Why did the Spaniards mix with the Natives while the English rarely did?

Why did the Spaniards mix with the Natives while the English rarely did?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLi0Fxfqtdk
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

English are fags

english had morals

The Native women couldn't resist the BMC (Big Med Cock)

Spaniards won their territories through conquest, right?
The Brits, at least in my cunts case, used diplomacy so they didn't send much bachelors towards us

Spaniards assimilated natives.

Mental retardation

LOS

Catholisicm

its a religious thing, I think you'll understand.

spaniards and moortugals = catholics
britbongs = protestants

Look up the population figures of XVI century Spain and the Incan and Aztec Empires, then look up the ones pertaining to XVII-XVIII century Britain and the tribal confederations of North America.

english were settlers, meaning they moved their as families and similar ratios of men to women.
spanish were conquerers, meaning it was mostly men moving to the new world.

Amerindians are Spaniards now.

Brits are cucks

What does religion have to do with it though?

This was all one great country and land before napoleon.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLi0Fxfqtdk

mostly Spanish people is horny as fuck

Brits were more soulless and their religion can't accept mix with another non-religious person

They don’t even look full native, they look like typical mestizos

Muh dik

The English and Irish fucked their way right through the abo populations in populated regions actually
The only full blooded abo I've ever seen was an aussie rules player they pulled from an abo only island in the north

was rape systematic?

This

The only reason you don't hear about them is because there never was that many abos in the first place

Probably, that's how colonisation goes unfortunately. There was no law out in the bush, you could do whatever the fuck you wanted.

Brits settled, Spanish conquered. We had actual colonists. Long term goal. New England was intended to be exactly that. A New England. The Spaniards just raped and pillaged their way through an entire continent. Shit tier colonies.

New Spain was superior to England.

Mexico might be annexed by the US if it doesnt unite with other Spainians.

wrong

Tell me how England or USA was better than New Spain.

I think the English went to colonize with their wives and women, then more and more people arrived of both sexes. Spaniards were male adventurers, generally single or didn't care about their wife in Iberia.

As very few women went non-married to the adventure of the "new world", the colonizers had kids with the natives, via marriages to legitimize their hold of land or via rape.

That's my hypothesis.

Last time I checked the settled British colonies didn't turn out to be third world cesspools. In fact they're the only ones that didn't. I'd argue Canada, Australia and New Zealand are even nicer places to live than Britain itself. Even today massive amounts of Brits move to these places. Can Spain say the same about it's ex-colonies?

Spaniards didn’t bring women with them.

their were too many natives in South America, they couldn't kill them all

Spanish people aren't in New Spain to provide the framework for the state, when Spanish people assimilated the others it was better living in New Spain than England or other English territories.

/thread

Spain had no colonies, New Spain was an integral province of Spanish nation, all Latin America should be given Spanish citizenship.

The english at first where mainly interested in hitting another aztec empire to fuck over and get rich, anything else from a bunch of tribesmen where not interested. That meant when they didn't find them, they weren't interested in sending soldiers to conquer shit that is worthless as far as they where concern.

That meant it was open season on both sides to go apeshit on each other, meaning they learn to hate each other to a greater degree than before and contrary to popular beliefs, you dont do much loving and fucking when both sides openly hate and avoid each other. That carry on throughout the generations (specially on the english/american colonist that would last for hundreds of years).

>I think the English went to colonize with their wives and women
Nope, first english ships that were meant to colonize was an all out sausage party and where lead by corporations and mainly where 3rd/4th sons from rich families who would inherit nothing. They thought they would hit it big like the spanish and have their own mansions in the new world like daddy gave big bro.

Majority of the colonists die to disease, hunger, and native attacks.

It wasn't much, much, much later on when the corporations where kicked out by the monarchy because that was their entire plan and started to advertise to bring families to the colonies as a way to stop the spanish expansion.

Jesus Christ. No wonder South America is such a shithole. Treating uneducated peasant natives as equals is Africa-tier reasoning.

Wrong...

Spaniards and tugas were used to brown and black folks, while the average br*t would be amazed to see a nigger.

Brit works fine, I can't remember something going wrong were the eternal anglo tou.. Oh wait, 2 fucking world wars and the whole mid east thing...

But abbos are the ugliest people I have ever seen. I wouldn't fuck an abbo if there was naked. I find it heard to believe there was a mass rape of those people

Jews and Germans aren't British.

>It wasn't much, much, much later on when the corporations where kicked out by the monarchy because that was their entire plan and started to advertise to bring families to the colonies as a way to stop the spanish expansion.

Then, how was the whole "puritan" thing? I thought they abandoned UK on their will because reasons.

>mixing with the Abos
I wonder how they was looking

There were no North American women to speak of because they all died of the fucking plague, but the English did fugg what remained of them pretty hard. Just take the simple fact a good portion of white Americans have native ancestry

Yeah, I mean, everything went so well for the African natives once the civilized and industrialized UK came along.

You see they ugly because actually they live in a 5th world

I think Abos back in the day would've looked more attractive or at least so in the way that they'd have somewhat athletic bodies; look at some mid-late 20th century photos of tribal niggers and a lot of their wimmen are fuggable simply by virtue of their extremely fit bodies from gathering & helping out hunt sometimes or some shit. I preusme the same applied for abos until our lovely govt threw just enough money at them to be obese

Africa wasn't settled on a large scale though. And there were too many subhuman natives. They were possessions, to be exploited. Not the same as the actual colonies you see in North America and Australia.

>what is shell
It all started because of that damm railway and petroleum...

It all because anglos are greedy

That was much, much later. Different migration waves. The very first colonies where a complete failure and mostly a death trap for retards. Second big wave where mostly poor fucks who sold themselves as legal slaves (servants) and actually did the heavy lifting. Third wave was when the families started to arrive and the english crown started to manage land rights in the colonies. The fourth and big wave where the rejects from europe (religious cases, people in debt, fleeing jail, avoiding wars, etc).

Hmmm... wow, I never thought the migration as a series of waves. Interesting, thanks for the info, I will do a little research about it.

Spain had archeticts, builders, sewes, cities, roads, schools, hospitals, libraries and such in new spain there was no exploitation colony, every city in latin america was built by spain over 300 years.

that is basically the united states in a nutshell. One after another, after another, after another immigration waves.

>I never thought the migration as a series of waves
That's what it's always always been for most groups except blacks and Indians.

Not exactly. Everyone was a subject of the Castillan crown, but they were government differently.

There were the "República de Españoles" for the Spanish born and the "República de Indias" that governed natives and mestizos. (I can't remember which one was for "Criollos"), they weren't actual republics, it was just a place where the important (or noble) people discussed and decided what to do at the local level.

Remember that up until the 18th Century, we can't talk about "nation-states" in the way that we do today. Such political entity was not entirely formed.

Spanish state had no discriminatorial laws for races, Mestizos occupied highest government posistions including Hernan Corteses Hernans wife an Amerindian was priviliged.

> Belize
> Jamaica
> Bangladesh
> Yemen
> Guyana
It wasn't just Africa. Every place that Britain touched where the locals weren't holocausted and replaced by white immigrants became a cesspool. Even places like Sri Lanka where the genocide did happen, but in a smaller scale than e.g. Tasmania or Massachusetts, have not improved as a result of the eternal Anglo civilising mission.

>Every place that Britain touched where the locals weren't holocausted and replaced by white immigrants became a cesspool
Right, but you've got to admit that was a fairly successful strategy where it was used.

the English brought women formed legit colonies and the Encomienda colonization system of the Spaniards just consisted in sending male criminals (that would otherwise spend their lifetime on jail) on boats to rape and plunder all they could as fast as they could

Yes, you are correct in a way, there was no "discrimination" in the modern sense, the modern concept about "race" and some being superior or inferior didn't come until Darwin and the evolution theories in the 19th century. The question was about if natives had souls or not. Isabella of Castilla already declared that they had souls and thus they had to be converted to Christianity.

But also remember that there were different moments in the colonization process (well, at least in today's Mexico), first, the Encomienda, where there is a mass land grabbing for all the conquistadores, even the native allies that helped to defeat the Aztecs were granted some lands in what's today Tamaulipas but also the period of overexploitation of the natives as forced labor. Then, as the natives started to die off en masse, the "Repartición" starts and the important thing is to distribute people, not land, the first African slaves are brought in to work in the mines, I think there is a period also, but it "ends" with the Hacienda system.

Every system had its particularities about government and status of the natives, I mean, those were 300 years of colonialism, lot's of change happened in the society and government in that time.

Depends if genocide them gets you a good result, look at places where spain pretty much wiped out the natives (mainly caribbean). The majority are still shitholes.

How incorrect you are, many engineers, scientists, scholars and such were in New Spain.

weird that there aren't that many blacks in mexico if the spanish brought so many.

Cortes married into Amerindian long before the monarchy declared anything.

Had the monarchy made an enemy of Amerindians he would have drawn the ire of Cortes and the conquistadores.

There are in Guerrero state, "classic" independence heroes like Jose María Morelos and Vicente Guerrero had some African blood.

Until recently there were no classified by the census, just put inside the "mestizos" group. Also, lot's of them died in the silver mines.

I'm afraid that's not the case. Since Christopher Columbus found "the indias" Isabella dictated that all that people had souls. In fact, one of the reasons because Columbus was arrested and died in a dungeon it was because he started to enslave some of the people of the Caribean (as he didn't found enough gold or species to pay off his debts) and Isabella didn't like that, so he stopped being favored by her.

By the time Cortes married La Malinche, it was already a common practice to do so in Cuba and La Hispañola. Also, his marriage was to give him some kind of authority over the newly subjugated people.

Who else here a New Spain boo

>By the time Cortes married La Malinche

Me brainlet, he married one of the daughters of Moctezuma. I can't remember her name.

That's because the people living there are the descendants of slaves. The state of ex colonies today reflects what their original purpose was.

Yes and gis sons and wife all were priviliged, independists are all traitorous agents, I have no loyalty to the monarchy but Spanish nation.

The Spanish nation is free of feudalism and its glorious republic should be in union with the Spanish states.

what?

Mexico should be Spanish citizens and part of the Spanish state sane with the rest of Spanish Americas.

> free of feudalism
Some of the biggest political problems we have today are because feudal rights in certain provinces were practiced for too long.

I don't think they would like that.

Also, the independentist movement in 1810 was against:

1) The bourbonic (sp) reforms
2) The usurpation of José Bonaparte

When Miguel Hidalgo called to start the fight, one of his proclamation was "Death to the bad government, long live Felipe VII". After he retreated to Jalisco he was followed by a girl dressed as a man and with short hair (daughter of one of the Spaniards that he had sent to kill) and people thought that the girl was, in fact, Felipe VII himself.

Once Felipe VII was back in the throne, the whole movement kind of died out a little, only Vicente Guerrero continued to fight in the state that now bears his name. Then, after everyone got tired of Felipe VII antics, they declared independence but asked Spain and Europe in general for someone of royal blood to be the new Emperor of Mexico. As no one did, because doing so was to declare war on Spain or admit the independence, Iturbide declared himself Emperor.

But as the other caudillos were not going to accept a "criollo" without noble blood as ruler and also, because they wanted to become rulers themselves, they staged a coup and became a republic, later executed Iturbide. Then they shared turns into being presidents.

Fernando VII, user, not Felipe.

Also, most Mexicans were staunch conservatives and royalists and fought Hidalgo's movement at the beginning, until the Riego rebellion in 1820. Riego and his followers were liberals, and seen by conservatives in Europe and America as godless SJWs who were the incarnation of Robespierre, so conservative Mexicans (and Peruvians, for instance) switched sides against the crown. No more soldiers were sent from European Spain to the independence wars since that event, which turned the tide decisively for Latin American rebels.

>Fernando VII, user, not Felipe.

Ostia, tío, te he fallado a ti y a la madre patria ( ._.)

Central and south America had densely populated civilized areas. The north was sparsely populated.

reminder the abos come from india originally

this is also true, they're physically unable to handle western diets and get absolutely hooked on sugar.

is this only in reference to America?

our colonial fleets were very mixed since most convicts were married and had families that came over with them

abos are exceptionally ugly, but you've got to remember a substantial part of our initial population were criminals that probably wouldn't think twice about a bit of rape

The English never really gave a fuck about developing them, they were just there to be exploited. Bangladesh is a shithole mostly because of environmental conditions too.

As far as colonies that the English did develop and not actively try to fuck over goes, it's
>Canada
>Australia
>New Zealand
>South Africa
>Zimbabwe
>Namibia (via South Africa)

Most of those are fairly developed places, South Africa is easily the best sub saharan country and Zimbabwe used to be one of the most rapidly developing and rich regions in Africa.

There's plenty of colonies that, while poor, aren't necessarily shitholes. Look at Fiji for instance.

>the girl on the right
muh dick

>where the locals weren't holocausted and replaced by white immigrants became a cesspool
Also what did you mean by this?

There was never any holocaust of the natives by the English in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia or New Zealand at any stage while under English rule. I'm not familiar with Canadian history, so I won't comment on them though.

Would you rather live in Latin America or Africa/India?

>pic
Very loaded question

Latin America if it's Argentina or Chile. Argentina was essentially Australia but in South America until it got fucked over by shitty administration.

Any other part of latin America and I'd much rather go back to South Africa or live in India

Fuck these girls are perfect

Australian dumb fuck education right here. No wonder this country is fucked.

Point out when a genocide ever happened to the abo population.

Tasmania was not a genocide by the way

You're particularly stupid. The only thing that needs to be pointed out is how much of a dumb fuck you are.

Me btfo