The biggest tragedy is that these countries were not colonized by England, but instead by Spaniards

The biggest tragedy is that these countries were not colonized by England, but instead by Spaniards.

Imagine how different the world would be if the entire new world was like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

Attached: 245C0462-3BB5-4244-BBFD-E822BF2F7428.png (220x220, 27.26K)

>anglos be like: natives yeah genocide them all

Wouldn't have changed much desu, maybe less indios but nothing else

You’re telling me the Anglo model of colonization wouldn’t have changed the outcome?

That's not really how that went. The Anglos did not actively pursue extermination, but they set up parallel societies that had no place for the natives and then gradually pushed them out of the land. Spanish integrated with the natives more, for better or for worse.

uruguay and chile are firstworld, south brazil is german and argentina was first world. Ecuador is doing well too.

Anglos moved and relocated natives in the Americas, or assimilated them. They rarely if ever just straight up killed them.

South America is a jungle shithole, rough terrain and very expensive to maintain when your nation is 12000km away

Explain India.

It probably would have led to us keeping slavery longer for sugar plantations in Brasil
West African colonies would be close by, as would cape colony. I doubt we would expand into the jungle. Most colonisation would take place on the more hospitable coast

that's a very soulless world

the biggest tragedy was no kill the cumskins at the moment they got off the ships

Belize and Jamaica are right there chief

If you actually bothered to read some documents/records of it, you wouldn't be spouting this overdone meme

How comes every protestant colony is a first world country and every catholic colony is a corrupt third world shithole?

>This bullshit talking point AGAIN.
English ex-colonies are all successful if you conveniently ignore the 90% of them that are absolute utter shitholes. Sure, the starving villages of India, GUYANA, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria are a beacon of civilization, am I right?

You're comparing apples to oranges, because the conditions for colonialism were radically different. North America, Australia and New Zealand were mostly unpopulated other than for a few tribes here and there.
The rest of the continent had established civilizations, with capital cities that are believed to have had MILLIONS of inhabitants at their peak. Extremely dense jungles that were hard to settle in too.

I won't reply to any (You)s because I'm honestly tired of trying to talk some sense into you people.

Attached: 1611872049261.png (900x860, 586K)

There is no difference between Argentina and Australia except who colonised them

Protestant work ethic (work until you kill yourself for stress) vs Catholic (wait until the Protestant dies and steal all his wagie money

Nigeria is fine for african standards, barbados and bahamas are probably the only two succesfuls effectively black countries on earth
Kenya, ghana, botswana and south africa are the richest countries in all of subsaharan africa
Singapore is the best sea country.
Uruguay, a meme creation of lord ponsomby, and chile, the biggest anglo bootlicker of the continent are the only two almost decent countries in south america.
New zealand has half of its native population alive and with government rights besides mixed with anglos to a extent, better treatment than any of the natives in south america ever received.

Realistically, anglos simply did the best colonies for each continent standards and im not even trying to be flattering
You suck

iberians are just really really lazy and only wanted to racemix

Demographics changed.

Anglos genocided all native tasmanians and that was much more recent of course your historians are going to paint a different story as to what happened

Why tho? Iberians came in cucked the indio of their wife and gold and then left, no point in developing such a continent

Spaniard genocided most natives from the patagonia.

Way to shift the blame

What this world needs is fewer Anglosajones.

This probably isn't true. Look at our South and Central American colonies Belize and Guyana. Hardly first world paradises

Not a blame shift, just that you are not much better by that metrics, you simply were more rapey, you displaced everyone and destroyed their subsistence methods, those that resisted got genocided, those that don't became basically slaves under the care of plantations owners or were recluded to shitty lands where nothing grew perpetuating them in poverty while privatizing and estatizing their former homelands.

I am really really lazy and I only want to racemix.
Argentina used to be the most prosperous country of Latin America when it was >95% Euro-descendent.
It's not our fault your country failed to defend its borders and let in millions of brownoids and mestizos to suck it dry.

I just checked and Argentina has been independent for over 200 years. NOT OUR FUCKING PROBLEM.

Attached: 86419b8eb1f305aae84d397332d213fc.jpg (850x1784, 222.8K)

This. They'd work the natives in the mines till death. The only reason it wasn't done in North America is because the native population couldn't be effectively enslaved.