Which country was more tolerant in the colonisation of the Americas, Britain or Spain ?
- Thread starter Calmone20
- Start date
Both were brutal.
Calmone20
Formerly CalmOne
I know,but which one was more tolerant and fair ?
Clllam
Æ
Definitely the Spanish. Apart from using divide and conquer strategies on the aztecs and Incas and wiping out 2/3 of red indians through disease, they intermarried and converted locals to Christianity and definitely did more investing in their colonies (ie building churches) than the Brits.
Last edited:
SOMALI GENERAL
VIP
Britain was arguably the more benevolent Coloniser. The British did not seek to impose their lifestyle and culture/language on the Natives & wanted to keep to themselves in their Settlements. They willingly segregated themselves from the Natives. Although, the Brits did frequently clash with the Natives over resources & land just like the other Europeans.
What set the Spaniards apart from the British & French colonisers was their implementation of the brutal Encomienda System which was communal Slavery. Essentially, there were Spanish Landlords who presided over hundreds or even thousands of Natives that were forced to work for their Spanish Lord for free. After a while, it was made illegal by the Spanish Queen Isabel I.
What set the Spaniards apart from the British & French colonisers was their implementation of the brutal Encomienda System which was communal Slavery. Essentially, there were Spanish Landlords who presided over hundreds or even thousands of Natives that were forced to work for their Spanish Lord for free. After a while, it was made illegal by the Spanish Queen Isabel I.
Last edited:
Spot on!
The Iberians also bred out the Native Americans in most of the Americas. They were mostly male initially and each of them would have access to several Indian women. Portuguese at least acknowledged some of their mixed race offspring but the Spaniards were more segregationist with their Castiza System. It is ironic how the 'liberation' movements of Latin America were manufactured by the Criollo European elite.
Paraguay is one of the more unique exceptions though. Look into it if you have not already. A Criollo leader after independence banned same race marriages and forced the Criollo elite to mix with mestizos and Guarani Indians. Hence, not a surprise that Guarani is still spoken by the population.
SOMALI GENERAL
VIP
The land resources & the cultures/peoples that were conquered played a significant role in the Colonial strategies employed by the West European Powers. The British & French colonised sparely populated areas that were low on resources and had no civilisation. Hence why they needed to encourage mass settlement to make their Colonial endeavours worthwhile so they can build Western European civilisation in North America from the ground up.
Compare that with the resource wealthy but densely populated Central American lands of the Aztecs & Mayans who had a sophisticated civilisation that was usurped by the Spaniards who used it to their advantage to maintain social cohesion & order. Only differences being the Old native Lords were replaced by Spaniard ones & the Native Gods were replaced with the Catholic Faith to maintain the new hierarchy [Casta System] so they can extract mineral wealth [mainly Gold] from Mexico/Central America with ease & keep the docile Native population in check.
Last edited:
Clllam
Æ
The Spanish were more focused on making Red Indians like themselves and imposing their religion and customs on them. They were also very busy looking for Resources rather than city building etc.
But from a red Indian perspective, I reckon living in Spanish territory as a Christian was far more greater than being a separated red indian whose land was slowly being encroached on by white people.
Nalaaye floxks
Life is like a sandwich, the bread comes first💰💯
NYC was a dutch colony, the name new york comes from the word new amsterdam, it’s kinda crazy that the the only NA Dutch colony is NYC
