Australia: mostly Anglo

>Australia: mostly Anglo
>New Zealand: mostly Anglo
>Canada: mostly Anglo and some French
>USA: originally Anglos and Germans until let other Europeans in, upper class still lots of Anglos
>Rhodesia: Mostly anglo
>South Africa: 40% Anglo 60% Dutch

Meanwhile Spanish and Portuguese mixed with everyone they came across, Belgians and French just wanted to rule and Germans didn't make many mass settlements.

Why was it only Anglos for the most part who spread out and created new countries without mixing with everyone they came across? If the Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, French, Dutch and Germans had the same policies there would be 200-300+ million more white people in the world right now, explain this shit

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Órfãs_d'El-Rei
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Portuguese started to have a vast colonial empire when other countries wanted to have a piece of cake. They're a nation of traders and explorers, pioneers of the sea.

>Why was it only Anglos for the most part who spread out and created new countries without mixing with everyone they came across?
Because England had a demographic growth when France was stagnating, we couldn't populate new France which is why we were fine with leaving it to England.

what about africa?

What about africa ?

But why didn't they settle? Why did they mix?
Why was French demographics declining? Why was the only French settlement in Quebec?

I saw some French guy on Sup Forums saying France was simply too nice of a place to live, so people didn't want to go to the colonies, but the UK was an awful place to live so everyone went to the colonies

I wonder if he really believed that

Portugal is a tiny nation and for hundreds of years barely exceeded the one million inhabitants mark. It was much easier to just let their sailors and soldiers fuck everything with a vagina and then make that halfbred caste rule in the name of Portugal.

>Why was French demographics declining?
They weren't declining, we just had our demographic revolution earlier than the UK. Keep in mind that in the middle ages french pop was 20M~ while England had only 2 or 3 millions, they had a massive growth.
>Why was the only French settlement in Quebec?
Because the king helped it (look for "Filles du roi" (king's daughters) ), and because we did a lot of trading with natives there. Also prisoners could go live there to settle it instead of going to jail.
T b h it's also true to some degrees. France was a vast, fertile country. Back then 80% of the population was made of peasants, as long as they had a place to live and fields to farm, they didn't have much reason to leave.

Uk was most wealthy European country during the Victorian era yet still hundreds of thousands of British citizens moved to colonies
They could have made some little settlements though, some small islands were settled by 10-20 Anglo families, why didn't Portuguese do this? Even Francis drake tried to make some Anglo colonies in America before empire

What was the colony of Austria?

daily reminder

>while England had only 2 or 3 millions
most historians agree that the post-plague population of England in the 14th century was around 5-7 million and France around 18-20, but the latter one declined and didn't reach the number again until the early modern period.

They didn't see any advantages in doing it except for Brazil. Small settlements couldn't do shit against armies of aboriginals, especially blacks and Indians. It was better for them to concentrade on spice trade and maximizing profits.

They attempted to colonize the Nicobar Islands and also held a concession in Tianjin.

Why was the French population so much bigger Earlier? If French settled elsewhere there would have been an even bigger French population because settlers bred faster. Surely the French could have made just one permanent settlement in Africa?

>Why was the French population so much bigger Earlier?
It's a very fertile country and has always been pretty populated until the French were the first to use contraception in such a widespread way.

>thousand years of oppression, slavery and 2nd class citizenship
>history destroyed by the invaders
>sup mongol sub-human savage
>get back to work mongol savage I need my tar
>shit I'm scared of russia
>whoops you can take them scary russia
>what is autonomy
>what is own currency
>what is own language
>1917 it's time get back what is ours
>1918 get fucked commie fucks
>1939 fucking commies again, no more oppression, get fucked commies fucks
>2017 hey there white Finn, remember the colonialism, remember the white guilt, remember the slave ship tar, remember you were born to serve the bättre folk.

>tfw you're in one of those countries with no colonies or greatness overall
Life is suffering.

When I say Anglo I pretty much mean all British isles, so Anglo-Celtic is probably more accurate
Fair enough but what advanatge did Anglos have during the early American settlements? Jamestown was only a few thousands people and didn't mix with the hundreds of thousands of native Americans.

Ok France has good excuses then, why didn't Germans spread out and make mass settlements other than American mid west?
Finland was controlled by Sweden and Russia so independence was more important than spreading out I suppose
Similar to above, balkans had ottomans and Austria-Hungary to worry about, hard to compete when sorrounded by that, Western Europe has some answering to do though

Settling other would relieved the overpopulated mainland and provided highly needed food and other ressources, as the UK was highly dependent on imports from the mainland. They were also the first ones to believe that turning the wide wastelands habitable for the own population could be helpful for them. That kind of thinking and the already evolving society in 16th century England is one of the biggest reasons why the industrial revolution happened there specifically.

I know it wasn't the modern Greece, but Greeks were colonizing the Mediterranean for a long time

Germany wasn't an organized country until the 19th century. They did colonize, but in Eastern Europe where they turned vacant lands into fields and meadows and made the small Slavic population assimilate into them. That's also why there have been Germans in Hungary, Romania, Russia, Ukraine for centuries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostsiedlung

The concession was Austro-Hungarian.

Ok, they still could have mixed though, could have taken native women like Spanish and Portuguese did? What made them refuse to mix?
Talking about modern settlements, of course there was big expansions in the classical era
They conquered some lowly populated African states, but why didn't they settle any of them? Someone above was argueing that Anglos dominated because they prospered later than France but it seems Germany prospered even later than UK

...

That's not accurate. Latvia had colonies.

>Ok, they still could have mixed though, could have taken native women like Spanish and Portuguese did? What made them refuse to mix?
They were pretty hostile towards each other. It did happen, but to a very small degree at first, and after that it were the natives that assimilated. It's much more visible in Central and South America because the Indio population was really, really big there compared to the amount of European settlers.

>They conquered some lowly populated African states, but why didn't they settle any of them?
They just bought them in the late 19th century because muh prestige. They settled a bit but already lost them not even 40 years later after WWI.

>Someone above was argueing that Anglos dominated because they prospered later than France but it seems Germany prospered even later than UK
Germany was a wealthy region for the most part until the population explosion in the 19th century. The country wasn't unified until late and they never wanted colonies until they saw the political weight those could bring. Also America was by then much better suited for German settlers than tropical Tanganyika or arid Namibia.

Circunstancial historical facts. Different countries had different objectives for their colonies. The portuguese never wanted to create simulacros of their own country, their objective was to get in, grab it, and get out. Eventually the guys had babies with the local woman (67% mitocondrial dna is NON-european and 88% of Y IS european), and then a genetic and cultural mixed population was created by accident, there was never a plan to stay or to create a country.

Just one more D&C of europeans?

>Meanwhile Spanish and Portuguese mixed with everyone they came across

Portugal has 1 million population when we discovered and conquered half of the world. It would be impossible for us to mass colonize entire countries with our own euro stock.

*had 1 milliion...

>we had more colonies than shitaly

Actual numbers for South Africa are: 40% Anglo, 60% Dutch, 90% niggers.

Greece BTFO by Norway...

lmao hahahahahahahahahahah

Ok, all what you say makes sense, thanks. I still think there must be at least one European country that could have made mass settlements outside of Europe
Wow, Portuguese had no self control, they must have rape every women they saw.

because iberians are already a mixed race, the average iberian is 50% pure iberian. What is there to preserve?

Yea but Portuguese could have made at least one mass settlement somewhere
I'm talking about European settlers here really, most blacks were imported to South Africa or moved recently after apartheid

It's a bit misleading though.
These Norwegian "colonies" were like 500 years BEFORE all these other european countries had a single one.

USA is Anglo, we are just anglos that might have a few ancestors named hans

There are just as many German-Americans as Brit-Americans.
Americans thinking they are "anglo" is just based on language. Much of you culture is actually German or even Scandinavian.

Italy pushed it a lot during the Mussolini years, sending hundreds of thousands of Italians to Libya and Eritrea. Portugal also send almost a tenth of it's population to Africa between 1945 and 1974. It's just pure luck and lack of timing that didn't make big scale settlement a thing for most nations, along with the fact that Anglos did have the best countries for White settlement.

Imagine if all of the Americas were a white safe haven with two oceans separating it.. Instead we have the mexican border.

But I dont speak any German. I did go to a lutheran church(courtesy of my german ancestors) as a kid though

>Ok, they still could have mixed though, could have taken native women like Spanish and Portuguese did? What made them refuse to mix?

Only male portuguese came to Brazil, so they bred with local or african woman. They were here for business, not to create a colony.

Our colonies were much more densely populated by natives.

We started to colonize right after we discovered, so sickness did not yet decimated them. Anglos started to colonize almost 100 years after, that is to say, after they were decimated.

>1 million population
> do a mass settlement

how?
did you look at the size of our empire?

Its all a moot point anyways. Brits and Germans alike are both part of the /masterrace/

I acknowledged that lots of Americans are German, just wondering why they didn't create their own colonies elsewhere in the world with German majority and German language
Yeah, why didn't they stay in Africa after ww2 instead of returning to Italy? Could have made a big Italian settlement in Africa, would be cool.
Blame the Spanish for no set control
Original Jamestown settlers were al male, but rather than mixing with natives they waited years to import women from the same country as them

As I said, Jamestown only had a few thousand but they refused to mix, couldn't Portugal do just one settlement like this somewhere?
Shame they spend more time hating each other than wanting to succeed together

Also the Greek colony in question is better than any colony the Norwegians ever got.

Except for the USA, India, Mexico and Australia, there are few colonies that can match Turkey.

Decolonization was a big thing and Italy's economy was booming at the time.

read the fucking thread instead of acting like an edgy teen. We already discussed about this.

>couldn't Portugal do just one settlement like this somewhere?
And they did. There are plenty of fully Portuguese people in Brasil nowadays.

Most Portuguese in Brasil just mixed because Portuguese are historically "civic nationalists"

>Wow, Portuguese had no self control, they must have rape every women they saw.

Yeap, the classical rape, pillage, and burn. That was how we were born, my dear.

>Original Jamestown settlers were al male, but rather than mixing with natives they waited years to import women from the same country as them

Didn't know that, but maybe the difference is that the Jamestown settlers were planing to stay and create a city/country. The portuguese had no intention to stay or to create a society at all.

Because we were few and we didn't have the manpower to guard such a vast empire

I always thought that portuguese mixed because there wasn't white woman around.

Pussy game too strong
Natives, africans, arabs, indians and asians. Can't refuse that

finland was just a bunch of tribes before we conquered them, not even close to being a country. they were just considered eastern sweden before russia took them

we cared about woman and gold, we didnt caare about politics or other affairs, i think this explains all our situation

what the fuck are austria's and greeces?
also didnt latvia have 2 colonies?

Also, but there were white women in Brasil also.

But portuguese people historically were never very racist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Órfãs_d'El-Rei

They didn't have to return though, just let the majority rule
Not many though, unlike in Australia, Canada, NZ, South Africa where there's plenty of Anglos still there
Wouldn't you rather be Portuguese descended rather than mixed though?
But it would be nice to know there's a decent sized Portuguese population elsewhere in the world outside Portugal though?
Finns are pretty much just saamis right? There's still lots in Russia on the other side of the border, that's cool

>Austrian colony
Where?

Anglos colonized empty land (at least when the natives died) so it was easy to create white countries , on other continent where the natives stayed in number , the Anglos were as unsuccessful that the other europeans nation.

>Australia
empty land

>Canada
Empty land

>New Zealand
Not empty land, yet still has a sizeable minority

>South Africa
Empty land

Starting to see a pattern here?

Germany.

kek

Not accurate Poland had colonies e.g Tobago, and part of Gambia

>and Germans
This old meme again

Britain was the only country with the means of establishing white settlements because it had a monopoly on the empty land throughout the 19th century.
Other did it where they could though not on nearly such a scale. See: (memes aside) Argentina, Cuba, large parts of Algeria

>Mostly Anglo

No. It's Anglo-Celtic for a reason.

Anglo soldiers. Celtic convicts.

Plus we got Wogs in the 40's, only like 30 years after America

>Much of you culture is actually German or even Scandinavian.
kek, how stupid. Do you realize what a minuscule proportion of our population scandis constitute? As for Germans, we've had a grand total of two german american presidents. One was only half

>Wouldn't you rather be Portuguese descended rather than mixed though?

Well, we are mixed exactly because of that.

The portuguese man mixed with non-portuguese woman. The Brazilian DNA is 88% european by male lineage but only 33% by female lineage. That's from where come our mixed population.

Splendid geographical isolation, pretty much because we have no land border with the rest of Europe, which allowed us to focus on properly setting up colonies, the other european powers had to constantly worry about land invasion.

Because Spain and Portugal expanded a couple hundred years earlier, with lower population, less technology. It was not a good idea back then to cross the sea with women

fake, poland had colonies, Tango, West India, Curlandia, Caraibes and few more

Most convicts and a lot of soldiers wanted to stay in Australia rather than recycling to Ireland or the U.K.

Although that was mostly for financial reasons since they were getting free land and gibs to settle and set up farms and businesses.

>They didn't have to return though, just let the majority rule
the majority threw all the Whites out in every country except South Africa because it happened there in the 1990s and there were way too many Whites. Even those Whites are leaving in high numbers.

>Austria had colonies
>Scandis had colonies

u wot

shit tier islands are inflating those numbers, by real colonies bongs are first and we're a close second

>were never very racist

dude we started the slave trade... then other countries joined

It's only 12 million, but still, it's obvious that you have stolen scandi culture.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Órfãs_d'El-Rei

I had never heard about these Órfãs d'El-Rei, interesting. So they were worried about the issue, but probably was not enough.

By the time of our independence, there was a theory down here called "branqueamento". By this theory the white people should mix with non-white and since the european dna was superior, eventually the whole population would become white and no african or native dna would be left.

Pic related.

Actually 1 out of 25 are of Scandinavian descent. If you only look at the white population it's much more of course.

nz is mostly irish and maori senpai

Blue balls from traveling for months i na shitty tiny boat famalam.

not really majority was consensual. It's just the narrative of rape fits better with the mutts that look up to their mothers and are incapable of assimilating the thought that they might be sluts.

It's a fertile land.
We're living on what was the most populated area of Europe from Neolithic to the 19th century.

No we didn't idiot. Slavery as been the way of economy since bronze age. Go back to school nigger.

They conquered India, Egypt and as few other big countries, Anglos in Egypt got deported after the revolution
Why no French, Germans, Portuguese etc settling in empty land then?
Meme?
They mostly mixed as well, French just wanted to rule but not settle
Yeah I said before, when I said Anglo i meant British isles
There was a lot of Germans there just didn't make up ruling class
Should have remained pure
But could have still settled elsewhere
60+% of uk emigrants were moving to Australia and Canada because of free land in the Victorian era

That's true, I wrote the viking motto more as a joke. Recent studies show that most inter-racial relations in colonial times were consensual and the men would take the native/african/mixed woman as a wife. But the narrative of slautering and raping the continenet fits better for the victimization obsession of leftists.

True but why no settlements without mixing?
Slave trade wasn't about race then though
I said Anglo as in all British isles I meant. NZ has lots of Scots

A lot were thrown out you know? Criminals and undesirables, religious refugees fleeing from hard line puritan rule. etc.

>True but why no settlements without mixing?
if only I had a say in that

>But it would be nice to know there's a decent sized Portuguese population elsewhere in the world outside Portugal though?

Kek, just in America and Canadá 1,5 million, the size of our second city

>Should have remained pure

Bro, if you were isolated in another planet, in the middle of some no-law land full of jungle with nothing but huts and farms to live and work, no hope to go back to civilization and no sighting of females of your own people. Instead, you have plentiful of pretty young native females around. What would you do? Really, what would you do? I am not passing any judgment, but I understand those guys.

>There has only ever been one Greek colony
>There have never been any Turkish colonies
The absolute state of that pic

MOST COLONIES PER CAPITA COMING TROUGH

BOW DOWN TO THE PORTUGUESE EMPIRE BLASTING DUTCH AND SPANISH CUNTS ALL OVER THE WORLD

cut my own balls for the white race

>North Africans colonizing central africans

yawn

why didn't you populate Africa?

the natives refused to mix with the anglos because of how ugly and homely english men are.

Yeah, puritans had a lot of influence in America too
Could be a much better world today
Yes but they're assimilating to wider American culture, not retaining Portuguese identity or creating Portuguese language communities
Anglos had the same situation in early America, and Francis drake tried to settle an Anglo colony on the western coast in the same condition, no mixing with natives though