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

[deathstrokenorris]

Spain didn't colonize Kenya.

I was talking about this part.

All of Spain's former colonies fell into military dictatorships, ineffective democratic states and the like, while Britain's didn't

 

[Starforce]

I was talking about this part.

Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[dovibear]

Am thinking in terms of an ATL British Argentina/Uruguay having a major port or few in the Pacific, alongside its existing South Atlantic ports.

I think that for these purposes, Sandy Point (OTL Punta Arenas) would be the closest thing to a major Pacific port.

 

[Lenwe]

I think that for these purposes, Sandy Point (OTL Punta Arenas) would be the closest thing to a major Pacific port.

If you want that you Will need a way to found The city Fast. Punta Arenas was Founded in 1848, as a penal colony, as a form To mark The Chilean sovereing in the area un reaction to The UK expansion in the Area, The take over of the Malvinas in 1833, and a Incresed prescence of British ships

 

[dovibear]

If you want that you Will need a way to found The city Fast. Punta Arenas was Founded in 1848, as a penal colony, as a form To mark The Chilean sovereing in the area un reaction to The UK expansion in the Area, The take over of the Malvinas in 1833, and a Incresed prescence of British ships

With the British more firmly established at least in Uruguay and probably as well in many other areas around the Plate, in Patagonia (at first baby steps but more widespread later on following the subduing of the Indians there), and quite possibly (in the long run) in Buenos Aires and some parts of the interior, the British have an earlier and more continuous presence in the Malvinas/Falklands as well as more British ships earlier. Under those circumstances, they found Sandy Point earlier than the Chileans founded Punta Arenas IOTL.

 

[Lenwe]

With the British more firmly established at least in Uruguay, probably in many other areas around the Plate, and quite possibly (in the long run) in Buenos Aires and some parts of the interior, the British have an earlier and more continuous presence in the Malvinas/Falklands as well as more British ships earlier. Under those circumstances, they found Sandy Point earlier than the Chileans founded Punta Arenas IOTL.

Would they?, that is the question. Punta arenas until today is completely food import dependent, you can´t plant nothing here, not for the climate, but for the Wind, Remember that the First settlement in the Area "puerto del Hambre" was a long haunted history on how the area was incredible hostile to the "civilized" human presence if you read Spanish the Wikipedia page offer more information
Plus the first expedition to explore and map the Area was done in 1832-1834 during the Second voyage of HMS Beagle, before that the Knowledge of the English of the area it was spotty at best, and the Voyage was highly dependent of the Chilean port as supply bases, I don´t see how the city could be Viable with a Hostile Chile obstinate to maintain the area as his, The First Settlement on the Area was done in 1840 By Bernhard Eunom Philippi, and the Are explored and dominated by the Chilean Navy since 1838

 

[zhropkick]

It's said a lot of the reason the USA didn't fall apart politically during its long history is because the Anglo style of colonisation brings local assemblies and functioning local governments by replicating prosperous Northwest European societies wherever the British put settlers, whereas the Spanish tended to use their colonies as pump-and-dump resource bases that fell apart when independent. Sure, there were cities in Latin America that put the British Thirteen Colonies' population centers to shame during the 1700s, but the British arguably did a better job at importing a societal structure built for parliamentary democracy. How they did it is pretty unethical, but seeing as the natives die in either scenario it's safe to say an Anglophone Argentina is going to have more political stability than a Hispanophone one.

 

[dovibear]

Would they?, that is the question. Punta arenas until today is completely food import dependent, you can´t plant nothing here, not for the climate, but for the Wind, Remember that the First settlement in the Area "puerto del Hambre" was a long haunted history on how the area was incredible hostile to the "civilized" human presence if you read Spanish the Wikipedia page offer more information
Plus the first expedition to explore and map the Area was done in 1832-1834 during the Second voyage of HMS Beagle, before that the Knowledge of the English of the area it was spotty at best, and the Voyage was highly dependent of the Chilean port as supply bases, I don´t see how the city could be Viable with a Hostile Chile obstinate to maintain the area as his, The First Settlement on the Area was done in 1840 By Bernhard Eunom Philippi, and the Are explored and dominated by the Chilean Navy since 1838

The British establish Sandy Point not so much for food-growing or anything like that, but a) to set up a penal colony or two (sure, the British had plenty in Australia, but even so), b) the Strait of Magellan (where Sandy Point/Punta Arenas is located) is a strategic waterway, especially if we're talking about before the Panama Canal, and c) to ward off Chilean ambitions to expand that far south.

 

[Lenwe]

The British establish Sandy Point not so much for food-growing or anything like that, but a) to set up a penal colony or two (sure, the British had plenty in Australia, but even so), b) the Strait of Magellan (where Sandy Point/Punta Arenas is located) is a strategic waterway, especially if we're talking about before the Panama Canal, and c) to ward off Chilean ambitions to expand that far south.

Ok I know they can, but supply the City from Uruguay it´s a titanic enterprise that is really easy to make go bad, a bad storm, a temporary close of the Strait, will make the city starve.

 

[Lenwe]

It's said a lot of the reason the USA didn't fall apart politically during its long history is because the Anglo style of colonisation brings local assemblies and functioning local governments by replicating prosperous Northwest European societies wherever the British put settlers,

Yeah i nowhere it´s most Obvious how they set these like South Africa, Belize, Jamaica, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, Rhodesia. Yeah pretty successful settles colonies without problems /S

whereas the Spanish tended to use their colonies as pump-and-dump resource bases that fell apart when independent.

By your Account which, now independent, former Spanish colony fell apart?
Chile? his problems were born from the USA intervention during the Cold war, Before that the only problems
Paraguay? his problems were born from the War of the Triple Alliance
Colombia? they have a civil war, not different to the a lot of conflict the USA have in the same epoch
Mexico?they have a civil war, not different to the a lot of conflict the USA have in the same epoch
Phillipinnes?his problems were born from the USA intervention
Cuba?his problems were born from the USA intervention
Honduras?his problems were born from the USA intervention
Panama?his problems were born from the USA intervention
Nicaragua?his problems were born from the USA intervention
El Salvador ?his problems were born from the USA intervention in Honduras
Costa Rica? his problems were born from the USA intervention in Nicaragua
Uruguay? that have problems by the constant intervention From Argentina and Brasil, that supported different Political sides, and taht Brasil considered the Place Rightful theirs


See a pattern here?

And before you say that the XIX century of the Former Spanish Colonies are more Violent than the one from former British Colonies, You are right but because only ONE former British Colony was independent in the XIX Century, USA, and his history in the XIX century was pretty violent plagued with political violence,Bleeding Kansas, President and political Assassinations, Political Machines, Electoral Fraud, and even a Civil war, so please explain to me how the political institutions of the Former British Colonies are superior.

Sure, there were cities in Latin America that put the British Thirteen Colonies' population centers to shame during the 1700s, but the British arguably did a better job at importing a societal structure built for parliamentary democracy. How they did it is pretty unethical, but seeing as the natives die in either scenario it's safe to say an Anglophone Argentina is going to have more political stability than a Hispanophone one.

No, not Really, wich former colony have parliamentary democracy?
Nigeria?
Jamaica?
Belize?
Grenada?
Zimbabwe?
Pakistan?
Iraq?
India?

Edited
New Zealand one was plagued with crisis and close to be shutdown during the 80'
South Africa was a dictatorial police state, racist and fascist.

Canada, Well Canada it´s functional and a good example, but it´s ONE of the former English Colonies

 

[dovibear]

Ok I know they can, but supply the City from Uruguay it´s a titanic enterprise that is really easy to make go bad, a bad storm, a temporary close of the Strait, will make the city starve.

You could say the same thing about the OTL Chilean efforts to found a fort or settlement in that area. There too, I'm sure that supplying the city from Santiago and the rest of central Chile was, as you say, a titanic enterprise that could easily go bad through a bad storm or a temporary closure of the Strait.

 

[Lenwe]

You could say the same thing about the OTL Chilean efforts to found a fort or settlement in that area. There too, I'm sure that supplying the city from Santiago and the rest of central Chile was, as you say, a titanic enterprise that could easily go bad through a bad storm or a temporary closure of the Strait.

No, they were supplied from Chiloé, a Lot more close to Punta arenas, and after The Foundation of Punta Arenas most of the inicial colonization of the Chilean Patagonia was done from and by Chiloe people.
And The colonies were Founded as a form of relay ports for the ships cruising The Straits. And to make easier The supply in The zone

 

[dovibear]

No, they were supplied from Chiloé, a Lot more close to Punta arenas, and after The Foundation of Punta Arenas most of the inicial colonization of the Chilean Patagonia was done from and by Chiloe people.
And The colonies were Founded as a form of relay ports for the ships cruising The Straits. And to make easier The supply in The zone

Let's just say that the ATL Sandy Point is initially supplied from the Malvinas/Falklands and from White Bay (OTL Bahia Blanca), Carmen de Patagones, Port Desire (OTL Puerto Deseado), and other British Patagonian and southern Pampas outposts (which themselves form the basis for later eventual colonization of all those areas). Some people moving there could maybe also come from Chiloé, as that supplies emigrants regardless.

 

[Isaac Beach]

@Lenwe I take issue with you describing Australia as ‘barely functional since independence’. That isn’t remotely true: our current string of deficient PMs is a generational issue, not a symptom of the entire system failing, and it is a mischaracterisation to extrapolate that problem back in time. A sustainability blog is not a valid authority on the historical functionality of Australian democracy.

 

[Lenwe]

Snip

Ok I Will retract that statment.I consider myself scorned

 

[dovibear]

Now here's where the real change is from what I've thought before: The British just leave Cordoba, Mendoza/San Juan/San Luis, Tucuman/Catamarca/La Rioja/Santiago del Estero, and Salta/Jujuy/Oran alone, because the British wouldn't want to spend a lot of money and other resources to take over areas where, just like Buenos Aires, the local population would be quite rebellious and which, unlike Buenos Aires, have little value as trading entrepots and what not (and not too many agricultural resources beyond Mendoza grapes, Tucuman sugar, and Salta/Tucuman tobacco). In other words, let the folks there have one or more independent republics to this day. (Maybe the British annex the far eastern part of Cordoba province, though - that part being well away from Cordoba city and closer to Santa Fe.) The British also leave Corrientes and Paraguay alone, for that's where the Orientales (Artigas' followers) now have their republic, and there too there aren't many agricultural resources beyond cotton and yerba maté. I mean, none of those above areas are like the interior Boer republics in South Africa, with their diamond and gold deposits!

By contrast, interior regions like Cordoba, Mendoza, Tucuman, and Salta - at least many of which are as rebellious as Buenos Aires - don't have as many economic resources (except Mendoza grapes, Tucuman sugarcane, and Salta/Tucuman tobacco) for the British to justify attempts to conquer those place establish settler colonies. Not to mention that the rural areas in those places don't have as much available land for new farming settlements as in the River Plate area. The only real justification(s) to take over those regions - and that would be no earlier than the 1860s - would be to exploit the grapes, sugarcane, and/or tobacco (and link them by railroad to Buenos Aires), as well as British immigrants already trickling in to many of those areas.

With regard to the Argentina interior (Cordoba, Mendoza, Tucuman, Salta, Corrientes, etc.), one option is indeed for the British to leave it alone due to the risk of unnecessarily stoking further tensions between the British and the Spanish Americans (both in and out of Argentina).

Another option, coming to think of it, is for the British to take over those parts as something akin to the Princely States in India, as well as protectorates or protected states elsewhere in Asia/Africa, whereby the British don't outright annex them and they let local governments do their job within some limits. This would take place in the 1860s or so for Cordoba and Corrientes and in the 1880s for the others, this being in more of a period of "high colonialism" for the British than was the case earlier in the 19th century. In the wake of the direct British takeover of Buenos Aires in the 1840s that I've already mentioned, which takes an awful lot of British effort at high cost, and this also being at a time when the British fight off the fearsome Indians of Patagonia, making the interior into things resembling the Princely States or protectorates/protected states entails less cost and less resentment among Spanish Americans than making them into outright British colonies. Eventually, many of these could be incorporated into the "white dominion" Argentine Confederation (to become the Argentine Republic in the 1980s or so) just like the Princely States were incorporated into India starting at the latter's independence in 1947.

I don't see ATL Argentina taking over any more of OTL Chilean territory than its part of Patagonia, south of Chiloé Island. I see Chile as wanting to expand southwards to Los Lagos, Chiloé, etc.

No, they were supplied from Chiloé, a Lot more close to Punta arenas, and after The Foundation of Punta Arenas most of the inicial colonization of the Chilean Patagonia was done from and by Chiloe people.

Plus the first expedition to explore and map the Area was done in 1832-1834 during the Second voyage of HMS Beagle, before that the Knowledge of the English of the area it was spotty at best, and the Voyage was highly dependent of the Chilean port as supply bases, I don´t see how the city could be Viable with a Hostile Chile obstinate to maintain the area as his, The First Settlement on the Area was done in 1840 By Bernhard Eunom Philippi, and the Are explored and dominated by the Chilean Navy since 1838

Coming to think of it, the British (and ultimately the Argentine Confederation/Republic) would claim just OTL Magallanes in southern Chile, not also OTL Aisen just to the north. The Aisen region could be claimed by Chile as early as the 1840s, in response to Britain's making a claim to the Strait of Magellan region in the aftermath of the second voyage of the HMS Beagle in the 1830s and the subsequent foundation of Sandy Point, and Aisen could be populated mainly with those from Chiloé Island. (IOTL, the Aisen region wasn't settled until the early 20th century.)

 

[Lenwe]

With regard to the Argentina interior (Cordoba, Mendoza, Tucuman, Salta, Corrientes, etc.), one option is indeed for the British to leave it alone due to the risk of unnecessarily stoking further tensions between the British and the Spanish Americans (both in and out of Argentina).
Another option, coming to think of it, is for the British to take over those parts as something akin to the Princely States in India, as well as protectorates or protected states elsewhere in Asia/Africa, whereby the British don't outright annex them and they let local governments do their job within some limits. This would take place in the 1860s or so for Cordoba and Corrientes and in the 1880s for the others, this being in more of a period of "high colonialism" for the British than was the case earlier in the 19th century. In the wake of the direct British takeover of Buenos Aires in the 1840s that I've already mentioned, which takes an awful lot of British effort at high cost, and this also being at a time when the British fight off the fearsome Indians of Patagonia, making the interior into things resembling the Princely States or protectorates/protected states entails less cost and less resentment among Spanish Americans than making them into outright British colonies. Eventually, many of these could be incorporated into the "white dominion" Argentine Confederation (to become the Argentine Republic in the 1980s or so) just like the Princely States were incorporated into India starting at the latter's independence in 1947.
)

Another Option, depending on the year the British Take over Buenos Aires (I insist it´s still a if) It´s That those places get united to other Countries or Regions

Without Buenos Aires forces to maintain Las Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata united the cities fighting for their independence could be gorged to other polities

Salta, Jujuy, Tucuman and MAYBE Catamarca Could be considered part of Bolivia

Misiones, Corrientes, Formosa and (most) of Chaco could decide be in a Union with Paraguay, in fact you could argue that originally Formosa and Misiones Were part of Paraguay and they only lost their presence here after the War of the Triple Alliance

La Rioja, San Juan, Mendoza and MAYBE San Luis could go in union from Chile, In fact Mendoza City and San Juan City were Founded From Chile.

That left you with Cordoba, Entre Rios, Santiago del Estero And Santa Fe (all of which are bigger than the UK island in territory) to be or Princely states or Another free country.

Neuquen, La Pampa and Rio negro are not included because in this epoch until 1880 more or less were part of the PuelMapu Mapuche( link in Spanish), so they could become their own thing, annexed by the English or enter in a Union with Chile

 

[dovibear]

That left you with Cordoba, Entre Rios, Santiago del Estero And Santa Fe (all of which are bigger than the UK island in territory) to be or Princely states or Another free country.

I've already established that Entre Rios is annexed by the British soon after Uruguay, and Santa Fe is annexed by the British ca. the 1830s just before Buenos Aires is for real (if it comes to that). That would leave, then, just Cordoba and Santiago del Estero, and they could even merge into one free country or "princely state" because they're geographically contiguous.

 

[Lenwe]

I've already established that Entre Rios is annexed by the British soon after Uruguay, and Santa Fe is annexed by the British ca. the 1830s just before Buenos Aires is for real (if it comes to that). That would leave, then just Cordoba and Santiago del Estero, and they could even merge into one free country or "princely state" because they're geographically contiguous.

umm I missed that

 

[deathstrokenorris]

Honestly this entire scenario is getting more contrieved by the second. Why would the British invest so much effort, energy and resources when they already had economic dominantion all but assured long term? There is a reason why the british invasion of BsAs was an ad hoc affair eith barely any support from Britain.

Also, the napoleonic wars kind of make it impossible for them to assert their control long term. Who is going to stop the locals from kicking them out just like they did with the Spanish OTL?

Canada, Well Canada it´s functional and a good example, but it´s ONE of the former English Colonies

Canada was a dominion until not so long ago. I don't think it counts as a successful "former" colony.