Former Spanish Colonies

The thread that was the immediate impetus for this thread is this one about the murdered Amherst hottie.

[quote]Why are all former Spanish colonies kind of shitty places?

You mean like California?

R2, come on...

Don't worry OP, it won't be long before Spain takes them back.

Anywhere Spanish is spoken by the majority kind of blows.

Uruguay is nice and egalitarian, but it's kind of nice in the way a Newfoundland is nice - quiet, undynamic, etc.

Spain produces: cheap vacations, overpriced food, gay porn, escorts, cheapish clothes, and...?

Yes, of course. French colonies.

So successful, Hispanophobe OP.

(Where the culture but not the numbers of an indigenous population considered "pagan" has been eradicated, the results have led to a creolized malaise, despite many positive aspects of the current situations in these countries.

Where both the culture and populations of indigenous peoples have been utterly reduced, as in Canada and French Louisiana (as much Spanish as French), the results are "successful," by the OP's judgment. The OP resents lingering evidence of pre-European existence and the trauma still at play.

Local effects are very variable. One cannot much compare Jamaica to the Bahamas.

And the colonial power did not actually make too much difference, nor did the timing of the colonializing. Look at 19th century Belgium and Congo.

OP is an ass.)

R7, what are you trying to say? This isn't Mother Jones. Spell it out.

R7, what about former UK colonies?

France helped create Quebec, which is ok. They also created... Well that's about it along the ok places.

Overreliance on mining and agriculture. Drug trade. Corruption. Cold war interference. Emphasis on big armies and small police forces. Racism. Classism. Small mediocre elites. Spain was overtaken by Britain during the industrial revolution. Ineffective trade agreements up till the Pacific Alliance.

I have not been to any of these countries. I have no idea.

I think the Spanish we're good at extracting minerals using slaves, and converting people to Catholicism. That's about it...

The British kind of went for the long game and moved to some of their new colonies, starting with the Irish plantations (from whence the term plantation arose).

I went to Peru and it was ok. People seemed happy and stuff. Hotels were nice.

At least the Spanish know how to have a good time while things burn around them. Spanish circuit parties and gay cross are great: tons of drugs and bareback sex. Lots of cum/leche eating.

Almost no colonies are well off today. Decades of having your best resources exported with no profit for yourself really has an effect

R14, see Canada and New Zealand.

In large part, OP, it is the Catholicism. Too many babies. I spent a summer working in Mexico City a few years ago. As time went on, it became clear that 30 year old women often look 40 and have 12 children. None of those children ever have enough because are too many in the household. Not enough food. Not enough attention. Not enough privacy.

Time and again, children grow up in deprivation of one kind or another. They don't grow up expecting to have enough as they go through life. Too little of everything but brothers and sisters looks like plenty.

Too many children. It drags down everything.

"gay cross," R13?

Because they're brown.

Same with France: (Quebec and Haiti) and UK: (New Zealand and Zimbabwe)

R17, sorry - cruises.

[quote]Spain was overtaken by Britain during the industrial revolution.

Before that, actually. As early as the late 17th century England pulled away from Spain. Spain was ruined by its overreliance on the gold and other resources flowing in from the colonies. Even before the Industrial revolution the English (later British) were making and selling things overseas and had a more effective government and military.

R15, I said ALMOST no former colonies are doing well. You named two of several dozen. For what its worth. In those places, and also America, the population was dramatically augmented by people from the imperialist country moving there. Things never got so bad because these would have been their own ethnic group they are hurting. Things got their very worst when few colonizers moved there so the colonizer countries figured they could do anything they wanted

R16 exactly, when an overbearing religion frames wealth as greed and sin, it can do nasty things to an economy. Good for some charity/community/solidarity aspects but still...

[quote]Spain was overtaken by Britain during the industrial revolution. No, Spain started declining around 1588 after it took Portugal but had to struggle to hold it. Then it failed to attack England with it's Armada and the rest is downhill.

Argentina is a majority Caucasian country that was colonized by Spain, and it's doing poorly... I think it's something about Spanish culture. Northern Europeans claim Spaniards and other southern Europeans are kind of ... loose about keeping appointments and doing their accounting correctly. Something about not being precise or caring about doings things as well as possible.

It's like the difference between Japan and ... the Congo or something. Just a lack of precision and care.

And why do they all have big dicks (Philippines excepted)?

I've yet to meet an Argentine or Uruguayan that wasn't snotty, arrogant and/or combative.

One theory why the British colonies did better is the Brits were too racist to ever really intergrate into the local culture. They'd impose things like Common Law, railways, prisons and public schools from above and then leave the locals to run it while they sipped on gin and tonic at the club. When the colonies became independent the British ones had educated locals who were already running the place.

R24 I might add Singapore is a former British colony that has done well out of being disciplinarian. Fascism didn't work for Argentina or Chile.

R27 Revisionist nonsense. Plenty of British colonies (the Caribbean for example) are in plenty bad shape. Also many non catholic ones are. Colonialism was just fundamentally destructive, even if that's hard to admit

Thanks for the knowlege r20 and r23.

[quote] Colonialism was just fundamentally destructive, even if that's hard to admit

I don't know... Japan colonized S. Korea and Taiwan (and was brutal), and they turned out really well...

Same with the UK colonizing N. America and Australia/New Zealand...

R29 - I'm not saying colonialism a good thing, it's like asking if waterboarding leaves less lasting damage than the rack. If I had to be tortured I'd choose waterboarding.

The difference with those UK cases R31, is that English people became the dominant ethnic group in all those countries. So they were treated well. They never got the worst of the colonial experience. In countries where that sort of large scale migration did not happen, the countries are generally in very poor shape.

I'm not well versed in Asian history so won't argue your other examples

In Australia the white population exceeded the indigenous population and the whites wanted as much acculturation to British culture as possible. There was some genocide, unsure how much. Exotic diseases killed many. The British and the early Australian governments thought the blackness could be bred out through intermarriage with whites. There was an Aboriginal protection Board. But black people couldn't vote in national elections until the 1960s.

The British colonies that weren't settled by a majority of British people suffered when they left because the British tended to empower local elites to run the show according to pre-existing local customs. Only in rare cases did they intervene (for example, sati in India). That meant that when they left, power was handed over to groups who had no real experience of running a modern country, and ingrained cultures that actively prevented it.

I think the question should be, [bold]should they come back[/bold] ?

I mean look at Mexico.... it's time for Spain to put some order back into the streets!

British colonies go beyond Australia and New Zealand. Fair sampling :

British Colonies: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, Seychelles, Mauritius, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Ireland, Malta, Gibraltar (UK), The Falklands (UK), Bermuda (UK), Hong Kong (China)

Spanish Colonies: Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Equatorial Guinea

French Colonies: Quebec (Canada), Haiti, Algeria, Morocco, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Madagascar, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Benin, Mali, Congo-Brazzaville, Guadeloupe (France), Martinique (France), Reunion (France) New Caledonia (France), French Guyana (France), French Polynesia (France)

Portuguese Colonies: Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Sao Tome & Principe, Cape Verde, Macau (China)

Belgian Colonies: Congo, Rwanda, Burundi

Dutch Colonies: Indonesia, Surinam

Russian Colonies: Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Moldova, Uzbekistan, Moldova

American Colonies: Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Liberia

Mediterranean enervation is brilliant.

I’m using that.

In Paul Fussell’s rating of the class status of one’s living room, books in foreign languages elevate your score....

Except for books in Spanish. He calls those out specifically.

Papua New Guinea was colonised by the UK, Germany and Australia. They are increasingly a Chinese influenced country.

PNG was a British Colony from 1884 to 1905. (source:Wikipedia).

Such an underdeveloped country.

Paul Fussell was a historian. He was not a notable sociologist. Shades of Charles Murray.

The reason why most of these colonies come off so poorly is because they were essentially set up to be robbed of their wealth to feed the mother countries.

Thank God for the atheist Soviet Union and its influence of the Islamic Soviet -stan countries. These countries are now secular.

R42 is absolutely right. The only purpose of a Spanish colony was to be plundered.

Mental note: Read Nostromo by Joseph Conrad.

The Spanish tried to extract as much riches and resources from their colonies as possible. And they did so by establishing the encomienda system where conquistadors were rewarded with huge expanses of land and entrusted with enslaved laborers from the native populations to work the soil, plough the fields, mine the caves, etc. In exchange the Spanish masters would show them the ways of the Catholic faith, and remind them that though life on earth was hard, they would be rewarded in the afterlife.

The encomienda system was replaced with the repartamiento system, then later the hacienda system, but all were based on a feudal society of wealthy landowners and the peasantry, a legacy that continues to this day in the former colonies. Also, Spain had trouble attracting settlers to their colonies, so they relied heavily on the natives to work the land and expand their territories, and the Spanish quickly realized they could easily get them to do their bidding by assimilating them into Spanish society. Hence, a lot of intermixing and intermarriages between the Europeans and the natives.

The British colonies, on the other hand, attracted many exiles and outcasts and enterprising individuals willing to strike it out in the new world. They were in it for the long haul, so they established new settlements and wiped out or resettled the natives populations that got in their way. Watching down on them was an Almighty God who rewarded hard work with earthly bounties. So they perservered and expanded the Empire. This Protestant work ethic helped define the societies that arose out of these former colonies.

I wonder if any of the Spanish Catholics in Hispanoamerica were secretly Jewish?

[quote] ...overly regulated economy with lots of rent-seeking (e.g., you need a prescription for Tylenol, etc.).

What does "rent-seeking" mean?

R19: the Paul Fussell book you refer to was published in the early 1990s and is extremely dated today. Why are we even discussing it in 2018? He also wrote about the prestige of Britain in the USA and that, "no matter how third rate you might [in fact] be," being British automatically elevates your social status in the US. That is hardly true anymore.

Apart from that, the book was intended to be light-hearted and humorous, and he was just scoring easy points in mocking Spanish-language books. Do you think owning works by Borges and Cervantes and Garcia Lorca in their original language makes you "low class"? (not that I do, mind you). He was essentially saying "Spanish is the language of your maid and gardener," based on his narrow Anglophile world view. He was born in the 1920s, you know.

*I was responding to R39, sorry

OP - there is a theory proposed that North America and South America were experiments of Spanish vs. English conolisation.

To sum up - the English version of conolisation included land ownership for people who cared to immigrate. Spanish conolisation was about the Church and tying all land to a wealthy few Spanish landowners.

Americans (well, pre America) were able to come over as indetured servants and gain land and become landowners and voters. Spanish had no such plan - it was who will own the natives and they have granted the natives nothing.

The issue over land right is still vital and active in Central and South American politics.

In a nutshell, the spread of land ownership beyond a controlled elite few made the North American countries great - US and Canada - and the lack of this made the others poor. Except for the chosen few.

Because they are set up to be plundered by whoever owns them

then the United States likes playing world police who likes to put in governments who will benefit the US most even if it means murdering innocents and politicians who are against them. US did this bad to indonesia. Helped a genocide, basically.

Indonesia is a non aligned country and has its own political philosophy.

R48, here.

Protestantism had a lot to do with it. Catholicism takes up a LOT of peoples' time. The Protestants were planning, building and working while the Catholics had to pray and be in church every five minutes.

Of course there were other reasons, as stated above.

OP is full of it. Name one Latin country as homophobic as Jamaica. Oh, that's right there aren't any. Meanwhle, look at the countries once run by the USA, including, tellingly, the Philippines. You can't blame SPAIN for a country the US owned 1898-1946, nor can you cast shade on Spanish colonialism when the US is in the process of a horrific destruction through neglect and indifference of Puerto Rico as we speak! I don't mean to overstate the case - something the US did not do was brutally dispossess the Mexican landowners of California, who mostly kept their land and made money developing their acres, contrary to "bad Anglos!" myth. But the fact remains that as a colonial power the US and Britain were and are dismal disasters. compared to Spain, which had a different mission entirely and which did not even much control South America until they were thrown out and their daughter republics engaged in projecting power into the mostly unexplored interior. Indeed, I would say Latin America is today more "Spanish" than it ever was before the Spanish were given the boot two hundred years ago.

Former French colonies are worse of than those of Spain’s — didn’t have much to offer than something to show on the map. Most of the British colonies are shit, so you can’t really compare. Australia and New Zealand were taken over by whites, where the rest of the colonies were taken over by the locals. That was the key to success. As for Singapore, that is run by a mafia family. Everyone there hates it, spied every minute, and very racist against the Malays and Indians who live there.

R57 is correct, re: most British colonies.

And I would include the US with that – mostly a shithole.

California (a former Spanish colony) and New York (a former mixed colony) are great. The landscape that the US has not destroyed, also great. New England is lovely, so kudos to British influence there.

But I would choose Spain, Argentina, Costa Rica and so on any day before I would set foot in most of America again. Plastic, vapid, no culture. No thanks. We can get the entertaining parts of the US (basically your TV and music) without setting foot in the US.

Brand-new Argentine film out by director Lucretia Martel, right on point here---Surreal historical saga set in an 18th century Paraguyan provincial outpost, depicts the rot of colonialism through the mental/spiritual deterioration of a Spanish governmental/military officer . . . Hmmmmm, Sounds like a possible bookend for a double bill with "Aguirre, the Wrath of God"

Maybe there's an IQ difference between the British vs. Spanish...

Two points. UK is at the average, 100. Spain is a bit below average, 98.

Which Spanish speaking country is the most influential globally? The US is the just influential English speaking country.

Nobody plundered their colonies like the Belgians.

R55 Nonsense. Early American protestant life was centered entirely around the church, which was functionally the only government of the first settlements. Membership in a church was the equivalent of citizenship back then, the church was the only space for socializing. The first American settlers spent WAY more time there than the average catholic person, who would only have gone to Mass and then confession once or twice a week

r64 the early American settlers were not in church as much as you'd think. The New York and Virginia colonies weren't particularly religious at all.

I'm curious about that too r62. Spain has the biggest economy if you don't count the US as a Spanish speaking country. They have about a million British immigrants, so they must be influential in that part of the world.

The New York colony came later. It is true that VA was one of the only early colonies founded by mercantile interests rather than settlers seeking to establish a new society.

But for all the early ones like Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven settlements, church would have been the dominant part of their lives in a way that would have seemed strange to even their fellow Europeans

R62, I'd say it's Mexico, with almost three times Spain's population. Mexico is the most populous Spanish speaking country.

[quote] f you don't count the US as a Spanish speaking country

Lol, R66. Because our constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and all government documents are in Spanish.

Unlike the Spanish, the English did not interbreed with the indigenous population, as the English believed that they were an intellectually superior race and interbreeding would be detrimental to their gene pool.

Argentina and Chile both have a 'very high' HDI. Both are developed countries.

Say what gurl?

OP has never experienced the specticle that is Circuit Festival in Barcelona!

R72, OP:

[quote] At least Spain is gay-friendly and has good drug-saturated circuit parties...

R71, Argentina isn't what it used to be. Don't act like you don't know. It's a developing country with a highly dysfunctional political system dominated by short-sighted populists.

People were pulling tapeworms out of toddler's butts during the last crisis 10 years ago

Argentines are known for their efficiency in agriculture, at least. They give developed nations a run for their money.

[R56] - How will you blame the USA for the colonization of the Philippines for ~50 years when they were a Spanish colony for about 300 years? The Americans didn't create the mestizo class, the Catholicism, the Spanish names that are prevalent today, the loss of indigenous history, or the history of the mixed-language that is Tagalog ("Como estas?" = Tagalog/Filipino "Kamusta?").

If anything the American influence kept other colonial powers from conquering them in a Spanish vacuum. Even now China is encroaching more and more into the Philippines (and Duterte is happy to sell plenty of it to the Chinese).

Correction to R59: Forgot the title about the new Argentine film that's on point to all this, which is, "Zama." The film and its director have been getting quit a bit of play the last couple of weeks, though I'm not sure "Aguirre" will ever be topped for showing us colonialism as a tertiary syphilis of the spirit. Also very fond of "Fitzcarraldo," which does the theme from the mad-dreamer angle rather than the conquistador angle.

People People! Stay on topic.

I think we all can agree something most be done about them. They are lawless hellholes and they just drag the neighborhood down.

The US should scoop one of Argentina, Uruguay, or Chile. Or all three and just call it a day.

Mexico should definitely be returned back to Spain or France, What a hot mess.

Perhaps much of who is "better" and who is considered "worse" here has much to do with the political culture of any given nation. R51 don't forget that this land ownership by the common people in the US and Canada that you mention was achieved at the expense of Native Americans being pushed around and given the scraps called reservations not to mention the added ingredient of slavery (albeit that slavery was also an ingredient in Latin America too). That said, it would seem that the American pluralistic society which demanded democracy as we Americans think we know it as well as compromise (a more rare commodity today, much to our detriment) produced a more progressive society. Latin American nations often had a political culture of strongmen and rule from the top down inherited in great measure from how Spain governed their vast American holdings as viceroyalties unlike, for example, the 13 British colonies that became the United States many of which had some form of democracy.

The slum situation in Argentina is like everywhere else in the developing world.

I'm learning Castillian Spanish as an item on my bucket list. I've always wanted to master at least one language other than English, and Chinese , Arabic and Hindi are less appealing options. If FRench makes a comeback in African countries I'll take up French as well.

R49 must be a blast at parties.

Quethadilla.

I 100% agree about the Protestant work ethic.

It’s just superior.

Catholics are backwards people.

I love Columbian cam boys

R84 Max Weber 1905. This is why sociology today is regarded as a bit of a joke. Still stuck in the 1950s.

r83 No, dear.

[quote]I love Columbian cam boys

I had no idea that Columbia University was a former Spanish colony.

ha hah

I love to troll for Oh, dears.

R76: Oh yeah, the Americans were so benevolent to keep the other evil Empires out. Aren't we just the greatest and bestest evah? Get back, Mary!

Places with large populations of indigenous people subjugated by colonial power inevitably have seen challenges in post-colonial progress. And it has little to do with Spain or Catholicism. It has to do with a polarized society in which the people were marginalized and their culture destroyed, and what happens when the majority suddenly is expected to pull it all together post colonialism.

Similar in nature is what happened with American slavery. The lasting impact of large numbers of transported Africans being stolen from their societies and enslaved have left the country and its people with entrenched problems that undermine personal prosperity and societal peace. A broken culture does not recover easily or at all, especially where the replacement system has denied equity for long periods of time.

The map.

Darn ignorant map shoulda said macho picture is roast Guinea pig Land.

Their status as "former" colonies is probably the chief reason why, OP.

Because Europe and the US took their natural resources leaving these countries in a weak position that put obstacles in their way to development. Europe and the US did not reach development out of magic; they did so by taking and stealing from other territories. OP

But what about the former English colonies, r96? They're doing fine and the resources got taken from them as well.

So many posts here, and you all missed the obvious reason: institutionalized racism through a rigid class system.

Spaniards were even more hard core with their colonies, than the British.

White Europeans became the landowners and business people in the Spanish colonies. Indigenous Indians and Africans were the workers and slaves.

A so-called "middle class" somewhat emerged with the Mestizo population (half Spanish, half Indian), but even they were marginalized because of color and background.

Spanish also came up with the term "mulatto," who were mixed black and white.

Nevertheless, noble Spaniards and their families became the elite class, and everyone else pretty much served under them, with no chance of "upward mobility," because that just wasn't the Spanish way of doing things.

Those class systems are still pretty much in place today, and still based on color. People with white European backgrounds in almost all Latin American countries are still the wealthy elite, with Mestizos in the middle, and the indigenous people are the poorest.

Over the years, Mestizos were allowed some upward mobility, but not much.

This is what makes the case for a Middle Class, even in our country today.

When the rich hold all the wealth, there is just no opportunity for income growth for anyone other than the rich. Thus, the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. Which leads to "revolution," like in Cuba, and Venezuela, and Chile, etc.

You'll notice that Panama really benefitted from US involvement in their country, because their country is one of the most egalitarian societies in Latin America today. They have a strong Middle class, and a strong economy. The building of the Panama Canal allowed the natives to earn money, which allowed them to send their kids to school, to open businesses, to buy land, etc.

Not only that, but the construction of the Panama Canal brought immigrants to the country, which further broadened the workforce.

Today, Panama has a very diverse and relatively rich population. All thanks to doing things "the American way," versus the Spanish colonialist way.

We in the US are in the same danger today. All this talk of the 1% is a real threat to our own society. Just look - the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. They are obtaining more wealth, and locking the middle and lower classes out of opportunities. Before you know it, the US could become just like Latin America.

[quote] Panama really benefitted from US involvement in their country, because their country is one of the most egalitarian societies in Latin America today. They have a strong Middle class, and a strong economy. The building of the Panama Canal allowed the natives to earn money

Also, the Americans didn't give a crap what their background was, so everyone could make money.

They just needed workers. Especially in that harsh jungle environment of Panama, with malaria and all those other diseases.

So the poorest Panamanians were able to earn American dollars, and in turn, use that money to better themselves.

This was not the case in any other country in Latin America.

r99 please see r10

[quote]I wonder if any of the Spanish Catholics in Hispanoamerica were secretly Jewish?

Yes. Many Jews converted Catholicsm and fled Spain to live in various areas of the Spanish colonies. Some secretly practiced Judaism. I live in New Mexico and many Hispanics here through DNA testing and genealogical research have discovered that some of their ancestors were Jews. Some Hispanic women in New Mexico have a breast cancer mutation that had found in Jewish women.

R98 is the most convincing so far.

Look at what the British Empire did to Africa, it left it poor and violently religious R97

If Panama is such a success why is most of the American continent trying to enter Chile? Mass immigration has become a big problem for Chile and clashes in society are beginning to come to the surface.

The colonialist difference between Africa and Australia / New Zealand was the Scramble for Africa i.e. the competition between European powers, the Zulu war. In Australia the indigenous population was to spread out to fight back In New Zealand they were smart enough to sign a treaty with the natives. Australia and NZ have no borders to defend. Apartheid I believe had a rule that forced illiteracy on the indigenous people.

I just fact checked myself on forced illiteracy. My bad.

r31 The Japanese had nothing to do with the successes of Taiwan and South Korea.

R104, check out this list.

Not saying that Chile is bad, either.

You have to look at the "per capita" income, not the domestic product.

Brazil has the highest GDP, but notice the per capita income is only 15,000 per person, whereas in Panama and Chile, it's 25,000 per person - among the highest in Latin America.

Income distribution among the population, is the key indicator in seeing how all the citizens in the country are doing, and not just the rich people.

Interestingly, Trinidad & Tobago is a success story in colonialism. It has the third highest per capita income in the Western Hemisphere, behind the US and Canada, at 32,000 dollars per person. Even more significant, is that the population is mainly descended from Africans and Indians. I'm thinking that it has to do with the country's oil reserves.

Venezuela and Mexico also have oil, but again, it speaks to wealth distribution. Mexico and Venezuela's oil wealth goes to the top 1% of the country, whereas in T&T, more people probably share that wealth.

Bermuda is richer than your country and it's all black.

This website claims Mexico is a leader in television manufacturing.

Brazil is sunk in corruption and lack of prosperity. The most successful country is Chile R108

Brazil is a former colony of Portugal R111.

Chile was formerly a colony of Spain R112

Sure was.

[quote] Bermuda is richer than your country and it's all black.

It's only half black, the rest white.

They have a massive nigger problem due to taking up the majority of the slave trade. The proof is Mexico and Chile being the best while having the least amount of black people. And if they wouldn't have mixed with the natives they wouldn't have all the bean goblins either. Sad how race really drags economy down.

Trolling is hot. I wish I could hook up with an internet troll. They must be very attractive and interesting to be sitting at home trolling. ^^

Sweet Fucking Jesus r116. That was just awful.

R107, the Japanese helped force S. Korea and Taiwan into the global economy. They were extremely inhumane - just horrible - towards Koreans during the colonial period, but they did (for their own reasons) eliminate Korean royalty and aristocracy. They forced both S. Korea and Taiwan to face outward towards the rest of the world to trade with etc. to lift themselves up. Before the colonial period, Korea was closed off to the world as Japan had been before the Meiji Restoration. In their violent way, the Japanese wiped out some of the most oppressive systems and institutions in Korea that existed before their arrival, which had kept the country closed to trade and the exchange of knowledge.

In other words, they smashed the country but ultimately let S. Korea free to create their own new society and economy from the ground up, after a horrifying civil war.

R119 = Joshua Cooper Ramo.

Conquerors of the Germanic branch weren't innocent cretures either.

OP, French colonies have NOT done OK. Spanish countries are doing better.

"Half of social media users in Latin America have gone hungry in last year"

Panama was still part of Colombia when it was under Spanish rule, so technically it was never a Spanish colony on its own.

Allow me to explain quickly--

England's miracle was the industrial revolution. Enterprising American colonists stole factory plans from England (in fact, I think this was a capital offense), so we could replicate their industrial revolution.

There are many reasons for Southern Europe going the way that it did. The "accounting" you mention became a feature of English life during the Elizabethan mercantile period when the country became a global trading partner. What happened to the five kingdoms of Italy that used to rule world trade--Venice, Pisa, Genoa--had an Ottoman problem; then they all went to war with each other, then the French, then the Austro-Hungarians.

England, being an island close enough for trade, too far for invasion (before planes), has always been a special case.

[quote]If FRench makes a comeback in African countries I'll take up French as well.

What are you talking about? The five most spoken lingua francas in Africa:

1. English

2. French

3. Arabic

4. Swahili

5. Hausa

I have read that French is spoken only by elites in some African countries and they language has been in decline there since decolonisation. There is considerable internal migration within the African continent and I am wondering if that will lead to more Africans taking up French.

Here is a website that ranks the French language way down at 11th place.

That's native speakers, r128. Most Africans mother tongues are small tribal languages no one speaks. Thousands. These people need a common language to interact and that's where the lingua franca (English, French, Arabic, Swahili, Portuguese) come in. Roughly 40% of African countries have French as their official language meaning a person would typically speak a tribal language as their mother tongue, but switch to French when communicating with people outside their home villages.

French-speaking Africa. There are more French-speakers in the Congo than in France, Belgium and Switzerland combined.

From what I can briefly glean, it seems to be mainly the French who think the French language is spoken by the common people in Africa and not just the educated and privileged. I could be wrong. There are vastly differing opinions on this subject.

I had no clue there was a Spanish-speaking country in Africa, Equatorial Guinea. I like their Spanish, very clear.

Hmm someone says Equatorial Guinea has the highest standard of living of African countries.

r119 what you are saying is equivalent to you burnt my ancient house down, forcing me to become homeless and though, through my own efforts I managed to build a newer modern home, I should thank you for what you did.

I do not think you can credit the Japanese in the way you think they should. Perhaps they set in motion something that could have happened inevitably on it's own, just like it did with the Japanese.

Chavacano spoken in the Philippines:

We have quite a few Chileans here in Norway who fled from the Pinochet regime. The Chileans are nice, hard working people, and they're very proud of their country. Most of them still speak Spanish.

Spain still sends their army to Equatorial Guinea. The majority of the people speak Spanish, but it can often be their second language, however Spanish is the national language.

Technically speaking they are Hispanic because they come from a country where Spanish is the national Language, Afro-Hispanic.

Hmm, they speak European Spanish. Accent And distinction between S and C/Z.

That guy says French is widely spoken in Africa.

British conquerors seem to have been even more racist.

Possibly true r140, the British arrived in the 18th century and declared Australia Terra Nullius (uninhabited by any nation) as if there was no way the native clans could ever be described as a nation.

The one and only good thing the Catalan government has done was to ban bullfighting.

French is int'l language.

Algeria would be good for French speakers.

The idea that spain ex-colonies where exploited is part of la leyenda negra created by disgusting anglos. Thanks to spain and spanish inmigration to south america the natives were able to get education etc. Not to mention the amazing cities with great architecture that they left in those countries thanks to spanish settlement.

As bad as it sounds the problem in latin america was the racial problems. Natives, blacks and mixed raced people are a constant source of poverty in south america, and I'm saying this as a cuban who comes from a country where racial classes and racism do not exist. Blacks and mulattos are the mayority since the fucking castros took power and still they are the two groups with the highest levels of crimes. They prefer to steal rather than go find a job and live by good means.

And please stop saying that spain is not as rich as some northern European countries.I have lived and visited many of those countries and their standard of living sucks big time I wouldn't live in germany or england not even if they gave me a million dollars to live there. Spain is nowadays the BEST country in europe to live becuase of manyyyyyyyyyy reasons.

Chile, Argentina and Uruguay did not have black people.

146 but Spain had the Moorish people originally and today has over a million Afro Spaniardss which undermines your race problem theory.

The Moors were not black Africans.

The issue is not race.Im not saying that one race is supirior to the other. The real issue is culture and integration. South america has more racial problems than the united states and that reflects in its economy, because in those countries skin color plays a huge role on social class and people of color are easy targets so this breeds the higher levels of criminality that you see in areas having a majority of black and mestizo population. Then, most investors do not want to create businesses in those locations, thus creating even more poverty and disadvantages to those peoples.

I think whoever wrote r98 nailed it before.

The moors were only settled in the southern most parts of spain. Even ancestrycom shows the prevalence of north african genes to be only in those areas. According to ancestrycom Italians have a higher prevalence of north african and middle eastern genes than spain.

As a cuban of 100% spanish gallego-canarian ancestry my ancestrycom were the following:

Iberian peninsula 59% Italy/Greece 16% British isles 15% North african 6% West Europe 3% Ireland and Scotland 1%

Also Argentinians and Chilians want the world to think that they are mostly whites, but my experience in both countries is that they are largely mixed.

Portuguese were the dominate european colonizers for a couple hundred years.

R134, that's a decent comparison for what's been said so far, but the Japanese also laid rails, electrified "Keijo" (Seoul), and created the skeleton for a modern bureaucracy and educational system, among other things. But yes, it's possible Korea would have opened up on its own.

It's like what England wanted for Ireland at one point. The Japanese wanted the merger of Korea and Japan on Japanese terms, so Koreans became Japanese by having Japanese names and language and following Japanese customs and adopting every aspect of its culture. They didn't want to overtly and forever subjugate Koreans as a separate people: they wanted to achieve complete forced assimilation. The Korean royal family was erased by being absorbed into the Japanese Imperial family through forced marriage. The Japanese last names imposed on Koreans were normal last names, not, e.g., those reserved for Burakumin. Intermarriage wasn't discouraged.

That said, Korea is lucky not to have been colonized by Europeans.

R154, that's what the Japanese did to the Ryukyuan people: annexation of the Ryukyuan Kingdom, forced abdication and relocation of their king to Tokyo (and reduced to marquess), and forced assimilation to the point that Japan no longer recognizes them as a separate people.

Exactly, R155. They wanted the same for Korea and Taiwan.

But of course, this is how you build nations. You conquer, absorb, and assimilate. Nothing new.

[quote]but the Japanese also laid rails, electrified "Keijo" (Seoul)

It's time for "SEOUL TRAIN!"

Of course, the issue isn't race, r149, since race is a social construct with no basis in biology. I think that business doesn't invest in areas because of people's skin color, which leads to poverty and misery, not the other way around. Having said that, I live in Mexico, and I can tell you that while there is a lot of poverty and misery, there is also a lot of investment and development. At any rate, this whole discussion is kind of bizarre, and I've blocked a bunch of racist trolls. What kind of insanity has to be swimming in your head for you to think that one type of imperialism is better than another?

[quote] Argentinians and Chilians want the world to think that they are mostly whites, but my experience in both countries is that they are largely mixed

Chile has a much greater mestizo population than does Argentina.

Argentina nearly wiped out its indigenous population:

"The Conquest of the Desert (Spanish: Conquista del desierto) was a military campaign directed mainly by General Julio Argentino Roca in the 1870s with the intent to establish Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. Under General Roca, the Conquest of the Desert extended Argentine power into Patagonia and ended the possibility of Chilean expansion there.

Argentine troops killed more than a thousand enemy combatants and displaced over 15,000 more from their traditional lands. Ethnic European settlers developed the lands for agriculture, turning it into a breadbasket that made Argentina an agricultural superpower in the early 20th century. The conquest was paralleled by a similar campaign in Chile called the Occupation of Araucanía.

The Conquest is highly controversial. Apologists have described the Conquest as bringing civilisation, while revisionists have labelled it a genocide."

During that same period, they welcomed millions of immigrants from Italy, Spain, and Wales, which is why you will find a larger number of European whites in Argentina (and Uruguay), than you will find in other South American countries.

I wouldn't necessarily wear this fact as a badge of honor, as far as Argentina is concerned.

What are the best cities in former Spanish colonies for a gay culture vulture into art, movies, music?

Not exactly what you're looking for R161, but I noticed that PornHub has a TON of (amateur) gay sex videos from Peru, and most of them are filmed in restrooms!

I never knew that Peru was so "cruisey."

Yeah, I know there are hot men in all of those countries r162.

Natives, blacks and mixed raced people are a constant source of poverty in south america, [b]and I'm saying this as a cuban who comes from a country where racial classes and racism do not exist[/b].

LMAO!

Blacks and mulattos are the mayority since the fucking castros took power and still they are the two groups with the highest levels of crimes. They prefer to steal rather than go find a job and live by good means.

This type of racial stratification is, unfortunately, the norm and very common in ALL of Latin America. It informs every decision, policy and how people generally think. They are about a century behind the English-speaking world in matters of racism.

^Reformatting:

[quote]Natives, blacks and mixed raced people are a constant source of poverty in south america, [b]and I'm saying this as a cuban who comes from a country where racial classes and racism do not exist[/b].

LMAO!

[quote]Blacks and mulattos are the mayority since the fucking castros took power and still they are the two groups with the highest levels of crimes. They prefer to steal rather than go find a job and live by good means.

This type of racial stratification is, unfortunately, the norm and very common in ALL of Latin America. It informs every decision, policy and how people generally think. They are about a century behind the English-speaking world in matters of racism.

Countries under British conqueror were the most racist. If you think there are more caucsians in formely British colonies is because they despised the natives and didn't want to mix with them nor share knowledge and techonological advances with them.

And also, British colonies seem to have the cruelest display of racism against black people.

[quote] I like their Spanish, very clear.

It's the same for French spoken by Africans.

The Spanish would tolerate the homosex while the English forbad it.

Cuba was nice in the 1950s, supposedly.

r169=Ricky Ricardo

Spanish conquerors noticed homosexuality are normal among native across the continent.

St. Augustine is the only decent city in Florida.

Trashy, R172.

Frivolous people.

[quote]You mean like California?

You only wish, California is the 5th largest economy in the world! We have our own form of health care, unlimited energy supply from solar, wind, oil and gas. We have so much food the vast majority of America buys it from us. Booming housing market, booming tech industry, booming entertainment industry. Booming start up industry. Beautiful coast line, national parks, like you cant believe. And our state budget is in the black thanks to the fiscally responsible Democratic Governor Jerry Brown and Democratic legislature who are the real ones who know how to manage money.

Thanks Spaniards!

California became something only after Spanish culture and language was eradicated from the power structure.

[quote] California became something only after Spanish culture and language was eradicated from the power structure.

Um, it never left.

Someone upthread asked about culture vulture cities in Spanish speaking Latin America.

Hands down, Buenos Aires.

Santiago, Chile & Lima, Peru have vibrant arts scenes.

Bogota, Colombia & Mexico City have great museums.

California was little more than a sparsely populated outpost when the Spanish had it. They had no idea what to do with it, and Mexico wasn't all that butthurt over signing it over to the Americans after the war.

Latinos and their language were relagated to the barrios. They had little presence in the power circles that ran California.

Why do you in the US call Spanish speaking Americans latinos? It's like calling US citizens Germanics or something of the sort R180

Even the Americans call themselves Latinos.

Especially the Americans

r181 Latinos call themselves that. DO NOT call them "Spanish." It's borderline offensive.

R181, We used to refer to them as "Hispanic," but then a lot of the radicalized Chicanos of the 1970-80s resented that term because if referenced their colonizers. So then we called them "Latinos," shorthand for latinoamericanos. Now you have the Latino intellectuals insisting on using the gender neutral "Latinx."

R281 is in Tel Aviv.

R184, you're a bit early on the rise of resentment towards "Hispanic." They actually demanded it for the 1970 Census.

Is there good news anywhere in the Spanish-speaking world? And no, I don't mean California LOL.

Hispanic was also pushed by the Filipinos, who wanted to feed at the Latino government funding trough.

R188, link please. Stop making shit up.

A Spaniard friend insists that his is a Spaniard, not Hispanic. When I asked if a person from Spain was not Hispanic, who would be, his reply, "The conquered peoples."

So, there you have it.

Another problem with 'Hispanic' is that it does not include Portugal and Brazil and in every way but the language, they should be included in the intended group for legal and civil rights purposes.

[quote]- even Spain itself is kind of mediocre:

more idiots yammering about shit they know NOTHING about.

All the Mexicans I know, refer to themselves as Mexican or Mexican American. Unless they're ashamed of being Mexican, and then they call themselves "Latin."

All the Puerto Ricans I know, refer to themselves as Puerto Rican.

All of the Dominicans I know, refer to themselves as Dominican. Etc., etc.

The only ones who call them Hispanic or Latino, are white people. Fyi.

If you give R189 a link, he will just deny it.

R189 was probably calling those who noted Harvey Weinstein was a aex weirdo, anti-Semitic

R193, I won't deny it if it's from a reputable source. I'm not a fucking idiot.

Is Spain being invaded from the south like Italy was last year? Who's coming?

ANY good new from a Spanish-speaking country? Nothing? Really?

The Spanish are just hot fuckers whom you can fuck and who have lots of drugs and fun parties. That's about it.

Nothing to them: bullfighting (AKA cultural animal cruelty - cultural, so it's ok), tapas, a corrupt monarchy, real estate bubbles.

It's like Mexico, but wealthier. Just kind of sclerotic and retrograde in lots of ways. Overly arid, too. It's future "New Morocco" the way things are going.

If they were smart, they would have gone ahead with that EU Vegas project, but they were too scared that things would change too much LOL.

Thank goodness for EU transfers from Germany, etc.

Why were the Spanish so obsessed with gold? Didn't they see the long game? The English played it well - they ended up with decent dominions that are high-profile, respected countries now (Canada, Australia, New Zealand). The Spanish ... I mean ...

Are they big on math and science these days? They kind of fucked up on tech, no investing when it mattered.

Gold was FAR more useful than anything the UK got from Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. And those countries really only hit their stride after they threw off the yoke of colonialism. (Somewhat violently)

[quote] Is Spain being invaded from the south like Italy was last year? Who's coming?

They've actually had a good relationship with Morocco, to the South. Southern Spain has a very large Arab influence, in cities like Granada, etc.

The only difference between Spain's immigrants and Italy/Hungary/Greece, is that the Spanish don't make such a big deal about it.

[quote] Why were the Spanish so obsessed with gold?

Because that was the currency of the 1500's.

Italy, Hungary and Greece are getting thousands and thousands of migrants at their borders weekly, Spain is not.

[quote] And those countries really only hit their stride after they threw off the yoke of colonialism. (Somewhat violently)

R199, WTF are you talking about? Name one violent incident where the motivation was independent/transition from dominion to nation in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. It was a very peaceful transition. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Spain's obsession with gold was insane. It led to inflation and the failure to develop a domestic manufacturing economy (because gold could be used to import from the rest of Europe). It meant underinvestment in other sectors of colonial possessions, so Spain was left with nothing once the mines dried out. It was just short-sighted consumption-oriented strategy.

They done a good job with migrants, I must say. Thank goodness they're on a peninsula.

Did Spain ever almost create its own Canada or Australia? I mean, even France created Quebec. Argentina?

The English ... they did well with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand - and the US, arguably - but they did indeed fuck up with other "new England" colonies - South Africa was a huge fuck-up because they didn't start soon enough and took it from the Dutch, who'd already messed things up. Had they been the first to colonize, the English would have come in slyly, and intermingled with natives just enough to co-opt their elites.

This idea of colonies where the English mingled well with the natives is revisionist nonsense. In all cases, either English people entirely supplanted native populations and removed them from the land, OR they didn't and it went horribly

R205, it's not about mingling well. It was about being a bit subtle about implementing the bigger picture - pitting tribes against each other, kissing their leaders' asses. They did that absolutely everywhere. A certain moderation in the manner in which you achieve ... genocide, I guess. No one's saying it was ok - just that it was done in a more clever manner than the Dutch and Spanish.

Did that even happen though R206? India and the Carribbean were hotbeds of conflict for ages for example

I would like to note that OP’s photo is a gross misrepresentation of the contents of this thread. I have filed a complaint.

The English settlers didn't interbreed with the indigenous women, unlike the Spanish.

They did somewhat R209. I'm Jamaican and have a British last name.

[quote] Did Spain ever almost create its own Canada or Australia?

Spain was the first to colonize America.

California in the West, and Southeastern US.

However, in the late 1500's Spain started to lose its position as a world power to England, which then took over the colonization process of the "New World."

Interestingly, Spain was not a huge importer of slaves, in the way that the Dutch and the English were. They used the native Indian population to enforce their colonization effort. As such, most Spanish colonies don't have a huge African population. Most of Central and South America are either descended from Spanish, other Europeans, or Mestizos.

The exceptions of course, being Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela.

You have to wonder what the area now known as the United States, would be like, had the Spanish remained in charge. You can probably thank Elizabeth I for the US becoming the US.

I'm guessing that what is now the United States, would probably have been something similar to Mexico. World History would probably have been very different, as well. Africans would most likely not have as large an influence in North America, as they do today. It's only because of the American slave trade, that so many Africans ended up in North America. How crazy does that seem?

Also, if the English had not influenced the New World, then Canada would probably be a French colony today.

So many "what ifs," when it comes to how colonization of the New World ended up.

R200 Spain has about 1000000 British migrants and far fewer Spanish people move to the UK.

Why would Spaniards want to move to Britain with all that dreary, cold and rainy weather?

Sorry I meant to address r195

Northen Spain is usually cold. It's not like Britain has a monopoly on cold and rain R213

Las Filipinas

Argentina could have been Spanish "Canada" or whatever, but they fucked up huge.

[quote]I wonder if any of the Spanish Catholics in Hispanoamerica were secretly Jewish?

I imagine many, remember that many Jewish people were part of the early expeditions until Spain put a stop on it because they wanted Christianity to reign in their colonies.

It's environmental. To understand compare the French in Canada. Fucking freezer especially the early 1600s. People had to have it together come winter. It forced trading with the hard working inuit and highly evolved Indians on the border way up north. Everyone had to search for immediate relief. It makes you innovated and cohesive. Also those races and un lazy people mixing made for amazing Hybrids. They were Catholic beyond belief until 1970, religion got dropped. It'd say you can find your answer in this momento thesis?

R217, not really. I'm gonna give credit to where credit is due. Argentina could never be Quebec. This is why. First off all the indigenous population is an entirely different breed. Think of your North American Indian/First Nation people compared to the indigenous tribes of South America. Night and day. Jungle people vs. Woodland, sea faring people. Cutting out survival in freezing harsh conditions. There's even a height difference. Now factor in the Inuit. Factor in mostly Northern Europeans. The Inuit who came down south for trade and and better life mixed in a 3rd race. Mongolians. The Indians around those parts hailed originally from Japan. The Anui tribe on the island of Hokkaido.

Canada...that's why.

R122, really? Quebec is super progressive and more advanced than the US and most of Canada.

R220 ... you think the Ainu and Inuit are closely related? As opposed to some other Siberian tribe? You think the Ainu left Hokkaido for the mainland, and then crossed the Bering Strait?

[quote] Think of your North American Indian/First Nation people compared to the indigenous tribes of South America. Night and day. Jungle people vs. Woodland, sea faring people. Cutting out survival in freezing harsh conditions.

Argentina is as close to the South Pole as Quebec - more so in part, actually. Patagonia is part of Argentina (and Chile) - alpine, freezing. There are no jungles/rainforests in Argentina. Those cut off in Brazil, well before the Argentina border to the south.

Argentina is overwhelmingly European - Spanish , Italian, some Central and Eastern European. I guess they just got the wrong mix and founding colonizers (the Spanish). Think of what the English could have done there...

Argentina is 97% white/mestizo. The Spanish simply fucked up - again - and when Argentina gained independence, they fucked up even more.

Chile and Peru are developing, but Peru's motivation is greatly fueled by historical inferiority complex with Chile. They are obsessed with competing with Chile in every matter.

Many Spanish people, like Italians, are part North African or something. I thought Arabs are good at math, since they invented algebra, but it seems like the Spanish didn't get that trait, given their historically weak knack for accounting, engineering, manufacturing, and high finance (see above).

Chile would be a big economic power if it had a much larger population.

Theyre doing great for a country with only 16 million people. 30 yrs ago, they were very poor.

Theyve swapped places with Venezuela. Worlds 2nd largest oil reserves & Venezuelans are eating their pets & selling their children. Yay, socialism!!

The English did indeed rule through elites in the Princely states in India. They also tended to leave local customs and cultures alone. But really the only reason the British empire succeeded when the Spanish didn't is because the British exported families and didn't breed with the indigenous population. It's obviously far more complex but that's The crux of it.

Karam coming! In 50 years Europe will be ruled by muslims while US is going to be ruled by hispanics

In the 19th century most of South America was the 'unofficial British empire', dominated by British-derived investment and trade.

What about the Monroe Doctrine?

British Honduras always confused me.

The British also stole natural resources.

Here's an article analysing the importance of exports in Spanish speaking Latin American countries as well as Brazil. No mention of the Catholicism or the cultural speech patterns causing 'meh' in hispanophone nations.

The Spanish sealed their fate with their breeding habits.

Its depends, not all American countries have Spanish blood to great degrees. I mean some countries have more indigenous blood than others. In countries like Chile and Argentina there were killings of natives which caused literally the dispperance of some native ethnic groups. In Chile an ethnic group known as Diguita existed, but Spaniards literally brought them to literal extinction.

In Central America it looks like the natives prospered more.

The British empire succeeded because of the machine gun.

This thread is really interesting. I can’t comment because I’m woefully ignorant of world history and economics, but it’s been great to read all the comments here. This thread is why I keep coming back to DL.

The Mi'kmaq hail from japan. Inuit, Mongolia

R24 If you have been to Argentina you will see that the white myth is exactly that. You will see Afro-Argentines there and people who are also mestizo. The Argentines had holocausts against African and Native peoples there BUT still have their DNA.

With its new Socialist government (yes, European socialism is nuanced ok, ok), Spain is the new, welcoming port of call for the migrants. They're going to FLOOD the place.

The Spanish-colonized Filipinos are so unlike their Asian neighbors. Their love of fiestas, beauty pageants, and JesuCristo aligns them closer with Latin America.

R240, you're right. Shame Japan didn't help sort things before the Spanish took over.

[quote]California became something only after Spanish culture and language was eradicated from the power structure

California became something only after Republicans were eradicated from the power structure

There. Fixed it for your

Feeling clever, R242 ejaculated, and now his mother is washing his penis.

LMAO r242 California became fabulous LONG before Dems took over.

The new extreme right wing government, like the neo-fascists in Poland and Hungary are rejecting asylum seekers/refugees.

The socialist government of Spain is accepting them.

"The migrant rescue ship Aquarius, which was left stranded in the Mediterranean Sea after Italy and Malta closed their ports to it, is heading off on a three-day journey to Spain"

There is a former Spanish colony (I'm not gonna name it for its sake) located in latin America that, to the rest of the world, seems fucked up like the rest but in reality it's the most advanced country on the planet

Yes, we are a small country but after two major earthquakes in the history, we still managed to get up and rebuild a country so please don't compare us with other Latin American countries since we have nothing in common only the language.

except having dictators as vile as argentina's and paraguay's

coups were all the rage, every country seemed to want one

I too, was a proud Chilean

[quote]There is a former Spanish colony (I'm not gonna name it for its sake) located in latin America that, to the rest of the world, seems fucked up like the rest but in reality it's the most advanced country on the planet

OMG! Sweden...but sunny year round.

R246 Which one? Cuba? Venezuela?

R252, R246 is making reference to "Black Panther" - a fictional high-tech nation is hidden in Africa, called Wakanda. R246 is saying there's on in South America.

Low IQs. Spaniards aren't known for being that intelligent.

The Spanish have the same IQ as Americans (98) - so, you know....

r255 with Americans you have to break down the IQs into separate categories. And that's all I'm saying.

'American' means form the merican continent. Stop appropriating the word. And please, read real history of America because I know you have no idea where the word America comes from.

Spain has so many benefits! Spread the word!

Spain will never be France

Todays Presidential election in Colombia will determine the country's path for the next 10-20 years.

Colombia could become a surprise economic success story.

idiots

That's what Chile wants because there are many Colombian immigrants in Chile and people are not happy. Some cities are having cultural clashes with Colombians, especially drug dealers who are bringing unwanted conflict and delinquency.

Columbia's always been a mess.

[quote]'American' means form the merican continent.

There are TWO American continents and "Americans" are exclusively people from the US. That's just the way it is, bubbie.

There is one continent America. The name was first given to the southern region explored by the Spanish and Portuguese. Eventually, the name came to encompass the entire landmass.

It's North America and South America. There are seven continents on Earth.

Duque, Colombias conservative, pro-business candidate, won today's presidential election, by a wide margin.

Watch Colombias economy boom now.

America is a single continent and it goes back to 1507 when Martin Waldseemüller named the New World after Amerigo Vespucci R266

[quote] so please don't compare us with other Latin American countries since we have nothing in common only the language —Proud Chilean

[quote] except having dictators as vile as argentina's and paraguay's

I agree, R248.

It's disgusting how this Chilean person is trying to act all high and mighty, as if Chile hasn't been a horrible country in the past. Please!

You're not so "above it all," so stop trying to act like it.

Every South American country has had its ups and downs, and Chile is no different. You could elect a horrible leader (like the US), and Chile will once more be a crappy shithole.

So get off your high horse.

[quote] Duque, Colombias conservative, pro-business candidate, won today's presidential election, by a wide margin

Looks like Colombia now has its very own donald trump.

Congratulations!

Now your country will be as fucked up as ours.

R269 Yes, but compared to shit holes countries like Colombia, Peru or Dominican Republic, we are more civilized.

r268 North American and South America are separate continents. Thanks for playing, though!

The Americas.

I think we forget, especially in the U.S., how temporary and recent so many things are. Argentina had one of the highest GDPs in the early 20th century, it was growing faster and richer than Canada and Australia. Then in the 30s everything started turning to shit.

Now it's a third world country, not a basket case, nothing hopeless about it, but nobody would say it's a world leader. But nobody really knows if that will change, either.

It's like saying Arabs must have the greatest culture, cause look how stupidly rich the Gulf States are. Everyone knows an accident of history and technology gave them a big resource that everyone wants, and someday probably nobody will care about.

And then of course there is the big question: is money everything? Are the richest countries the "best" countries, and what does that mean? I think we in the U.S. are ridiculous workaholics and in many ways our culture sucks. We're rich, and "productive," but most of what we do is useless bullshit, on Wall Street, at law firms, in Silicon Valley, in Hollywood. A lot of it is just stupid shit, even though it makes a lot of many and keeps us rich and important.

R257 No one is appropriating anything Dummkopf! Stop trying to act smarter than you are. People who live in The US are called Americans in every English speaking country and in multiple languages around the world.

America is one single continent; not two. If you want to to talk about tectonics that's another issue. Even more America already existed before the US were discovered R271

Fascinating people. They destroy works of art left and right - in the New World and right at home.

r275 you type barely literate.