wtf based Britain??
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
The English did not come over with the intention of replacing anyone or anything. If you read the history of Jamestown or even Roanoke this becomes obvious. The marriage between pocahontas and John Smith was actually something that was celebrated. The english were not magically more racist than the Spanish
The reason why the British ended up going to war with and replacing the natives almost entirely is because they didn't have leverage with the tribes. They had nothing that the Indians wanted besides horses, guns, and alcohol, which they could either simply steal or buy without commitment. This led to conflict because the British were simply viewed as an occupier
The Spanish had leverage. The people of Mexico and central america were being lorded over by empires that they hated. The Spanish made a deal to get rid of them in exchange for being subjects of the Spanish crown, which was much better than being subjects of the aztecs. The tribes of North America had no such issue.
Population density is also a factor. North America had a much lower population than south and Central America, which means there's less people there and when disease took place, it wiped out a larger percentage of the population.
Also keep in mind: the land that the British actually had in North America was actually tiny, meanwhile Iberia owned almost the entirety of both continents minus Canada alone. Different pieces of land had different goals in mind for colonization, the British had too small of an amount of land in north America for their colonization style to differ enough to matter (until they got Canada, which is mostly uninhabitable anyways). You can say that the british conquered the 13 colonies, nigeria, Jamaica, and India for very different reasons. I can also compare Mexico to the Philippines to Argentina to Cuba and how they were conquered and colonized in very different ways for different reasons. People look at the Latin world under one blanket, but spain is closer in distance to russia than Argentina is to Mexico, lots of variation there.
In places where there were no insane people controlling everyone's lives and the population density was low, like Cuba, puerto rico, Paraguay, Uruguay, the southern half of Brazil (okay its Portugal, same deal), and Argentina, the colonization was much more "british" like than it was Spanish or Portuguese. In places like Peru, Bolivia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, etc, they barely mixed with anyone at all. Those people were just subjects. The Spanish had possessions that were for colonizing, ones where there was no necessity to colonize at all, and ones where there was limited colonization leading to mestizos.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed