Had Argentina Been Anglophone, Would It Have Been More Prosperous & Populous Today? (ctd.)

[Indicus]

One thing that posters like Lenwe and Indicus and many others seem to forget is that Argentina is, just like North America or Australasia, mostly in the temperate and not tropical zone, and hence much more suitable for European-style rather than tropical plantation-style agriculture. (At the very least, the Pampas/Littoral and Patagonia.) On top of that, again just like North America and Australasia, Argentina was empty before modern times except thinly populated and scattered native tribes. Whereas Ireland as well as India and much of Africa already had larger and more settled native populations. The only reason why I'm saying that Argentina is just off the North American/Australasian pattern is because it already has a large European but non-British population (much larger than in Quebec or the Cape), and in the case of the northwest, also kind of large concentrations of mestizos/Indians. (Whereas South Africa not only has a large Afrikaner/Boer population but an even larger native black population on top of it all throughout, which is why British Argentina's just off the South African pattern also.)

You’re neglecting numerous facts - I suspect Argentina, especially in the frontier where few economic benefits from trade will come, will be highly rebellious, especially with most of Spanish America independent. Furthermore, sending waves of Protestant Anglophone settlers will only result in more and more rebellions. Of course, Buenos Aires is likely to benefit from the trade with Britain, but outside that, I doubt it. The same divide between the capital and the provinces that affected Argentina’s trajectory is likely to assert itself. And Britain will likely crush these rebellions with an iron fist, which only breeds more resent, while the presence of rebellions is likely to further reduce immigration to Argentina.

And to flee British rule, more and more Argentinians will flee to the frontier, which naturally means that less and less land will be free of whites and open to settlement by Anglophones. I can imagine Britain could successfully settle Patagonia, but beyond it? I doubt it.

The result - an Argentina divided between Buenos Aires as a trading entrepôt, the provinces as hotbeds for rebellion, and Patagonia as its own wholly separate nation.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I would also note that the settlement patterns of the British colonies was based on the dispossession of indigenous populations. Where there were established European populations with their own systems of land tenure, as in French Canada along the St. Lawrence, these were respected.

The particular immigration patterns of Argentina were determined by patterns of landholding in the Spanish period. How is the UK going to change that? Will it try to dispossession the locals? In that case, so long any chance of recruiting local elites as allies. You would just have a replay of Ireland on the River Plate, something that IMHO would prevent any successful settlement project in the region anyway.

 

[rfmcdonald]

You’re neglecting numerous facts - I suspect Argentina, especially in the frontier where few economic benefits from trade will come, will be highly rebellious, especially with most of Spanish America independent. Furthermore, sending waves of Protestant Anglophone settlers will only result in more and more rebellions. Of course, Buenos Aires is likely to benefit from the trade with Britain, but outside that, I doubt it. The same divide between the capital and the provinces that affected Argentina’s trajectory is likely to assert itself. And Britain will likely crush these rebellions with an iron fist, which only breeds more resent, while the presence of rebellions is likely to further reduce immigration to Argentina.

And to flee British rule, more and more Argentinians will flee to the frontier, which naturally means that less and less land will be free of whites and open to settlement by Anglophones. I can imagine Britain could successfully settle Patagonia, but beyond it? I doubt it.

The result - an Argentina divided between Buenos Aires as a trading entrepôt, the provinces as hotbeds for rebellion, and Patagonia as its own wholly separate nation.

I would not even bet that Patagonia and southern Pampas, regions which OTL had thin populations in the thousands into the 1880s, would end up Anglicized. The Eastern Townships in southeastern Québec OTL saw Anglo-Scottish populations overwhelmed quickly by later waves of Francophone migrants from the more populated and closer St. Lawrence. I cannot see an arguably less attractive and more remote regions n doing any differently, at least if it is attached to a British Plate colony.

 

[dovibear]

I would not even bet that Patagonia and southern Pampas, regions which OTL had thin populations in the thousands into the 1880s, would end up Anglicized. The Eastern Townships in southeastern Québec OTL saw Anglo-Scottish populations overwhelmed quickly by later waves of Francophone migrants from the more populated and closer St. Lawrence. I cannot see an arguably less attractive and more remote regions n doing any differently, at least if it is attached to a British Plate colony.

The white Anglos in Natal in South Africa didn't end up being overwhelmed over a period of time by the Afrikaners/Boers. Yes, the Boers did have the Republic of Natalia for a brief time, but that was right before the British took it over in earnest. I could see Patagonia and the southern Pampas work out in kind of a similar manner to Natal.

[edit] One other thing to understand is that entire new provinces are created in the southern Pampas and in Patagonia, and these new provinces become mainly Anglo, unlike most/all of those to the north (including Buenos Aires). To say that those southerly areas of Argentina become more Hispanic than Anglo is like saying that Ontario and the Prairies get overwhelmed by later waves of Francophone immigrants, which clearly wasn't the case.

The Eastern Townships analogy would work better, most probably, for those non-urban areas within the more northerly provinces that are comparatively empty and are initially colonized by Anglos. Even there, I'm not sure it may work entirely, because at least in the Pampas/Littoral (and unlike with the French in Quebec), most Spanish-speakers even IOTL were concentrated in the cities and towns (with the rural areas being mainly inhabited by gauchos if not Indians. Thus, more rural areas there get colonized by not just Anglos but also Germans, Swiss, and others who assimilate mainly into English.

 

[dovibear]

The idea of a piecemeal conquest if Argentina/Uruguay, province by province over decades, seems likely to contribute to very unsettled internal relationships in the area to say nothing of the UK. If ties with the UK were, are, controversial OTL, what will they he like in this setting?

Would it be even more fraught in that regard if all or most of Argentina/Uruguay had been conquered all at once?

 

[Indicus]

The white Anglos in Natal in South Africa didn't end up being overwhelmed over a period of time by the Afrikaners/Boers. Yes, the Boers did have the Republic of Natalia for a brief time, but that was right before the British took it over in earnest. I could see Patagonia and the southern Pampas work out in kind of a similar manner to Natal.

The Boers had more than the Republic of Natalia - they had the Transvaal Republic, the Orange Free State, and a bunch of other states. To conquer them, Britain created honest-to-god concentration camps.

 

[dovibear]

The Boers had more than the Republic of Natalia - they had the Transvaal Republic, the Orange Free State, and a bunch of other states. To conquer them, Britain created honest-to-god concentration camps.

The Republic of Natalia was before the Transvaal Republic, the Orange Free State, and others were established.

 

[juanml82]

Argentina was in Great Shape coming out of WW1. Seems like great shape out of WW2. Then the government squander the wealth. Hard to show that somehow Anglo politicians will fix this pattern.

Argentina's economic problems start in 1975, not in 1946. You will not hear much about it, though, because the people who tend to have influence in popularizing economic opinions feel the politicians and economists in charge between 1975-2005 are from their own "side" and don't want to see, let alone speak about, their failures. The 1949-1974 period was the most prosperous period of Argentine history.

 

[Lenwe]

Most probably, British Argentina would be a cross between the US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand colonial pattern and the South African colonial pattern, which in turn is a cross between the North America/Australasia pattern and that of British Africa (e.g. Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya), India, etc. In other words, British Argentina - at most - might be a quarter of the way between North America/Australasia and British Africa or India.

Could be, i don´t really disagrre in this point

One thing that posters like Lenwe and Indicus and many others seem to forget is that Argentina is, just like North America or Australasia, mostly in the temperate and not tropical zone, and hence much more suitable for European-style rather than tropical plantation-style agriculture. (At the very least, the Pampas/Littoral and Patagonia.)

Most of the Argentina is a lot more Dry, Hot and tropical, than you belive, Argentina it´s have more in common with the New-Orleans/Texas climate, than the New-England / England Climate, Argentina in fact do have Tropical Plantation Style Agriculture, apart of the
here I will add some mean annual temperature map so you could see Argentinian if Anything is a too hot place to make and easy European Style colonization, Even in the southern USA and Australia, don´t really get populated without the use of Slave African population for the agricultural works and after the creation of Temperature control Technologies.

Spoiler: Argentine mean annual temperature

Spoiler: USA mean annual temperature

Spoiler: UK mean Annual temperature

On top of that, again just like North America and Australasia, Argentina was empty before modern times except thinly populated and scattered native tribes. Whereas Ireland as well as India and much of Africa already had larger and more settled native populations. The only reason why I'm saying that Argentina is just off the North American/Australasian pattern is because it already has a large European but non-British population (much larger than in Quebec or the Cape), and in the case of the northwest, also kind of large concentrations of mestizos/Indians. (Whereas South Africa not only has a large Afrikaner/Boer population but an even larger native black population on top of it all throughout, which is why British Argentina's just off the South African pattern also.)

Ok, the part in black is completly and Absolutely wrong, Well Yes Argentina was sparsely populated, but only because there was a constant genocide drive by the Spanish and Later Argentinean government against the Native population. in the 1880 during the "Conquest of the dessert" campaign there is a estimate that between 100.000-400.000 Mapuches, huillinches,Tehuelches, Patagones,yamanes and onas were Killed between 1820-1890 period, enough populariop to be a serious damper to to the country integration and expantion. And those Tribes, specially Mapuches and Tehuelches, were agriculture,horse Riding, iron maker, firearms users Cultures, these guys aren't Australian natives, these guys áre Comanche equivalent, you know The types of Cultures that put a serious damper to the USA expansion, and With Allies in other civilized Countries. I doubt A UK drive colony magically Will have a easier time. specially if The European Conquered also rebel.

 

[Flashman]

Even there, I'm not sure it may work entirely, because at least in the Pampas/Littoral (and unlike with the French in Quebec), most Spanish-speakers even IOTL were concentrated in the cities and towns (with the rural areas being mainly inhabited by gauchos if not Indians.

Since when are guachos not predominantly spanish speaking?

 

[rfmcdonald]

The white Anglos in Natal in South Africa didn't end up being overwhelmed over a period of time by the Afrikaners/Boers. Yes, the Boers did have the Republic of Natalia for a brief time, but that was right before the British took it over in earnest. I could see Patagonia and the southern Pampas work out in kind of a similar manner to Natal.

[edit] One other thing to understand is that entire new provinces are created in the southern Pampas and in Patagonia, and these new provinces become mainly Anglo, unlike most/all of those to the north (including Buenos Aires).

As I've noted elsewhere, it was only in the last quarter of the 19th century that these areas, cold and dry and distant, began to gain a large population (as in, more than a few thousand). How, using the resources available to the early 19th century, will this be advanced significantly.

To say that those southerly areas of Argentina become more Hispanic than Anglo is like saying that Ontario and the Prairies get overwhelmed by later waves of Francophone immigrants, which clearly wasn't the case.

That is because, over the course of the 19th century, Francophones were gradually made a minority population throughout most of Canada, through the British government's sponsoring of Anglophone immigration. That is something that simply will not work in Argentina, a place with a larger population.

If Francophones had retained their majority--if there had been more French settlement, say, or maybe a wave of post-conquest French immigration--then you might indeed have had more Francophone areas. Even OTL, much of northern and eastern Ontario remains populated by substantial Francophone minorities, even majorities in some areas in the far north and east, while Francophone minorities persist in much of the west including in the southeast of Winnipeg. A Francophone-majority Canada would have been much more solidly Francophone.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Would this Anglophone Argentina have likely retained the name or adopted a different name?

Additionally would the British have decided to split Argentina into a northern Anglophone state, with Patagonia basically becoming a new world Celtic state (possibly politically dominated by the Welsh given OTL settlement though receiving a significant number of mainly Scottish, Irish and Cornish immigration)?

 

[funnyhat]

I don't think it is very realistic for Argentina to become anglophone with this late POD. Even with its population boom in the XIX century, the UK doesn't have an unlimited number of emigrants to send. It is already sending people to USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Kenya - how many are going to go to Argentina, especially if the Argentines rebel, which seems very likely?

 

[TapReflex]

No.

British settler colonialism doesn't automatically lead to prosperity. Being a temperate colony doesn't automatically mean prosperity. Speaking English is not causally related to economic prosperity.

If anything we'd get a southern cone that looks like a massive Ireland or South Africa with extractive and exclusive institutions draining resources and money from the original Spanish settlers and indigenous people with violence and resentment building.

 

[TapReflex]

While I'm thinking about South Africa, it's not like there's a large native population for the white settlers to band together over. Any labor the British settlers would need would either be forced out of the Spanish population (see the black peasantry of South Africa) or imported (Indian or Chinese laborers given the era) both of which would probably be limited to an underclass status to keep a reserve pool of labor.

Not conditions for prosperity

 

[Lenwe]

While I'm thinking about South Africa, it's not like there's a large native population for the white settlers to band together over. Any labor the British settlers would need would either be forced out of the Spanish population (see the black peasantry of South Africa) or imported (Indian or Chinese laborers given the era) both of which would probably be limited to an underclass status to keep a reserve pool of labor.

Not conditions for prosperity

Or you know. Work themselves?
It was not That The advantage of the so called "protestant work ethic" that is often touted, not by you obviously, but various users of this site do

 

[RMcD94]

If literally nothing else changed just being a native English speaking country would be an economic boon, even if in a very minor fashion, more tourism, more demand for their citizens in teaching positions, better possibility for cultural goods, etc.

 

[dovibear]

I would point out that the introduction of foreign colonial rule in Argentina at the same time that the rest of Spanish America is free, and the introduction of a presumably notable Anglophones/Protestant minority that might be a majority in some parts of the country, will add a destabilizing factor absent OTL.

Consider the history of Quebec, if you would, where language strife was a major complicating factor.

The idea of a piecemeal conquest if Argentina/Uruguay, province by province over decades, seems likely to contribute to very unsettled internal relationships in the area to say nothing of the UK. If ties with the UK were, are, controversial OTL, what will they he like in this setting?

You’re neglecting numerous facts - I suspect Argentina, especially in the frontier where few economic benefits from trade will come, will be highly rebellious, especially with most of Spanish America independent. Furthermore, sending waves of Protestant Anglophone settlers will only result in more and more rebellions. Of course, Buenos Aires is likely to benefit from the trade with Britain, but outside that, I doubt it. The same divide between the capital and the provinces that affected Argentina’s trajectory is likely to assert itself. And Britain will likely crush these rebellions with an iron fist, which only breeds more resent, while the presence of rebellions is likely to further reduce immigration to Argentina.

And to flee British rule, more and more Argentinians will flee to the frontier, which naturally means that less and less land will be free of whites and open to settlement by Anglophones. I can imagine Britain could successfully settle Patagonia, but beyond it? I doubt it.

The result - an Argentina divided between Buenos Aires as a trading entrepôt, the provinces as hotbeds for rebellion, and Patagonia as its own wholly separate nation.

I would also note that the settlement patterns of the British colonies was based on the dispossession of indigenous populations. Where there were established European populations with their own systems of land tenure, as in French Canada along the St. Lawrence, these were respected.

The particular immigration patterns of Argentina were determined by patterns of landholding in the Spanish period. How is the UK going to change that? Will it try to dispossession the locals? In that case, so long any chance of recruiting local elites as allies. You would just have a replay of Ireland on the River Plate, something that IMHO would prevent any successful settlement project in the region anyway.

Before all of you go too far with the possibilities of unlimited resentment by the Spanish-Argentines and by Latin Americans against the British, I just realized something that most probably would have lessened at least some of that resentment - local equivalents of the Quebec Act. In other words, once the British take over each area in question in the piecemeal fashion I present early in this thread, they enact and implement legislation that permits the preservation of the Spanish legal system and the Catholic religion already active in those areas, just like the Quebec Act did the same for the French legal system and the Catholic religion in Quebec.

Those Argentines who would be in a mood to flee the newly-British areas would most probably flee either to various parts of the frontier, or to Paraguay or Brazil or maybe Bolivia (maybe not to Chile, given the immense efforts to cross the Andes).

Speaking of the frontier, there might eventually be some economic benefits from trade, especially once the grape industry sets shop in Mendoza and the sugar industry in Tucuman - though those are pretty late in the 19th century.

And there may indeed be rebellions, but then again, in Quebec (and also in Ontario, on a non-linguistic/ethnic basis) there was a rebellion that threatened to secede from the British Empire, but guess what happened (esp. in the long term) after those rebellions were quashed by the British imperial government? Canada kept on developing!

 

[juanml82]

Those Argentines who would be in a mood to flee the newly-British areas would most probably flee either to various parts of the frontier, or to Paraguay or Brazil or maybe Bolivia (maybe not to Chile, given the immense efforts to cross the Andes).

You underestimate how violent that era was. "Those Argentines who would be in a mood to flee" wouldn't flee, they'd fight.

 

[dovibear]

Most of the Argentina is a lot more Dry, Hot and tropical, than you belive, Argentina it´s have more in common with the New-Orleans/Texas climate, than the New-England / England Climate, Argentina in fact do have Tropical Plantation Style Agriculture, apart of the
here I will add some mean annual temperature map so you could see Argentinian if Anything is a too hot place to make and easy European Style colonization, Even in the southern USA and Australia, don´t really get populated without the use of Slave African population for the agricultural works and after the creation of Temperature control Technologies.

I'm not necessarily saying that where most Argentines live and where most productive agriculture is concentrated in the country is exactly like England or New England, and I agree that temperature-wise it's more like the US South. And I agree that in the north of Argentina, well away from the Pampas, there is (or at least could be) tropical plantation agriculture. In all these senses, Argentina resembles Australia much more closely than the northern US or northwestern Europe. But I still classify both Argentina and Australia, nonetheless, as temperate-zone countries with large areas suitable for European-style agriculture - but which also happen to have some tropical areas.

Even in the southern USA and Australia, don´t really get populated without the use of Slave African population for the agricultural works and after the creation of Temperature control Technologies.

You should know that while the US South made use of lots of African slaves, Australia didn't - not even the tropical part along the Queensland coast with its sugarcane plantations; in that latter area, at first dark-skinned Pacific Islanders (more specially Kanaks from New Caledonia and vicinity) were used as labour, and once that sort of migration was banned, Australia turned to Italian labourers.

Ok, the part in black is completly and Absolutely wrong, Well Yes Argentina was sparsely populated, but only because there was a constant genocide drive by the Spanish and Later Argentinean government against the Native population. in the 1880 during the "Conquest of the dessert" campaign there is a estimate that between 100.000-400.000 Mapuches, huillinches,Tehuelches, Patagones,yamanes and onas were Killed between 1820-1890 period, enough populariop to be a serious damper to to the country integration and expantion. And those Tribes, specially Mapuches and Tehuelches, were agriculture,horse Riding, iron maker, firearms users Cultures, these guys aren't Australian natives, these guys áre Comanche equivalent, you know The types of Cultures that put a serious damper to the USA expansion, and With Allies in other civilized Countries. I doubt A UK drive colony magically Will have a easier time. specially if The European Conquered also rebel.

Let's just say that the Pampas and Patagonia would have resembled the American Great Plains (and Southwest) and Canadian Prairies - thinly populated by strong and formidable indigenous peoples!