What if Latin America was Rich?
video description
But if Britain, say in an alternate reality - under a King Henry VI or a longer-lived Cromwell, or competent successor - focused on securing Cuba, Hispaniola, Panama, the Yucutan and effectively blockade Veracruz and Cartagena. They basically had done or were doing those things. But again, the cost of lives in the tropics wasn't worth it. Settling the South was hazardous enough for Britons. Penetrating Appalachia wasn't a product of colonial bloodlust and fortune-seeking, it was about survival. Even NE with its lousy soil, bitter winters, and lack of resources faired better than the Southern Colonies/States because the cold kills diseases. The Mid-Atlantic won out overall not merely because the Quakers were right, but because it's as far south Europeans can live in North America while maintaining a lifestyle comparable to Britain. But every summer polio still wrecked havoc on people living in NYC, Philadelphia and Baltimore right up until the vaccine was produced.
Apparently, there was also the issue that British colonies were already producing TOO MUCH sugar. So extending plantations to even larger islands, like Cuba, would have glutted the market. Britain and Holland already had the best islands, any way. And Spain had already been knocked down a peg. There was just no justification for the lives that would be lost to disease.
But imagine that Britain did crusade against Spain in the Caribbean. Imagine Spain expelled from its most important market. Then the Spanish might resort to a British form of colonization. First opening up farmlands to poor Spaniards and Portuguese, then extending that to Walloon and Sicilian subjects, and even anyone attempting to flee the Ottomans or German Catholics wrapped up in the Thirty Years War. California, Uruguay, Chile, Alta California: there's a lot of lands hospitable to European farmers, which in time would yield massive profit and a population to recruit soldiers from.
Either way, Spain has to be forced out of the comfort zone that defined its Empire in Latin America. Latin America can be compared to Britain's Southern Colonies, but there is no real analog to the Northern States (Argentina and Uruguay almost. These territories could have been that answer. It would have taken a lot of jostling (from Britain, though, for Spain to make the adjustment. You don't even need Latin America to aggressively industrialize in this scenario for most of it to become rich.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Franco
If political stability and liberal democratic rule is the main factor to determine westerness, and not cultural affiliation, the logical conclusion is that most europe did not become western until the second half of the 20th centhury, the history of democracy in europe is a complicated series of episodes of democratic reform, absolutist relapses, revolutionary agitation, totalitarianism and war.
In historical terms, liberal democracy is a relatively recent phenomenon and half of europe was, until the end of the cold war, under single party dictatorships with ideological affinities to the likes of Fidel Castro.
If the case is racial, then the logical conclusion is that large parts of the US demographic are not westerners as in people of european descent, particularly afroamericans, the Obama administration reveals otherwise.
As for non european influence, well, Hip Hop, Rap, Trap, Reaggeton, Blues, Rock, Jazz have afroamerican roots and are the most popular genre of western music.
A fun fact is that the cowboy arquetype, an iconic image of the US is largely of creole spanish/mexican origin as much of that lifestyle, values and even terms (rodeo, lasso, vockaroo etc)
Then, what is Latin America? Its an inseparable part of the western world, a branch that emerged from iberia and with it carries the legacy of the classical Graeco-Roman civilization and Christendom.
LatinAmerica is a politically primitive version of the west, with institutions functioning in a similar fashion to 19th or early 20th europe, particularly southern/eastern parts of it.
We would not be having this debate if Latam was more economically and politically sophisticated, however the historical trend moves towarda that direction, Chile, Uruguay and Costa Rica as examples while Venezuela is a throwback to autoritharianism, but so was Germany in the past.
reply
If political stability and liberal democratic rule is the main factor to determine westerness, and not cultural affiliation, the logical conclusion is that most europe did not become western until the second half of the 20th centhury, the history of democracy in europe is a complicated series of episodes of democratic reform, absolutist relapses, revolutionary agitation, totalitarianism and war.
In historical terms, liberal democracy is a relatively recent phenomenon and half of europe was, until the end of the cold war, under single party dictatorships with ideological affinities to the likes of Fidel Castro.
If the case is racial, then the logical conclusion is that large parts of the US demographic are not westerners as in people of european descent, particularly afroamericans, the Obama administration reveals otherwise.
As for non european influence, well, Hip Hop, Rap, Trap, Reaggeton, Blues, Rock, Jazz have afroamerican roots and are the most popular genre of western music.
A fun fact is that the cowboy arquetype, an iconic image of the US is largely of creole spanish/mexican origin as much of that lifestyle, values and even terms (rodeo, lasso, vockaroo etc)
Then, what is Latin America? Its an inseparable part of the western world, a branch that emerged from iberia and with it carries the legacy of the classical Graeco-Roman civilization and Christendom.
LatinAmerica is a politically primitive version of the west, with institutions functioning in a similar fashion to 19th or early 20th europe, particularly southern/eastern parts of it.
We would not be having this debate if Latam was more economically and politically sophisticated, however the historical trend moves towarda that direction, Chile, Uruguay and Costa Rica as examples while Venezuela is a throwback to autoritharianism, but so was Germany in the past.
reply
buddermonger2000
I'm going to push back on the US being weaker here for one reason: the US still has its heartland and everything it inherited. And with competition with other American powers it seems like it'd be arguably stronger unless the Spanish states are getting lots of foreign immigration as well. The US with still controlling much of the Great Plains (the breadbasket of the world, still having the industry of the northeast, martial tradition of the southeast, and then actual naval access Sonora would mostly lack, I don't see Sonora competing as well and feel like it'd be eaten in a Great Power war on the north American continent. Since most of the population of Sonora would be on the west coast and on the edges of the Great Plains with lightly populated desert in-between, it's pre-disposed toward division and until rail and air conditioning it would mostly be not great. We can also likely assume a gold rush with Americans flooding the region basically colonizing it before it even starts a great power war. At which point it would integrate the population effectively after its annexation. Thus putting the US in a position as basically the Hegemon of North America and allowing it to build up mostly unmolested after since likely not even the Spanish states would be able to project power there. A continental hegemon is a pretty good starting place and basically gives the US its current status as just a mega Britain even if can't control South America.
reply
I'm going to push back on the US being weaker here for one reason: the US still has its heartland and everything it inherited. And with competition with other American powers it seems like it'd be arguably stronger unless the Spanish states are getting lots of foreign immigration as well. The US with still controlling much of the Great Plains (the breadbasket of the world, still having the industry of the northeast, martial tradition of the southeast, and then actual naval access Sonora would mostly lack, I don't see Sonora competing as well and feel like it'd be eaten in a Great Power war on the north American continent. Since most of the population of Sonora would be on the west coast and on the edges of the Great Plains with lightly populated desert in-between, it's pre-disposed toward division and until rail and air conditioning it would mostly be not great. We can also likely assume a gold rush with Americans flooding the region basically colonizing it before it even starts a great power war. At which point it would integrate the population effectively after its annexation. Thus putting the US in a position as basically the Hegemon of North America and allowing it to build up mostly unmolested after since likely not even the Spanish states would be able to project power there. A continental hegemon is a pretty good starting place and basically gives the US its current status as just a mega Britain even if can't control South America.
reply
Dan
There already are rivalries among Latin American countries today. In fact there were rivalries as far back as the 1800s post independence. Brazil fought wars with its neighbors Paraguay and Argentina. Chile with Peru and Bolivia. Etc.
Today the rivalries are more cultural and economic rather than warring (as has defined European history for so long. Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico constantly bicker over who's top dog economically (with Argentina losing mostly in the last 2 decades. Chile and Uruguay, although small, constantly point out they have the highest living standards in Latin America comparable with southern Europe. Panama and Costa Rica also chime in on the same vein in high GDP per capita. Even for skyscraper construction there are rivalries mainly between Brazil, Mexico, and Panama of who has the tallest or the most.
And of course football is a major rivalry.
reply
There already are rivalries among Latin American countries today. In fact there were rivalries as far back as the 1800s post independence. Brazil fought wars with its neighbors Paraguay and Argentina. Chile with Peru and Bolivia. Etc.
Today the rivalries are more cultural and economic rather than warring (as has defined European history for so long. Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico constantly bicker over who's top dog economically (with Argentina losing mostly in the last 2 decades. Chile and Uruguay, although small, constantly point out they have the highest living standards in Latin America comparable with southern Europe. Panama and Costa Rica also chime in on the same vein in high GDP per capita. Even for skyscraper construction there are rivalries mainly between Brazil, Mexico, and Panama of who has the tallest or the most.
And of course football is a major rivalry.
reply
Hex
Damn, I usually like your videos, however like other commenters said this reeks of the Black Legend. The Judgmental Argument holds no water, especially considering the fate of most British colonies in Asia and Africa. Hell, most British Caribbean colonies are more similar to Latin American than the USA. And just look at Haiti.
I'd surmise that the British would make an even worse society should they have gotten to the Aztecs and Incas first, simply because of 1. Protestant intolerance. Catholics were able to say as long as you are Christian, you are mostly ok but the British and most Protestants were the complete opposite of this. 2. The Spanish already had experiencing mixing races, having done so with the Arabs for centuries. Combine this with the generally darker complexion of Spaniards compared to the British.
reply
Damn, I usually like your videos, however like other commenters said this reeks of the Black Legend. The Judgmental Argument holds no water, especially considering the fate of most British colonies in Asia and Africa. Hell, most British Caribbean colonies are more similar to Latin American than the USA. And just look at Haiti.
I'd surmise that the British would make an even worse society should they have gotten to the Aztecs and Incas first, simply because of 1. Protestant intolerance. Catholics were able to say as long as you are Christian, you are mostly ok but the British and most Protestants were the complete opposite of this. 2. The Spanish already had experiencing mixing races, having done so with the Arabs for centuries. Combine this with the generally darker complexion of Spaniards compared to the British.
reply
Leo
Dude, why do you state in all of your videos that the Spaniards enslaved the Amerindians? While that is partially true in the beginning, it is not entirely correct, as once annexed, Latinamerica and the Iberian Peninsula, were Spain, one and the same, providing the American population with all of its casta rights. Whilst the Brits decided instead to exterminate all of the Amerindian population inhabiting North America, you completely waive that key factor, don't manipulate history, I swear that I cannot keep on with your videos any further as soon as you start speaking such inaccurate facts because it is horrendous how many people you're infecting with this level of misinformation.
reply
Dude, why do you state in all of your videos that the Spaniards enslaved the Amerindians? While that is partially true in the beginning, it is not entirely correct, as once annexed, Latinamerica and the Iberian Peninsula, were Spain, one and the same, providing the American population with all of its casta rights. Whilst the Brits decided instead to exterminate all of the Amerindian population inhabiting North America, you completely waive that key factor, don't manipulate history, I swear that I cannot keep on with your videos any further as soon as you start speaking such inaccurate facts because it is horrendous how many people you're infecting with this level of misinformation.
reply
Jaime
How are the Spanish responsible for their poverty? You were fed 'la leyenda negra' and ate it up. All these countries when they were part of the Spanish empire were prosperous full of freedom and had way less slavery and inequality than anglosaxon countries. You realise indigenous and europeans lived together peacefully and even back then had kids together thats why there are so many mestizos not just now but back then too. Inform yourself from real sources first man, lots of sources are extremely biased and have extremely incorrect information. Many english explorers back in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries claimed the best places to live was the Spanish empire.
reply
How are the Spanish responsible for their poverty? You were fed 'la leyenda negra' and ate it up. All these countries when they were part of the Spanish empire were prosperous full of freedom and had way less slavery and inequality than anglosaxon countries. You realise indigenous and europeans lived together peacefully and even back then had kids together thats why there are so many mestizos not just now but back then too. Inform yourself from real sources first man, lots of sources are extremely biased and have extremely incorrect information. Many english explorers back in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries claimed the best places to live was the Spanish empire.
reply
Jhonathan
The biggest problem is corruption. Even in the poorest countries like Guatemala and El Salvador where my parents are from you have all the same American businesses like Olive Garden, Walmart, Chuck E Cheese, Office Depot, large corporations whos prices are higher than what you find here in the US. Apart from having higher margins, they pay less in taxes and have a fraction of overhead costs by paying the minimum wage which is about $5 A DAY. I have a cousin working at Pizza Hut in El Salvador currently for $1/hour. If the government and people in general werent so greedy, Latin America would not be in the position it is now.
reply
The biggest problem is corruption. Even in the poorest countries like Guatemala and El Salvador where my parents are from you have all the same American businesses like Olive Garden, Walmart, Chuck E Cheese, Office Depot, large corporations whos prices are higher than what you find here in the US. Apart from having higher margins, they pay less in taxes and have a fraction of overhead costs by paying the minimum wage which is about $5 A DAY. I have a cousin working at Pizza Hut in El Salvador currently for $1/hour. If the government and people in general werent so greedy, Latin America would not be in the position it is now.
reply
Superwally188
I would disagree with mexico-central being non european as the central regions are more european than native to this day and this clearly shows bias towards northern mexicans recieving the most european immigrants as today and back then in the 1500-1800 the central region recieved the most immigrants from europe to this day however we are not mostly prediomantly white due to our huge indegenious population pre colombian days but that doesnt mean we didnt recieve some european immigrants. Also, Colombia and Venezuela to this day are heavily white and argue some parts are historically very white.
reply
I would disagree with mexico-central being non european as the central regions are more european than native to this day and this clearly shows bias towards northern mexicans recieving the most european immigrants as today and back then in the 1500-1800 the central region recieved the most immigrants from europe to this day however we are not mostly prediomantly white due to our huge indegenious population pre colombian days but that doesnt mean we didnt recieve some european immigrants. Also, Colombia and Venezuela to this day are heavily white and argue some parts are historically very white.
reply
David
Did you say Latin Americans do not behave like Western Europeans? Come on man! The behavior and idiosyncrasy of someone from Argentina, Brazil, or Colombia, for instance, are much more similar to someone from Spain, Italy, or Portugal (3 very western countries. The behavior and perspective of life of American people are so different from people from Spain, Italy, and Portugal. I think Americans are biased on this topic, someone from Italy or Spain is culturally much closer to someone from LatinAmerica than someone from London.
reply
Did you say Latin Americans do not behave like Western Europeans? Come on man! The behavior and idiosyncrasy of someone from Argentina, Brazil, or Colombia, for instance, are much more similar to someone from Spain, Italy, or Portugal (3 very western countries. The behavior and perspective of life of American people are so different from people from Spain, Italy, and Portugal. I think Americans are biased on this topic, someone from Italy or Spain is culturally much closer to someone from LatinAmerica than someone from London.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
