French were more into long term. They saw colonization as sending people, building, slowly increasing their benefits of the colonies. As far as the Germans, they came later and about the only thing left for them was Africa and Asia.
- robert xLv 72 months ago
of course they would have, Britian is best
- Anonymous2 months ago
yes 100% I was in Singapore when Malaysia
got independence then in Singapore when Singapore got independence Malaysia I helped teach their new airforce the taught the Singaporeans about our hunters we refurbished all the aircraft and support equipment whilst public servants showed how the system worked India took 4 years before the last public servants left in 1952
where the Spanish and Portuguese after Rapi8ng and Pillaging just left no by your leave of thank you just left British Guiana is now part part of the Commonwealth of Nations
- Anonymous2 months ago
No, there are many native Indians and mixed race Indians in South America, the Anglo Saxons just wiped them out in North America, they even killed off the Buffalo to starve them, the South Americans were much better off without them
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Maria 🥛👌Lv 42 months ago
Demographics = Destiny
Any of those places would have been better off if 80% or more of the population was European, but I do think Britain would’ve done a better job with establishing institutions.
What happened in Latin America was that most of the Europeans miscegenated themselves out of existence or at least into a small minority. The men would take native wives instead of having families with their own women. In North America, European settlers brought their families and were racially conscious about avoiding miscegenation for the most part. There were laws against it.
The better Latin American countries and areas are the ones with the highest percentages of unmixed whites like Argentina and Uruguay, and certain parts of Brazil.Source(s): TD all you like. The truth hurts.
- A Yahoo UserLv 72 months ago
See: Belize, (British) Guyana
Most of Central and South America
have a basic problem
that was also true of the pre-colonial period:
For comparison, see other former British colonies:
- South Africa (which, despite tremendous mineral wealth, has serious poverty and overpopulation problems)
then and now
have been and, to a lesser extent, continue to be prime contributors to widespread poverty.
In colonies in which colonists largely displaced the natives
former British colonies have done well (because of the lower population density typically resulting).
In colonies in which colonists did not do so
former British colonies tend to exhibit the same sort of poverty that they did in the pre-colonial periods.
did not displace the existing native population
(but, rather, enslaved them).
I'd say the Spanish way
though quite cruel in its own right
was "easier" on the natives than was the British way in the U.S., Australia, etc