Quite unrelated, but this is a major reason of why users who say that Spain's prime mistake while colonizing the Americas was not doing what Britain did don't know what they are talking about.
Spain didn't have the logistical capacity to do what the British did across a much larger swath of land.
An even larger factor at play is population, this was a two-angle issue in our case, firstly, the Amerindian density in regions that we colonized (such as Méjico and the Andes) was far higher than in the Thirteen Colonies.
Secondly, for most of the time we lacked population while the British had an excess (hence the Thirteen Colonies), in addition to having to repopulate the Morisco areas after we expelled them in 1609.
Colonialism was a pressure release valve for England. Populations that were dissatisfied simply moved to the colonies. Castille on the other hand suffered population decline as early as the 16th century.
With regards to miscegenation, although race-mixing did indeed begin under Spanish rule, the bulk of it occurred after independence, where the new republics proceded to engage in widespread racial levelling. A particularly extreme case of this is that of Dr. Francia in Paraguay.
Although to be fair, many of these republics later attempted to improve the racial demographical situation with blanqueamiento immigration policies that explicitly favoured European immigration, which was a successful policy where it was attempted.
Q. JAG, how do you think that a hypothetical British of Central and South America in the same time period would have looked like?
A. As I said before, I think that the closest real-life equivalent was the Anglo-Dutch colonization of South Africa, since the situation with regards to the pre-colonization population was far closer to that of Central and South America than the Thirteen Colonies were.
In South Africa, White cities, mines, and plantations controlled large territories and populations of natives, which was very similar to Spanish colonization of South and Central America in that regard.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“The Gaitanist (Gaitanists were supporters of left-wing populist politician Jorge Eliécer Gaitán) Tribe,” a Colombian political cartoon from 1948 showing a horde of gigantic, stereotypically-depicted Gaitanist Negroes knifing a helpless White man, presumably to cannibalize him.
Owing to his dark skin, Gaitán (image 1) was nicknamed "El Negro" by many of his conservative political opponents, most notably Laureano Gómez (image 2), who was the leader of the hardline wing of Colombia's Conservative Party.
From 1932 onward, and in large part thanks to the aggressive attack campaign waged by the ardently conservative newspaper El Siglo (the same newspaper which published this cartoon), “little by little the name 'El Negro Gaitán' gained ground in the cafes and salons of Bogotá.”
"The Old Left wasn't about pushing cultural degen-"
Rühle also proclaimed that "for the first time, the conditions are given for the sexual community to become a union of free people who are neither economically nor spiritually dependent on one another... free love is completed in free marriage."
The following excerpts come from Antonio Cánovas del Castillo, a center-right liberal conservative politician who was extremely influential in late 19th-century Spain, being Prime Minister five times.
It's interesting to compare and contrast the racial views of the 19th-century center-right with the racial views of the modern center-right with their “opportunity zones” and “minority empowerment areas.”
The excerpts come from an interview granted on November 17 1896 to the journalist Gaston Routier of the French newspaper “Le Journal.” Cánovas was the Prime Minister of Spain at the time.