Germanic vs Latino - Economic strength?

I've always wondered why Middle and South American countries aren't up to the level of the Northern American countries and other British colonies like Australia and New Zealand in terms of standard of living! Must be some reason behind this difference?

That is currently the world keeps turning and Spanish-speaking America has great potential, things will not always be as they are now, history shows, the future will come, thousands of factors that influence in a country at a given time is richer than another, does not mean they are smarter than the rest, because at other times the same country that today is rich, at different times has also suffered vicissitudes or impoverishment, influenced by echos historical and policies that are installed in the governments of different countries, I do not think at all that it is a racial superiority of the culture of that ethnic group installed in an area with another group, are then too many factors, and you say The world continues to spin.
 
I've always wondered why Middle and South American countries aren't up to the level of the Northern American countries and other British colonies like Australia and New Zealand in terms of standard of living! Must be some reason behind this difference?
One of the reasons is that the English colonies were majority european descend, while the spanish colonies were mostly Indian/Mestizo
 
One of the reasons is that the English colonies were majority european descend, while the spanish colonies were mostly Indian/Mestizo

think it's a poor argument, which bases the development of a zone according to the human race to dwell. A little luck and how events unfold also influence what would have happened if the Civil War in USA had had another result, or does the Spanish civil war if he had won the Republican side?, a variate finally decide the future and things change again and again.

Can you be a super power or a rich country without being at the expense of other peoples?

Proves to be superior to other peoples race, rather it has been known to organize a whole system to rise above others through wars, foul play, bondage and much more, but all men are equal and all we do same, it is not to be very proud how we got thrive. Some of the most powerful countries of Europe and North America may think they are what they are because of their race or human variety is superior, but 1000 years ago what they were, how they were where they were, and 5000 years ago and 10,000 years? is ridiculous based on race to justify the success of a nation.




 
I've always wondered why Middle and South American countries aren't up to the level of the Northern American countries and other British colonies like Australia and New Zealand in terms of standard of living! Must be some reason behind this difference?

Well, the British Empire had also many other colonies apart from the ones you mentioned:

Image532.gif


Those in Africa and Asia are all poor countries. If you notice just those whose population is almost fully of european origin are highly developed. So there you go. If you take a look to the HDI rates of the ex-spanish colonies you'll reach the same conclusion.

Greetings.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons is that the English colonies were majority european descend, while the spanish colonies were mostly Indian/Mestizo

yes thats true, I think that is the main reason.
 
One of the reasons is that the English colonies were majority european descend, while the spanish colonies were mostly Indian/Mestizo

I don't think it has anything to do with the racial make up of the population, I believe it is a matter of historical miss management and the lack of a democratic tradition in the Spanish Speaking colonies.
The success of the English speaking colonies in North America, Australia and New Zealand was because although were administered by colonial governors the residents of these colonies considered themselves citizens of England.
As citizens of England they felt that they had the same rights as any other Englishman under the English constitution which meant that they had the right of representation in the Parliament. It was this belief and the supposed lack of representation that spurred the American Revolution. Prior to the revolution the independent states of America had already had formed state representative democratic governments and after the revolution was over they modeled their National government on the British model. The tradition of democracy along with the foundation of a strong middle class allowed the North American colonies to thrive.
I don't think that the Spanish or Portuguese colonies had any democratic tradition and the were ruled before their freedom from the crown by the nobility and wealthy land owners. This tradition hung on after their revolutions with the wealthy maintaining their control of the government and most of the wealth in their countries. When 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth there is no chance for a nation to thrive.
 
Image532.gif


Again, I don't see the british colonies in Africa and Asia as an example of economical powers and good standard of life. Only a 25% of the ancient british empire are developed nations today. Your theory don't fit with reality... mine does.

Greetings.
 
The British "colonies" in Africa and India etc arent really compareable to the likes of Australia NZ Canada, USA etc as they werent what you would call mass migration by British to live there. The Above countries i mentioned saw the British settle and replace the native peoples. The ones where youre classing as British colonies did not see mass immigration by British and the ones who did move there to live never out numbered the natives. For example India or South Africa. Which is similar to the Spanish colonies where they were minorities also like Wilhelm said. its not a racial thing its more to do with Culture!
 
I don't think it has anything to do with the racial make up of the population, I believe it is a matter of historical miss management and the lack of a democratic tradition in the Spanish Speaking colonies.
The success of the English speaking colonies in North America, Australia and New Zealand was because although were administered by colonial governors the residents of these colonies considered themselves citizens of England.
As citizens of England they felt that they had the same rights as any other Englishman under the English constitution which meant that they had the right of representation in the Parliament. It was this belief and the supposed lack of representation that spurred the American Revolution. Prior to the revolution the independent states of America had already had formed state representative democratic governments and after the revolution was over they modeled their National government on the British model. The tradition of democracy along with the foundation of a strong middle class allowed the North American colonies to thrive.
I don't think that the Spanish or Portuguese colonies had any democratic tradition and the were ruled before their freedom from the crown by the nobility and wealthy land owners. This tradition hung on after their revolutions with the wealthy maintaining their control of the government and most of the wealth in their countries. When 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth there is no chance for a nation to thrive.
I didn't talk about race. I talked about cultural background. It's not the same colonizing a land when your people are majority (English) , than colonizing a land when the majority are indigenous of that land (Amerindians in South America)
 
Racist arguments are stupid, have no scientific basis, are mere conjectures concerned.
 
We didn't talk about races, we talk about cultures with no european heritage,CarlitoSirious2b. No need to get overexcited. ;)

The British "colonies" in Africa and India etc arent really compareable to the likes of Australia NZ Canada, USA etc as they werent what you would call mass migration by British to live there. The Above countries i mentioned saw the British settle and replace the native peoples. The ones where youre classing as British colonies did not see mass immigration by British and the ones who did move there to live never out numbered the natives. For example India or South Africa. Which is similar to the Spanish colonies where they were minorities also like Wilhelm said. its not a racial thing its more to do with Culture!

My point exactly. The less european migration, the less european cultural heritage, i.e. the lesser developed will be the ex-collony. That's the pattern.
 
Singapore and Hong Kong are doing great, though vast majority people, in former colonies, were and are none European.
 
Hong Kong is a little place and it was under the british rule until 1997. Today their economy it's still ruled by foreign banks however they have 1,25 millions of people living in poverty. So their status is very deceitful.

Singapore's case is almost the same.
 
does anybody know how many people immigrated from spain or portugal to brazil, argentina and chili? and how many was the existing population?
 
Yes, there are racial differences between the Iberian colonies and British colonies that have more to do with cultural colonization policies than racial differences of the resulting national populations. As was stated by a previous poster the British largely colonized by moving population masses (several of my ancestors were in this type of migration) where the Iberian colonies were done by groups of single men, either on a military mission of conquest or a para-military commercial adventure for conquest and profit. I don't have exact figures but I would guess that a much larger portion of the Mestizo population of Central and South America carry European Y-DNA than carry European mitochondrial markers.
I still believe that the inherited cultural differences and not inherited racial makeup explain a large portion of the difference between North American and Central and South American colonies.
There are just too many factors and too many differences in the way the colonies were founded, administered and propigated to accurately put a finger on a specific reason for the success or failure of the resulting nations.
 
This discussion is very interesting and associates me some ideas. Like;

- Invading and exploiting a country and then blaming the natives for underdevelopment is funny (but, I believe in this case it is true).
- Both in America and in Brazil the native population might have been an advantage not disadvantage, since they both needed extra “manpower” which was supplied from other “colonies” in Africa.
- America, Canada and Australia adopted executive elements in their country better, but South part bring emotion, excitement and joy in our life. This difference in disciplines, i believe, can be applied to economics also.
- May be I am wrong, but south part looks like they are committed to their country more, although they are poorer.
- Ironically, both south and north part of America would be much poorer today, if there was no discoveries. And if we look at the results, both of the projects are well-done.
 
Some South American countries were not always poor. Or those who are now rich were rich always, also be seen from another point of view, who have been robbing those who have known better?, Those who have been able to exploit better?, Who put those who have known better? who have managed to sell better?, past strategies are no longer useful in the future, humanity is on the verge of a change, if one believes that success in wealth is closely tied to the race to which they belong, then the supposed superior race would always have been through history, and not, I think that other factors unrelated to race and in the future that awaits us all may change if ever is this world like it is now, not will in the future as it is now.
 
We are talking about more developed CULTURES, not about superior races. Nobody here is suggesting that amerindian people are an inferior ethnic group. Therefore again CarlitosSirious2b, there's no reason for you to get offended. ;)
 
No lynx, if economical success in Asia was bound to English colonies, you wouldn't see other countries with Asiatic populations doing great. You have Japan, you have South Korea (North verses South, shows how a god economic and political system can do miracles). Unfortunate encounter with totalitarian communism had put most Asia down. Give China 20-50 years, even Vietnam, and you'll see the difference.
If the trick was in English colonialism building the progress for the natives, you could point at least one example in Africa, at the same level of development, or at least close, to Singapore or Hing Kong level.
And no, it's not racist, just the fact that there is no close example in Africa. I really wish there was, but there isn't. And it makes me wonder what is wrong with the picture, or how to explain the difference.
See, you didn't have to send billions of dollars of help, education, technologies to Japan. They looked at western countries, they send their people to western schools, and they simply started doing the same. Then there was South Korea, then Singapore, now China, India, and rest to follow.
So tell me, explain, why colonialism didn't help Africa, in colonies of British, Dutch, German, whatever..?
What is the difference? Heck, I've just seen the program that even Africans are perplexed, why it's not happening there.
Maybe I'm jumping into wrong conclusions, but nobody seam to be able to explain?
The differences the examples are in front of us, but nobody sees the pattern?

Please, don't compare poverty in Hong Kong or Singapore to poverty's elsewhere. Every country have different poverty level. Poor in Hing Kong are better off than middle class in Africa. Can you find comparison of poverty level in Spain and Singapore? I'm curious what we can get. You're pretty handy with maps and articles, I'm sure you can find it out quickly.
 
No lynx, if economical success in Asia was bound to English colonies, you wouldn't see other countries with Asiatic populations doing great. You have Japan, you have South Korea (North verses South, shows how a god economic and political system can do miracles). Unfortunate encounter with totalitarian communism had put most Asia down. Give China 20-50 years, even Vietnam, and you'll see the difference.
If the trick was in English colonialism building the progress for the natives, you could point at least one example in Africa, at the same level of development, or at least close, to Singapore or Hing Kong level.
And no, it's not racist, just the fact that there is no close example in Africa. I really wish there was, but there isn't. And it makes me wonder what is wrong with the picture, or how to explain the difference.
See, you didn't have to send billions of dollars of help, education, technologies to Japan. They looked at western countries, they send their people to western schools, and they simply started doing the same. Then there was South Korea, then Singapore, now China, India, and rest to follow.
So tell me, explain, why colonialism didn't help Africa, in colonies of British, Dutch, German, whatever..?
What is the difference? Heck, I've just seen the program that even Africans are perplexed, why it's not happening there.
Maybe I'm jumping into wrong conclusions, but nobody seam to be able to explain?
The differences the examples are in front of us, but nobody sees the pattern?

Please, don't compare poverty in Hong Kong or Singapore to poverty's elsewhere. Every country have different poverty level. Poor in Hing Kong are better off than middle class in Africa. Can you find comparison of poverty level in Spain and Singapore? I'm curious what we can get. You're pretty handy with maps and articles, I'm sure you can find it out quickly.
Weel, here you have on poverty in Singapore :

"As of 2009 Spain ranks 14 in HDI , Singapore ranks 23. "

Poverty in Singapore :

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/truth-about/poverty-in-singapore

http://sg.theasianparent.com/articles/poverty_in_singapore
 

This thread has been viewed 118267 times.

Back
Top