Chile just happens to have great mineral wealth... it's hardly an example of industrial development, as they import much of the industrialized goods they use from Brazil and Argentina.
A Much Stronger Latin-America
- Thread starter 9 Fanged Hummingbird
- Start date
Chile just happens to have great mineral wealth... it's hardly an example of industrial development, as they import much of the industrialized goods they use from Brazil and Argentina.
Valdemar II
Banned
I don't think it's accidental that European immigration was highest in those Latin American countries which has been the most succesful, don't misunderstand me this isn't a White mans superiority rant, but European immigrants was often better educated than the average native South American, so immigration was to some degree a brain drain from Europe to the Americas. They brought with them new ideas and alien mores, which sometimes help building up the state they immigrated to.
So more European immigration would help, but to a large degree that wasn't possible, many of the states got as much immigration as they could and often climate and geographic ensured that Europeans tend to settle in isolated areas in the highland in many of the more mountainous states.
But we have Mexico with their empty northen territories with a climate acceptable for Europeans, if they could have been settled before they was taken over by the Anglos, they could have helped Mexico develop. Maybe if the Spanish Bourbons begin a policy of European settlement in the area in the late 18th century (Catholic Germans, Spaniards, Frenchmen and Italians), we would see a more Argentinian Mexico (which would a enourmous improvement), plus that the fact that Mexico aren't bitchslapped around by USA may also make Mexico more stable internal. It would also be something of a help to the other Northen Latin American states that USA would be a bit weaker.
So more European immigration would help, but to a large degree that wasn't possible, many of the states got as much immigration as they could and often climate and geographic ensured that Europeans tend to settle in isolated areas in the highland in many of the more mountainous states.
But we have Mexico with their empty northen territories with a climate acceptable for Europeans, if they could have been settled before they was taken over by the Anglos, they could have helped Mexico develop. Maybe if the Spanish Bourbons begin a policy of European settlement in the area in the late 18th century (Catholic Germans, Spaniards, Frenchmen and Italians), we would see a more Argentinian Mexico (which would a enourmous improvement), plus that the fact that Mexico aren't bitchslapped around by USA may also make Mexico more stable internal. It would also be something of a help to the other Northen Latin American states that USA would be a bit weaker.
Depending on the years you're looking at, not necessarily.By the end of the 19th Century, beginnings of the 20th, there were people, specially those escaping due political reasons, well educated. But many immigrants weren't educated and were illiterate people immigrating to a society where basic education was already providing high literacy rates for the young adults of the time.
Valdemar II
Banned
But to some degree it was the (relative) better off whom emigrated simply because of the price of emigration, of course that changed with the fall in transportation cost. But if you look at the early 19th century emigrations, it was rarely the worst off*, whom choose to move, it was people with some capital, even if they belonged to the lower classes in society.
*Yes the Irish may be brought up as a counter example, but they seem more refugees than emigrants.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Immigration does seem to do wonders for nations. Why can't Latin America snag more European immigration.
Valdemar II
Banned
The climate fit badly to Europeans. South America more or less got the immigration it could (at least from Europe), only Mexico with it old borders could have received more immigration. But honestly much of the European immigration to the tropical Andean states was worthless, they settled in the highland, where they more or less stayed isolated self-sufficience farmers, their isolation more or less made them worthless for helping develop their new homelands, and their settlements isolation made sale of any surplus production hard.
Ahem, Lima is the center of White Peruvian culture......NOT the mountains. I should know, seeing as I'm entirely of Lima stock and even whiter genetically then I thought a few days ago(I may look brown, but all of my great grandparents save 1 where white, and all of my grandparents where white as well). I can safely say that Lima, until recently, was swamped with whites of European descent.
Valdemar II
Banned
I wasn't thinking of Peru and Bolivia but of Colombia and Venezuela. I must admit I didn't really think of Peru and Bolivia as tropical* even with the Amazon in the west. But neither Peru nor Bolivia seem to have been able to receive more settlers at a earlier point either.
*Blame the fact that every time I have looked at the subjects either in litterature, in education or in the telly, it's always about mountains and highland population.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
It's not accidental, but you have it backwards. European immigrants went to the countries they did because those countries offered the best prospects; in other words, immigrants went to the most successful countries; the countries didn't become the most successful because of the immigrants.
The highest per capita income country is the Bahamas, which is 85% Black. Mexico's per capita income is comparable to Argentina's, and it has 9-16% whites compared to the opposite ration for Argentina.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Yes, Lima was the Spanish capital in the New World. The Highlands were left to the guinea pig eaters. (I was in Lima and ate one. It was delicious)
I was there on a business trip, so I only really saw Miraflores and San Isidro, but they looked pretty White to me... I had a little time one day and it was actually sunny out, so I walked around the old town all afternoon - it was pretty White too, but there were lots of tourists. I stayed at the Country Club Hotel, because I was the proconsul for Deutsche Bank - my room was so big I thought a mistake was made and I'd accidentally checked into a palace! Ah, business travel...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
You're taking for granted that success comes from White settlers - that's not true. Success came from being suited to international trade and able to attract capital from Europe. Peru and especially Bolivia were not good places for investment because they weren't really reachable until the Panama Canal was built and didn't have easily developed resources, whereas Argentina could provide tons of beef and other resources needed by British industry.
Well, three things, actually four:
1) There's atleast 1 million Peruvians of Asian Descent, Asians are there, atleast in Peru
2) The Jungle is to the East of both nations, not to the West
3) Not true exactly, Peru was heavily valued for guano(until the War of the Pacific), Gold, and assorted minerals. Just that it was way more expensive to sail along the Cape of Good Hope.
4) Glad you enjoyed it Abdul If you're ever around again, do visit Machu Picchu.
1) There's atleast 1 million Peruvians of Asian Descent, Asians are there, atleast in Peru
2) The Jungle is to the East of both nations, not to the West
3) Not true exactly, Peru was heavily valued for guano(until the War of the Pacific), Gold, and assorted minerals. Just that it was way more expensive to sail along the Cape of Good Hope.
4) Glad you enjoyed it Abdul
If you're ever around again, do visit Machu Picchu.Right, I was referring mostly to the inmigrants who arrived between, let's say, 1890-1930.
Valdemar II
Banned
No I honestly don't take that granted, White settlers (which also included settlers from the middle east) had the benefits that the created connection around the world and introduced new ideas and methods, and like I said in isolation they wasn't worth anything.
The second part I buy partly, but not entirely, California was even worsed placed to Europe than Peru, and while it has gold, Peru had it own raw material (including gold and silver), plus it isn't the world worst area for agriculture. But I don't think more European settlement would either really be possible or really would help.
The question would be would California develop so well if it hadn't been part of USA?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Re: California, probably not, but that's because it had no population. On the other hand, the Gold Rush attracted so many people there's no particular reason it couldn't have become developed as an independent country. I don't think Mexico could have provided the manpower to develop it, but in any case these aren't really comparable examples.
Exposure to the European capitalist system is necessary for development, but European settlers are not. One of the reasons why European powers established direct control over the interior of West Africa is because the Africans were very adept at adapting to European methods and were outcompeting European merchants.
In short: European capital & capitalism, necessary. Europeans, not. I realize it's not quite so simple, because sometimes European settlement is necessary to attract capital, for instance in the case of "empty" lands like Australia, Argentina and the American West. But if Peru had been located on the East coast of S. America, it would be a powerhouse today.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Well, three things, actually four:
1) There's atleast 1 million Peruvians of Asian Descent, Asians are there, atleast in Peru
2) The Jungle is to the East of both nations, not to the West
3) Not true exactly, Peru was heavily valued for guano(until the War of the Pacific), Gold, and assorted minerals. Just that it was way more expensive to sail along the Cape of Good Hope.
4) Glad you enjoyed it Abdul
The problem with gold, though, is that in this period, it had a fixed, unchangeable value. As the easier to mine sources are exhausted, the ability to profit declines, and Peruvian gold was way, way more expensive to mine and transport than South Africa's. Today that's not a problem because gold is a commodity with floating value - it's worth so much at this moment that Peru is in good shape, not to mention that we have better mining methods now.
That's why I was in Peru - there were too few banks there so these had way too much power with mining activity booming, so the finance ministry was bending over backwards to get Deutsche Bank to move into Peru. I do commercial real estate, so it was my job to located an appropriate facility and acquire it.
The weather in Lima is horrible, but I really, really like that city - there's just something about it that is appealing. The food is amazing (ceviche) and the people are so incredibly nice, and have a dark sense of humor which I always appreciate.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Yes, it's true - it depends on the location - where there's an existing state structure, like India, China, Japan, or the Ottoman Empire, you don't need any settlers for development. If it's someplace empty like Austria, obviously you do, and if there's no stable state structure, like in many parts of Africa, you also need settlers.
There's a negative to being colonized, too - colonial powers inevitably orient colonies toward primary resource production and actively discourage industrial and commercial development. That's why I think more unity was the key - better ability to negotiate better and more advantageous relationships with Britain. More colonists would have just put the Latin states more into British orbit. If Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and Bolivia had been one megastate, they would have been in a better position to retain economic autonomy and perhaps even industrialize rather than wasting all their resources fighting each other and leaving them vulnerable to be played off each other.
Valdemar II
Banned
But I aren' taslking about colonisation, I don't think any of the Latin American states would be better off as colonies of different powers*, I'm talking about immigration. If you look at Europe a internal immigration flow was a important factor of its development.
*and I really doubt that the British would do such a better job than the the Spanish did.