Spain started out in front when it came to colonizing, but they didn?t fair nearly as well as England. This happened despite better treatment of the natives in the Americas. Some scholars blame bad propaganda for this, but were there other reasons? Why didn?t Spain faire as well as England in the colonial campaigns?
Their reasons for colonising were different throughout the Americas. England sent settlers to found colonies, but these new colonies in turn provided through indentured servitude a means for the displaced populations in England or those suffering from the continuous wars of religion to turn over a new leaf. Spain, on the other hand, had been fortunate enough to find those lands rich in natural resources and so their colonies centred around large urban centres like Mexico and Bogota with the purpose of administering the extraction of gold and other resources for shipping back to Spain. This is a very broad sweeping generalisation but I think it's fairly accurate. As for what went wrong in the colonies in the 19th century, see the American Revolutionary War and then Simon Bolivar and Latin American independence. Its other colonies of the Philippines and Guam were lost at the end of the 19th century in the Spanish-American War. There are many factors for why Spain lost control of its colonies and it would be inappropriate to only say that they followed what the American colonies did.As for how they treated the natives, they were labelled as "Black Spain" perhaps for a valid reason, but to say that England's colonies treated them better would not be true. Many native tribes likely got along very well with English settlers, like in early Pennsylvania, but they would always be pushed westwards eventually, and very often were the victims of massacre by the settlers.Also you can argue that England did not fare as well as Spain since they lost control of the Americas and India, which had a large population and fed directly into the British mercantilism system, not to mention vast territories, meaning that their losses were proportionally larger than Spain's. Spain lost essentially all of South America, but they had already shipped most of its gold to the mother country, and although they lost almost an entire continent they had not populated it and had not turned to agricultural cash crops like in British America to make it as valuable.
Thanks, garbanzo. Yes, I suppose if Spain had put more emphasis on agriculture, and also on the industrial revolution, their colonies would have been more inclined to stay with them. Instead, they chose to mine precious metals so they could buy what they needed. The reason I say that the British fared better is because some of their colonies willingly chose to stay with them. Even a place like Hong Kong, which had a tiny British population, wasn't eager to break ties. I would even say that if Puerto Rico and Guam were offered the choice of returning to Spain they would choose to stay with the US, which makes me believe that Spain did not provide growth opportunities for their colonies. skiguy, I'm not sure I quite follow? I'll look into the readings garbanzo suggested and maybe I'll understand, but I just think that the colonies were places to make profits from. Sure, investments needed to be made, but the advantages to be had made them worthwhile.
Thanks, garbanzo. Yes, I suppose if Spain had put more emphasis on agriculture, and also on the industrial revolution, their colonies would have been more inclined to stay with them. Instead, they chose to mine precious metals so they could buy what they needed. The reason I say that the British fared better is because some of their colonies willingly chose to stay with them. Even a place like Hong Kong, which had a tiny British population, wasn't eager to break ties. I would even say that if Puerto Rico and Guam were offered the choice of returning to Spain they would choose to stay with the US, which makes me believe that Spain did not provide growth opportunities for their colonies. skiguy, I'm not sure I quite follow? I'll look into the readings garbanzo suggested and maybe I'll understand, but I just think that the colonies were places to make profits from. Sure, investments needed to be made, but the advantages to be had made them worthwhile.
No problem jake, I think it's an interesting question with many possible explanations. One reason why I feel that some places might have wanted to remain under the sovereignty of the British Empire (like here in Canada up until WWII mostly, with the exception of Quebec) was because of the belief that British subjects were the 'free-est men on earth' and enjoyed the trade benefits with which it could bring. I would definitely put British North America under this category even during the eve of the Revolution, where the first congress would still toast to George III. But this is not to say that Spanish colonialists would have said or done differently, this is the area of which I am uncertain. I am convinced, however, that the major motivation for settling from both nations differed greatly despite having some similarities, but the major difference that comes to my mind is that of religion. Spain, being officially a Roman Catholic state and having just expulsed its Jews and Muslims prior to settling the Americas did not have its settlers coming over as a result of religious strife (at least to my knowledge) whereas for many English settlers this was certainly a cause.
Yeah, now the Inquisition is something Spanish people don't like to talk about, putting it off as a bad fad, but I think it did more harm to them than they're willing to admit.
A 400 year “fad” ended by Napoleon's force of arms. It stifled the growth of science and commerce. Thanks to the Inquisition, home industries declined. All its wealth from the New World went into fighting wars vs. France and to save the Austrian habsburgs in the 17th century and paying high prices for imports because no home industries existed due to the expulsion of the Jews in 1492 and the Moriscos in 1609, plus the never-ending hounding of conversos and new-Christians. 15,000 new-Christian families fled Spain from 1643-1665 during the reign of Diego Arce Reynoso as Inquisitor General acording to his biographer.