Why did Canada and the US thrive compared to Spanish/Portuguese former colonies in the Americas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

[Anonymous]

Also, the reason why british got an upper hand is that British had access to HUGE Indian resources but not the Spanish or French. In hind sight, France shouldn't have sold LOUISIANA Territory to use the cash to fight the Russian war in Europe and war with British in India. The French not only lost 1/3 of USA but also lost the war with Russia and Lost to the Brits in India. Terrible move France.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

If you say so. Your facts are nicely chosen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Protestant work ethic. Asian people also tend to have a hard work ethic. How many asian Catholics do you know? I know none, but assume there may be a few out there.

Combine that with tropical diseases and heat, which is a problem the South had before air conditioning..

I know plenty. Goans, Koreans...

Has nothing to do with religion.

-signed a life long Asian protestant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But.... the British colonized so much of Africa, why isn't it doing better????!!!

I'm waiting for OP to answer this, too.

OP, please learn so European history, then come back to this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

If you say so. Your facts are nicely chosen.

You need to stop believing the myth the white man built to hide all the atrocities committed while making it seam like Europeans are advanced because they are smarter. That is nothing but bull as can be seen by the mighty UK built on PLUNDER is now just reduced to being a small island nation.

This is going to be how the world economy will look like by 2030 as per pwc. China at the top followed by US and India very close to each other with UK on the way out of top 10 and France outside the top 10.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-pwc-predicts-the-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-2017-2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Protestant work ethic, low corruption and rule of law as well as a primarily European demographic though Argentina was one of the weathiest countries in the world a hundred years ago and predominantly European dervived.

The same old lies again and again. There is nothing called protestant work ethic. Every culture works hard depending socio-economic factors not religious or racial. How did Japan with buddhist work ethic still kick some protestant ass? Or the modern day Koreans or Chinese or Indians? How is Germany(50% catholic) and France(mostly catholic) doing just as well?

So now with the rise of China and India, what happened to the protestant work ethic? Have the whites become lazy? China is the largest economy today. Does it make Chinese the hardest workers and make TAOIST/Buddhist work ethic the best? Asians in Americans are the most successful and many actually consider whites to be lazy. What happened to the famous protestant work ethic? Its just a lie. The generation of whites who grew up in relative comfort are lazy today compared to Asian Americans. Thats all.

I'm the PP you're responding too.

Yes, WASPs are no longer the dominant group in the USA in terms of business leadership, politics, media, culture and demographics. Germans, followed by Hispanics are the two largest ethnic groups in the country. Wealth made them lazy and they have been outcompeted by hungrier newcomers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Protestant work ethic. Asian people also tend to have a hard work ethic. How many asian Catholics do you know? I know none, but assume there may be a few out there.

Combine that with tropical diseases and heat, which is a problem the South had before air conditioning..

Explain Canada.

Also France (in the 17th-18th centuries)

And Spain in the 16th-18th centuries

Canada, pre-confederation days was ruled by the British having conquered and colonized it. British institutions and law run much of the country rather than French, the same for cultural habits. Canadian, English and Scottish ethnicity outnumber french ethnicity. If you doubt it, the Canadian penchant for politeness doesn't come from their French heritage. Ethnic British and French outnumbered the native population leading to their success. You will note that I mentioned Argentina, there are plenty of comparisons between Argentina and Canada from 100 years back when they had similar numbers of people.

France's colonies were politically dominated by the French, but they didn't have enough immigration to become the numerically dominant ethnic group outside of their North American colonies.

Spain never had enough immigration, and like the French, their colonists instead became overseers that often rule to this day in many of their former colonies.

You're confusing military dominance with culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jamaica. English-speaking failure. Same for Belize. Sierra Leone? A mess. Thanks, English.

Different demographics than the North American colonies. South Africa is probably the only exception that worked out when British Colonists weren't in the numerical majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jamaica. English-speaking failure. Same for Belize. Sierra Leone? A mess. Thanks, English.

Different demographics than the North American colonies. South Africa is probably the only exception that worked out when British Colonists weren't in the numerical majority.

Sounds mildly racist. But that’s the whole premise of this thread, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jamaica. English-speaking failure. Same for Belize. Sierra Leone? A mess. Thanks, English.

Different demographics than the North American colonies. South Africa is probably the only exception that worked out when British Colonists weren't in the numerical majority.

Oops, you forgot that giant of a country called India. British was nothing without Indian resources.

[Anonymous]

I read somewhere the difference between the outcomes of the North American and South American colonies are the types of natural resources available in each area. South America had a lot of gold and was used as the financial source for the Spanish and Portuguese wars. Therefore, they did not spend a lot of time building infrastructure and establishing roots in their colonies. This isn't the case in North America where gold wasn't discovered until the US became independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read somewhere the difference between the outcomes of the North American and South American colonies are the types of natural resources available in each area. South America had a lot of gold and was used as the financial source for the Spanish and Portuguese wars. Therefore, they did not spend a lot of time building infrastructure and establishing roots in their colonies. This isn't the case in North America where gold wasn't discovered until the US became independent.

Conversely, the difference is the type of colonists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read somewhere the difference between the outcomes of the North American and South American colonies are the types of natural resources available in each area. South America had a lot of gold and was used as the financial source for the Spanish and Portuguese wars. Therefore, they did not spend a lot of time building infrastructure and establishing roots in their colonies. This isn't the case in North America where gold wasn't discovered until the US became independent.

That could be part of it. But in general, I don't know why humans want one single reason for complex events in history. There are always multiple complex factors at play. Humans or human history didn't evolve linearly. It is far too complicated to make it simplistic to the point of being a one word answer for centuries of history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

If you say so. Your facts are nicely chosen.

You need to stop believing the myth the white man built to hide all the atrocities committed while making it seam like Europeans are advanced because they are smarter. That is nothing but bull as can be seen by the mighty UK built on PLUNDER is now just reduced to being a small island nation.

This is going to be how the world economy will look like by 2030 as per pwc. China at the top followed by US and India very close to each other with UK on the way out of top 10 and France outside the top 10.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-pwc-predicts-the-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-2017-2

If you have a lot of people, you should have a larger economy. Are there enough resources for them to have western levels of consumption? Probably not. Western consumption is why smaller populations are able to have larger economies.

China is resource restricted. They are ranked 140 for arable land per person. That's not enough for western levels of food, in particular meat. India is ranked 105. In China's case, it is why Chinese companies are buying up land and companies abroad so that they can feed their own population.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Arable-land/Hectares-per-capita

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-feeding-china/