AHC: Fix Latin America For The Better Prior To Its Independence

TickTock The Witch's Dead

So much went wrong in Latin America that it is why the region is having issues today. So I thought of things that could help:
  1. More immigration (also to add to it no barrier that allows only Catholics)
  2. Ditch the OTL Spanish colonial governmental system for a relatively much better one (English?)
  3. More investment in infrastructure to unite the colonies
  4. Less mercantilism and greater economic growth

These are my few cents, but what else could have been done to improve the Latin American colonies so that by independence they are better off than OTL? (No ASBs like no mineral wealth and so forth)
 

ImperatorAnonymous

I think that allowing the Criollos, into at least small govt. positions would help a lot later, partly what happened to Latin America, was that the Criollos had good Generals (Bolivar, Santander, San Martin) but were awfully inept at actually governing, because all government posts were IIRC reserved to Spaniards, a system like the one of the British Colonies, while nearly impossible to implement in the Spanish Empire, would be the best for doing that, in the end, the fact that our independence was of the kind, ''led by a strongman who also rules over the first years of the new nation because the rich educated men tried and failed at governing'' was key to allowing Caudillism later on...

Also, if perhaps the regional differences were used more by the Spaniards to divide the Criollos in the Empire, then perhaps all nations were better off... after all, what happened here is that only now we can speak of any sort of Nationalism (and that barely) before, for example, you have a Criollo in Bogota, who feels closer to another Criollo in let's say Buenos Aires, than to a not so wealthy, somewhat darker-skinned man from Bogota...
 

PhilippeO

Banned
isn't the main problem is Latifundia / Hacienda system ?

by grant of large land, it divide people into great nobles ans serf / slaves.
I don't see how this could be prevented, Its not like Spanish king could grant spaniard steadholding right in new world, it would totally against spanish belief and social system.
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
the entire problem of South America/Mexico is that both Spain and Brazil set up the colonies as extractive entities: maximum extraction for the bare minimum return to the colonies. which is also a reason all of them looked to independence. It's hard to fault them, the entire world worked that way: kiss the ass of the few while screwing over everyone else.

You can see the same thing in the southern US. It's not coincidence that the south is overall the poorest in the country per capita. It was based on abusing the many for the good of the few, and that overall basis hasn't gone away.

So, you have to somehow figure out how to encourage a middle class. Spain/Brazil didn't want to do this because a middle class may not be willing to be subservient to the mother country. Once the colony broke free, the top class had no interest in doing anything other than to keep perpetuating their own wealth/power. communist/socialists pretend to want to do things to equalize things, but they quickly descend to the perpetuation of wealth and power for themselves.
 

jb3

RandomWriterGuy said:
So much went wrong in Latin America that it is why the region is having issues today. So I thought of things that could help:
  1. More immigration (also to add to it no barrier that allows only Catholics)
  2. Ditch the OTL Spanish colonial governmental system for a relatively much better one (English?)
  3. More investment in infrastructure to unite the colonies
  4. Less mercantilism and greater economic growth

These are my few cents, but what else could have been done to improve the Latin American colonies so that by independence they are better off than OTL? (No ASBs like no mineral wealth and so forth)
Click to expand...

With the first two, it really wouldn't be "Latin" America as we know it but more like a British colony (which is something different). I can't see the powers that be in those countries (be it Spain or Portugal since this is pre-independence) allowing that to happen.
 

EMT

Maybe having a British or French colony do something mindblowing during an early enough war could incite the Spanish into a lust for colonies that are effective left hands for Spain instead of resource extraction operations. Vague I know, but the Spanish were the reactive kind, not really the innovative.
 

MoraesSarmento

Don't know about the rest of Latin America and even the entirety of Brazil, but I think things would be quite different politically if Tiradentes had managed to give independence to Minas Gerais and maybe the southern part of Portuguese America.
 

TickTock The Witch's Dead

unprincipled peter said:
the entire problem of South America/Mexico is that both Spain and Brazil set up the colonies as extractive entities: maximum extraction for the bare minimum return to the colonies. which is also a reason all of them looked to independence. It's hard to fault them, the entire world worked that way: kiss the ass of the few while screwing over everyone else.

You can see the same thing in the southern US. It's not coincidence that the south is overall the poorest in the country per capita. It was based on abusing the many for the good of the few, and that overall basis hasn't gone away.

So, you have to somehow figure out how to encourage a middle class. Spain/Brazil didn't want to do this because a middle class may not be willing to be subservient to the mother country. Once the colony broke free, the top class had no interest in doing anything other than to keep perpetuating their own wealth/power. communist/socialists pretend to want to do things to equalize things, but they quickly descend to the perpetuation of wealth and power for themselves.
Click to expand...

But does it mean the independent colonies can still turn things around for the better?

How did the middle class happen for the 13 colonies and could it happen in Latin America? I mean La Plata and Chile look likely...
 
Last edited:

TickTock The Witch's Dead

AnonymousPegasus said:
I think that allowing the Criollos, into at least small govt. positions would help a lot later, partly what happened to Latin America, was that the Criollos had good Generals (Bolivar, Santander, San Martin) but were awfully inept at actually governing, because all government posts were IIRC reserved to Spaniards, a system like the one of the British Colonies, while nearly impossible to implement in the Spanish Empire, would be the best for doing that, in the end, the fact that our independence was of the kind, ''led by a strongman who also rules over the first years of the new nation because the rich educated men tried and failed at governing'' was key to allowing Caudillism later on...

Also, if perhaps the regional differences were used more by the Spaniards to divide the Criollos in the Empire, then perhaps all nations were better off... after all, what happened here is that only now we can speak of any sort of Nationalism (and that barely) before, for example, you have a Criollo in Bogota, who feels closer to another Criollo in let's say Buenos Aires, than to a not so wealthy, somewhat darker-skinned man from Bogota...
Click to expand...

Paragraph 1: How does the Criollo thing help? Does it mean they'll govern better?


Paragraph 2: I don't get it.
 

Monter

MoraesSarmento said:
Don't know about the rest of Latin America and even the entirety of Brazil, but I think things would be quite different politically if Tiradentes had managed to give independence to Minas Gerais and maybe the southern part of Portuguese America.
Click to expand...

It was lead by rich landowners slave-masters.

Nothing changes.
 

TickTock The Witch's Dead

PhilippeO said:
isn't the main problem is Latifundia / Hacienda system ?

by grant of large land, it divide people into great nobles ans serf / slaves.
I don't see how this could be prevented, Its not like Spanish king could grant spaniard steadholding right in new world, it would totally against spanish belief and social system.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean you can have PODs affecting the Spanish beliefs and the social system.
 

unprincipled peter

Donor
Random,
the northeast colonies were a heavy duty mix of shopkeepers and small time farmers. they led the engine of the 13 colonies. It's why in any discussion of North vs South everyone always agrees that the north has a future, the south doesn't, unless they change.

I thought I gave my opinion on why things were so hard to change after independence: you've got a system firmly entrenched. those on top didn't lead the charge for independence because they wanted equality for all. They charged because they wanted to keep more of the spoils for themselves instead of giving it to the mother country. It's tough to change an entrenched culture of latifunda. change almost always means someone has to give something up. the top classes rarely do so without a struggle. and it's my opinion that almost all socialist/communist gov'ts all boil down to the same thing. they pretend to be an equal class, but in reality, they're just another form of oligarchy looking to preserve their own privileged situation while exploiting the working class. there's the expression that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So ultimately, how do you effect reform? It's possible, but very difficult.

my main point was that Spain and Portugal set up a system that was not conducive to long term health. Once such a system gets entrenched, it's hard to change.

It's not all uniform. the Santa Catarina region of Brazil was settled by small farmers, and is much different than the rest of the big estate culture of Brazil.
 

ImperatorAnonymous

RandomWriterGuy said:
Paragraph 1: How does the Criollo thing help? Does it mean they'll govern better?


Paragraph 2: I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Yes, IOTL the Criollos had very little experience at governing, and were not educated to have a slight clue of what to do, for example, in Colombia, only the small difference between the Criollos of Bogota who wanted to simply topple the Viceroy and replace him themselves, and the Criollos of other regions who wanted a full reform in the government was enough for them to go to war, then, when Independence was finally secured, Boivar became a dictator, eventually the way the Government was run after Bolivar, was much more like governing a large farm (something the Criollos did know how to do) than a nation... with the ''Great Men'' (like Tomas Cipriano de Mosquera for example) becoming more or less dictators or at least Caudillos that could make a large portion of the population follow them...

as for the other part, I meant to say that in the end, unless there is a fully unified Latin America, actual nationalism is very implausible, if anything because there is nothing that can really make the population of any country (maybe Argentina might be an exception) to fully coalesce around ideas like ''nationality'' or ''culture'' when almost all of your neighbors share the same... and when there is more difference between you and the guy who works for you, than between you and another guy in the same place in the social ladder living 1000 miles away... that is not a good recipe for a stable nation at all, Maybe if there is a largely Catalan-speaking colony for example, the other Castillian-speaking colonies might coalesce thanks to the ''them against us'' argument
 

TickTock The Witch's Dead

unprincipled peter said:
Random,
the northeast colonies were a heavy duty mix of shopkeepers and small time farmers. they led the engine of the 13 colonies. It's why in any discussion of North vs South everyone always agrees that the north has a future, the south doesn't, unless they change.

I thought I gave my opinion on why things were so hard to change after independence: you've got a system firmly entrenched. those on top didn't lead the charge for independence because they wanted equality for all. They charged because they wanted to keep more of the spoils for themselves instead of giving it to the mother country. It's tough to change an entrenched culture of latifunda. change almost always means someone has to give something up. the top classes rarely do so without a struggle. and it's my opinion that almost all socialist/communist gov'ts all boil down to the same thing. they pretend to be an equal class, but in reality, they're just another form of oligarchy looking to preserve their own privileged situation while exploiting the working class. there's the expression that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So ultimately, how do you effect reform? It's possible, but very difficult.

my main point was that Spain and Portugal set up a system that was not conducive to long term health. Once such a system gets entrenched, it's hard to change.

It's not all uniform. the Santa Catarina region of Brazil was settled by small farmers, and is much different than the rest of the big estate culture of Brazil.
Click to expand...

Of course, reform would be easier at the start of colonization. But what that would mean Latin America may become something a little too hard to imagine. A revolution at the mother country in the middle of colonization may lead to revolt in those colonies.

My best proposal is a better version of the Bourbon Reforms that don't discriminate against non-Caucasians and leads to greater economic development.
 

TickTock The Witch's Dead

AnonymousPegasus said:
Yes, IOTL the Criollos had very little experience at governing, and were not educated to have a slight clue of what to do, for example, in Colombia, only the small difference between the Criollos of Bogota who wanted to simply topple the Viceroy and replace him themselves, and the Criollos of other regions who wanted a full reform in the government was enough for them to go to war, then, when Independence was finally secured, Boivar became a dictator, eventually the way the Government was run after Bolivar, was much more like governing a large farm (something the Criollos did know how to do) than a nation... with the ''Great Men'' (like Tomas Cipriano de Mosquera for example) becoming more or less dictators or at least Caudillos that could make a large portion of the population follow them...

as for the other part, I meant to say that in the end, unless there is a fully unified Latin America, actual nationalism is very implausible, if anything because there is nothing that can really make the population of any country (maybe Argentina might be an exception) to fully coalesce around ideas like ''nationality'' or ''culture'' when almost all of your neighbors share the same... and when there is more difference between you and the guy who works for you, than between you and another guy in the same place in the social ladder living 1000 miles away... that is not a good recipe for a stable nation at all, Maybe if there is a largely Catalan-speaking colony for example, the other Castillian-speaking colonies might coalesce thanks to the ''them against us'' argument
Click to expand...

Then how can there be a unified Latin America? The best possible is around the late 1800s. Assuming France doesn't invade Spain the colonies would follow the OTL path of Cuba and that's where the nationalism will begin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top