Poll of the Day > Why are Spanish nation of imperialism so poor, but english and french wealthy

(+) Yeah! (+)

English did it the best in terms of imperialism, but why is it.. French and English are usually wealthy, north america example wise... Why are the spaniards always poor. South America is poor. Spain is probably ok.

But why though? Is it the anglo saxon culture that helped it stay rich

Scloud posted...

English did it the best in terms of imperialism, but why is it.. French and English are usually wealthy, north america example wise... Why are the spaniards always poor. South America is poor. Spain is probably ok.

But why though? Is it the anglo saxon culture that helped it stay rich

It's because Spain makes it illegal to work more than 40 hours so nobody's motivated.
---

Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, was taken over by France in the 1600.

The Dominican Republic, which shares the same island, was colonized by the Spanish.

The British colonized Malawi, which is the poorest African nation.

The Spanish colonized Morocco, which has a top 5 GDP on that continent.

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think your generalization is as accurate as you think.
---

kangolcone posted...

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think your generalization is as accurate as you think.

Or it's general, so it comfortably ignores your few and specific points.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think your generalization is as accurate as you think.

Or it's general, so it comfortably ignores your few and specific points.

Wait is Morroco doing well? Dont they have crime problems in that country

Scloud posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think your generalization is as accurate as you think.

Or it's general, so it comfortably ignores your few and specific points.

Wait is Morroco doing well? Dont they have crime problems in that country

I figured you didn't realise that 5th Best GDP in Africa is like Smartest Kid in Remedial Studies.
---

^
So edge, much glass
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think your generalization is as accurate as you think.

Or it's general, so it comfortably ignores your few and specific points.

Well, I suppose you could name the former British colonies that are wealthy today, and then the former British colonies that are poor today, and then you could run a comparison to so see which really is the rule and which ones really are the exceptions. Seeing as how you consign all African states to the trashcan of poverty, it should be an interesting comparison.
---

Scloud posted...

Wait is Morroco doing well? Dont they have crime problems in that country

Yes. I believe it's one of the four countries around the world where crime has gotten so bad that they've had to create a police force and a judicial system to handle it.
---

The Spanish Empire was the OG New World imperialist, but when they empire collapsed... it collapsed hard.

Funkdamental posted...

it's one of the four countries around the world where crime has gotten so bad that they've had to create a police force and a judicial system to handle it

What... what do you think police and the judicial system is for?
---

I have always wondered why the US tries to treat "Hispanics" as some sort of disadvantaged minority, when they descend from white European colonizers, just like most of the "white" people do.

shadowsword87 posted...

Funkdamental posted...

it's one of the four countries around the world where crime has gotten so bad that they've had to create a police force and a judicial system to handle it

What... what do you think police and the judicial system is for?

You have fallen into the Saar Chasm. You hear the whooshing sound of a wild joak flying overhead. Exits are N and W. How do you proceed?
---

has tc ever read a book ?
---

adjl posted...

You have fallen into the Saar Chasm. You hear the whooshing sound of a wild joak flying overhead. Exits are N and W. How do you proceed?

Check items.
---

streamofthesky posted...

I have always wondered why the US tries to treat "Hispanics" as some sort of disadvantaged minority, when they descend from white European colonizers, just like most of the "white" people do.

I assume it's a judgement based on their social and economic status in the United States, rather than in their countries of origin. Surely it's perfectly possible to be disadvantaged in more than one country, or to be a minority? But, point taken about why there are Spanish-speakers in the Americas in the first place. I still chuckle when I hear Argentine rants about "British colonialism" over the Falklands/Malvinas. Sorry, but how come you're in Argentina and speaking Spanish, again?

I also find it a shade ironic that Americans are (I guess) more likely to sympathize with nationalities -- such as the Irish -- who have a tradition of anti-colonial struggle against British rule, on account of American national identity being bound up with anti-British rebellion. I say it's a shade ironic, because the English colonial settlers in North America who eventually rebelled against the Crown were in fact little different to the English colonial settlers in Ireland who stayed loyal to the Crown; both groups sailed across the sea to build new lives for themselves on foreign land stolen from uppity natives, who had to be kept at bay and in their place by gunpowder, steel and the rope. I'd say there's a certain moral complexity in castigating the evils of British imperialism when your entire country is one of the fruits of British imperialism.
---

The english created modern India so it all kind of evens out.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Scloud posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think your generalization is as accurate as you think.

Or it's general, so it comfortably ignores your few and specific points.

Wait is Morroco doing well? Dont they have crime problems in that country

I figured you didn't realise that 5th Best GDP in Africa is like Smartest Kid in Remedial Studies.

But those are arabs

Kyuubi4269 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think your generalization is as accurate as you think.

Or it's general, so it comfortably ignores your few and specific points.

As opposed to his specific point that the US and Canada are financially better off than South America without ever generalizing to other countries?

What exactly is general about that?
---

Funkdamental posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think your generalization is as accurate as you think.

Or it's general, so it comfortably ignores your few and specific points.

Well, I suppose you could name the former British colonies that are wealthy today, and then the former British colonies that are poor today, and then you could run a comparison to so see which really is the rule and which ones really are the exceptions. Seeing as how you consign all African states to the trashcan of poverty, it should be an interesting comparison.

Or we ignore a poor comparison and look at how successful colonies were based on how much they took on their ruler's culture. I know in at least one case a country asked for independence, were granted it freely, then turned to shit and asked for English rule again.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I know in at least one case a country asked for independence, were granted it freely, then turned to shit and asked for English rule again.

Which country was that? I know there were a few voices in India that called for a return to the status quo ante amid the chaos and violence of Partition.

The terms "colonialism" and "imperialism" tend to be used interchangeably, and that's not always helpful. The most successful former British colonies are precisely that: colonies, in which white settlement was massive, outnumbering and largely displacing the indigenous population. In such cases, successes aren't a testament to the virtues and wisdom of British administration but to how completely the settler population managed to simply transplant its own culture.

Some of the lessons that imperial rule taught Britain's former overseas subjects haven't always been the right ones. What Kenyans would have learned, for instance, was that you should set out to destroy efficient economic competition that threatens inefficient enterprises, by:

- expropriating your competitors' land;
- penning populations into too-small reserves;
- limiting your competitors' right to own livestock;
- crippling your competitors' agricultural trade by banning them by law from raising the most profitable cash crops;
- forcing tenant farmers to sell their produce to their employers (who are generously subsidised by the state -- at the expense of African taxpayers, with Europeans themselves paying no direct income tax at all until 1936) at prices averaging less than half of market value.

Those were all measures that white settler farmers in Kenya -- acknowledged by the colonial administration to be less efficient and more wasteful than native farmers -- managed to force through in their highly successful bid to turn the Kikuyu from independent producers into cheap wage labour for white-owned plantations. That's the shining example that British colonialism set. Do you think it was a lesson learned well?
---

It's not really fair to compare the most successful "modern" empires to the one they replaced, honestly. It's probably got a lot to do with governmental structuring. The British had a better setup than everyone else and prospered for it. The French took a bit to catch up, but they still did. Spain never managed to have that and it trickled down.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

adjl posted...

You have fallen into the Saar Chasm. You hear the whooshing sound of a wild joak flying overhead. Exits are N and W. How do you proceed?

Check items.

You have 3 socks and 1 plain bagel.

How do you proceed?
---

Scloud posted...

English did it the best in terms of imperialism, but why is it.. French and English are usually wealthy, north america example wise... Why are the spaniards always poor. South America is poor. Spain is probably ok.

But why though? Is it the anglo saxon culture that helped it stay rich

Its in the genes.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

You have 3 socks and 1 plain bagel.
How do you proceed?

Eat sock, put bagel on feet.
---

streamofthesky posted...

I have always wondered why the US tries to treat "Hispanics" as some sort of disadvantaged minority, when they descend from white European colonizers, just like most of the "white" people do.

Part of it has to do with the founding colonizers, etc. There was never a rigid hierarchy in the English controlled like the Spanish ones. Also, the U.S. won their independence pretty much at he height of British power. The colonies were fairly wealthy and had little meddling from England until after the 7 Years War. The Spanish ones pretty much rebelled as the Spanish Empire was collapsing and weren't really as competitively wealthy or resource rich as in the U.S.

kangolcone posted...

The British colonized Malawi, which is the poorest African nation.

Wouldn't that be Belgium and Kongo respectively?
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

You have 3 socks and 1 plain bagel.
How do you proceed?

Eat sock, put bagel on feet.

Put bagel in sock, use it to blackjack someone
---

Funkdamental posted...

Scloud posted...

Wait is Morroco doing well? Dont they have crime problems in that country

Yes. I believe it's one of the four countries around the world where crime has gotten so bad that they've had to create a police force and a judicial system to handle it.

Lmao
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

kangolcone posted...

The British colonized Malawi, which is the poorest African nation.

Wouldn't that be Belgium and Kongo respectively?

The area of Africa now known as Malawi was settled by migrating Bantu groups around the 10th century. Centuries later in 1891 the area was colonised by the British.

Malawi has the lowest GDP per capita. I'm sure in other measures, other countries might be poorer. Just one that I found quickly.
---

kangolcone posted...

Malawi has the lowest GDP per capita.

Very much depends which dataset you use: the World Development Indicators, the Penn World Tables, or the datasets of Angus Maddison. Those are the three major sources of national income data. They differ in the modifications they use, the purchasing adjustments they use, and according to their currencies. And when it comes to Africa, they don't often agree as to which states fall into the lowest or highest categories. In 2010 for example, Angola, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo-Brazzaville, Nigeria and Zambia all made leaps of more than 10 places in the GDP rankings from one source to another!

In short: treat these stats with caution.
---

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I have always wondered why the US tries to treat "Hispanics" as some sort of disadvantaged minority, when they descend from white European colonizers, just like most of the "white" people do.

Part of it has to do with the founding colonizers, etc. There was never a rigid hierarchy in the English controlled like the Spanish ones. Also, the U.S. won their independence pretty much at he height of British power. The colonies were fairly wealthy and had little meddling from England until after the 7 Years War. The Spanish ones pretty much rebelled as the Spanish Empire was collapsing and weren't really as competitively wealthy or resource rich as in the U.S.

I don't know if I agree with this...
We only beat Britain to win independence with the help of France, while they were preoccupied on multiple other continents.
Mexico defeated Spain and France in different wars, and supposedly the U.S. was the presumed "underdog" going into the war w/ Mexico over Texas.