Was the Spanish "colonization" a good thing?

[Queue]

delete

[Queue]

You have a point, happened same with Mexico city In 1793 Spaniards were the majority like 50% Of population, I'm sure all cities In Latin America were majority Spanish and mestizo.

Cities were mostly non-natives. Natives didn't really move to the cities until the 20th century, long after Independence. Back then, pretty much everything sucked, including the cities (really filthy) unless you were wealthy. Actually in Mesoamerica, the natives quite often would abandon the mission/town centers the Spaniards/church created because you were better off taking your chances in the jungle if you were a native and that is why most native people are still rural/mountain folks til this day.

[Incal]

Do I have to write everything literally so you can understand? By jungle or wherever I meant they could have stayed in their settlements/villages in the Andes instead of flocking to Spanish cities.

The point is besides Lima and Cuzco very few places could be considered proper cities. They had subdivisions called Corregimientos or Audiencias among others. But anyway, the main point is that natives were not crazy to flock to the Spanish to get some Iberian love lol they were forced to move to the mines where they worked and were taxed to death.

Why do you think they moved ? Same reason why Lima has millions of natives now, search for better living conditions/future.

NOW. If -as we were originally debating- Iberians had created their own cities/lands/states without "employing" natives (as the Anglos did and that's one of the huge differences between both) there would be almost no natives in Lima.

[Hasien]

Cities were mostly non-natives. Natives didn't really move to the cities until the 20th century, long after Independence. Back then, pretty much everything sucked, including the cities (really filthy) unless you were wealthy. Actually in Mesoamerica, the natives quite often would abandon the mission/town centers the Spaniards/church created because you were better off taking your chances in the jungle if you were a native and that is why most native people are still rural/mountain folks til this day.

Agree even In early Mexico city up to 1960s had more whites then current population.









Also Mexico looked more prosperous and less corrupt.

[luc2112]

Agree even In early Mexico city up to 1960s had more whites then current population.









Also Mexico looked more prosperous and less corrupt.

Rio de janeiro-Brazil is similar more whiter in the past:

[Annie999]

She basically wrote that is better to be exterminated than becoming a 2nd class citizen (wich is Nature's fault because of their average low IQ).

Interesting to see there are so many supporters of mass genocide and complete population replacement like they did in North America yet it was never seen an Iberian writing such aberrations.

You know what? The more I know others and their real opinions the more I become convinced that we are much better, more humanist and kind hearted than all these hypocrite genocidal creeps. I don't like them !

Im not a supporter of mass genocide, especially coming from a country that suffered that. I clearly said my preference would have been to leave the natives alone.

You say Spaniards never say “such aberrations” but most despise cholos and sudacas who come to Spain looking for a better future. It’s easy to preach and be oh so moral while you stand on the convenient side of history and are not a 2nd class type of citizen suffering for generations the legacy of a failed and unfair colonization. So either welcome them in your country and treat them as equal or cut the hypocrisy. Everyone deserves a dignified life.

[Cristiano viejo]

Im not a supporter of mass genocide, especially coming from a country that suffered that. I clearly said my preference would have been to leave the natives alone.

You say Spaniards never say “such aberrations” but most despise cholos and sudacas who come to Spain looking for a better future. It’s easy to preach and be oh so moral while you stand on the convenient side of history and are not a 2nd class type of citizen suffering for generations the legacy of a failed and unfair colonization. So either welcome them in your country and treat them as equal or cut the hypocrisy. Everyone deserves a dignified life.

Give them That dignified life from your pocket, don't want that we do it in our own country with our moneyzz.

It is hilarious your progre mind. It is you Uruguayans, your ancestors I mean, who genocized charruas, not current spaniards. Same for the genocide in argentina. So blame yourself, not to us.
It is you Uruguayans who failed colonizating your own country.

[AlfonsoVIII]

Give them That dignified life from your pocket, don't want that we do it in our own country with our moneyzz.

It is hilarious your progre mind. It is you Uruguayans, your ancestors I mean, who genocized charruas, not current spaniards. Same for the genocide in argentina. So blame yourself, not to us.
It is you Uruguayans who failed colonizating your own country.

Su pensamiento no dista mucho del de la mayoría de rioplatenses de clase media y alta. Es el "efecto Galeano". Nos dan lecciones de tolerancia y de progresismo a nosotros pero luego ellos tratan como a mierda a bolivianos, paraguayos, peruanos y a los argentinos mestizos de las provincias del norte.

[Sebastianus Rex]

The point is besides Lima and Cuzco very few places could be considered proper cities. They had subdivisions called Corregimientos or Audiencias among others. But anyway, the main point is that natives were not crazy to flock to the Spanish to get some Iberian love lol they were forced to move to the mines where they worked and were taxed to death.





NOW. If -as we were originally debating- Iberians had created their own cities/lands/states without "employing" natives (as the Anglos did and that's one of the huge differences between both) there would be almost no natives in Lima.

Always the victimization narrative. You think Iberians were not taxed to death (and much worse) during Al-Andaluz? You see any of us complaining and excusing our faillures invoking what happened centuries ago ? If the poorest amerindians still breed like rabits and perpetuate their low IQ poverty cycle is the fault of the colonists who gave them the means to progress?

Spaniards have invested in their colonies far more than anyone else, just compare the cathedrals, missions and universities built by them during the colonial period with the others, it's not even debatable, anyone arguing against will be destroyed by facts.

With the taxes they invested alot in the colonies for the progress and benefit of the whole population, they made a serious effort to integrate and assimilate the natives, giving them far more oportunities than they ever had before. And they BLEW IT! That is the cold heart truth, some peoples are unable to progress no matter how much you help them.

But yeah, perhaps you and the Uruguaya are right, it would have been better for natives if they had been wiped out like in North America.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Agree even In early Mexico city up to 1960s had more whites then current population.









Also Mexico looked more prosperous and less corrupt.

And how can white/criollo Mexicans who lived in modern civilized cities wich they built, be blamed for the massive internal migrations of low IQ indians who turned the metro areas of great cities into shitholes ?

If their way of living was so good why didn't they stayed where they were?

The good savage narrative is an absolute fantasy, native americans had no civilization and their way of living had nothing good to offer them, just cold survival, the law of the fittest.