French (or other Europeans) conquered South America instead and impact on racial identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Griffith The truth is Spanish colonialism is far from simple. Yes, there is the Black Legend and the Protestant willingness to spin the Spanish as brutal near genocidal conquerors, however, the Spanish colonial system was brutal itself. First and Foremost the Spanish didn't kill most of the natives by the sword but by slave labour. second sure there was intermarriage, but Spain's colonies were run off a caste system of pure born Spanish from Spain over everyone else, where even after Spanish decolonization, the resulting states just substituted for the class below the Spanish from Spain.

As for race you can't substitute anyone in South American and say they are non-white, race in America makes little to no sense at all when you get to the nitty gritty of it. You have a simultaneous existence of race by colour (Black and White) and race geographic location (Hispanic,Asian). Also, the U.S has always had a protestant heritage, even if religious freedom had been guaranteed by the constitution, you still had Anti-Catholicism and Atheism that sometimes steam from that same Protestantism and some elements of looking down on southern Catholics as lazy. I would theorize the French have it easier because everyone remembers significant French contributions to our independence.

@Admiral Brown I don't think there is geographic confusion as it is a tendency to seem all Hispanics as the same, coupled with the fact that people nowadays are used to whiteness and with that a homogeneity of disparate peoples as one, and willing to apply that else if they aren't educated enough.

By very very very far, It is smallpox and other diseases that were responsible for the vast majority of death in the Americas (more than 90% of the death toll at least).

Exhaustion through slave labor and slaughters, suicides, accounted for a small minority of the death toll, although slavery and forced work was more important.
 

Oceano

Banned
Portuguese colonization is best, spanish colonization is still evil, and brits love genocide. The french fail and dutchmen can't defeat strong lusobrasilians.
 
I would like to ask members, mainly American members, how widespread do you think is this confussion of Spain=Mexico? While I have indeed heard two independent accounts of Spaniards who went to the US and found people who thought Spain was situated somewhere close to Mexico, both cases took place in Southern US and were isolated events. These incidents developped into "stories" retold again and again (I don't know the actual persons who experienced this, not even those who where first told about this, just people who heard about it). Probably because these sort of situations are somewhat funny, and are in line with the stereotype that "Americans are ignorant about geography and anything that happens beyond their borders". But as most sterotypes, they are not accurate. I doubt most Americans really think Spain is situated close to Mexico.
The number of people who think Spain is in Central or South America is very low. It's more likely for people to assume that Spaniards might look like Latin Americans, but that is not that crazy of a misconception, since Andalusia is the famous part of Spain and European Spaniards are very uncommon in the US.
Portuguese colonization is best, spanish colonization is still evil, and brits love genocide. The french fail and dutchmen can't defeat strong lusobrasilians.
Portugal invented the transatlantic slave trade.
 
Portuguese colonization is best, spanish colonization is still evil, and brits love genocide. The french fail and dutchmen can't defeat strong lusobrasilians.
There is no such thing as as "good" colonisation. As long as there is an indigenous people, they will suffer in the colonization - exactly how depends of whether the indigenous population is big (like in Mexico and Peru, or more recently, French Algeria) in which case the colonizer will most likely install a "double-standard" system and basically exploit the colonized or if the indigenous population is small (like in North America) in which case they are more likely to be simply evicted to take the land.
French colonization of New France was only gentle because the colonists were wery few in a very big land, thus having to cooperate with the natives to compete with the English.
All this goes for Portugal too (see what Portugal did in the East Indies), it's just lessened because there was very little indigenous anyway.
 
Portuguese colonization is best, spanish colonization is still evil, and brits love genocide. The french fail and dutchmen can't defeat strong lusobrasilians.
Portugal colonisation tended to be less heavy handed because there were fewer Portuguese and they couldn't enforce their rule as much as they'd like.

They were absolutely despised in the Indian Ocean in the XVIth century.
 
Portugal colonisation tended to be less heavy handed because there were fewer Portuguese and they couldn't enforce their rule as much as they'd like.

They were absolutely despised in the Indian Ocean in the XVIth century.

The Indian thing was because our attitude towards trade (you can trade with anyone except anyone we don't like) and Vasco da Gama actitude towards the natives plus the all burning a ship full of pelegrins didn't help in the popularity contest.
 
The Indian thing was because our attitude towards trade (you can trade with anyone except anyone we don't like) and Vasco da Gama actitude towards the natives plus the all burning a ship full of pelegrins didn't help in the popularity contest.
Yeah, his stay in Calicut reads more like the Human Centipede than a history book.

I would say it got calmer afterwards but that's probably because everyone knew what the result might be if they tried anything
 
Yeah, his stay in Calicut reads more like the Human Centipede than a history book.

I would say it got calmer afterwards but that's probably because everyone knew what the result might be if they tried anything

Actually for what I read it only got worst afterwards, especially from the point where they finally understood that there were almost no Christians there (at first they thought the Indus were Christians) and that the Muslims where the ones in control of trade Lisbon begun to act more and more hostile to everyone in the area to the point where either you were a client of Portugal or an enemy of Portugal, there was no middle ground.
 
I would like to ask members, mainly American members, how widespread do you think is this confussion of Spain=Mexico? While I have indeed heard two independent accounts of Spaniards who went to the US and found people who thought Spain was situated somewhere close to Mexico, both cases took place in Southern US and were isolated events. These incidents developped into "stories" retold again and again (I don't know the actual persons who experienced this, not even those who where first told about this, just people who heard about it). Probably because these sort of situations are somewhat funny, and are in line with the stereotype that "Americans are ignorant about geography and anything that happens beyond their borders". But as most sterotypes, they are not accurate. I doubt most Americans really think Spain is situated close to Mexico.

More general seems to be the perception in the US that Latin America = Mexico (and not even Mexico as a whole, just Northern Mexico). At least in many media you see a typical South American village depicted as a small Spanish town situated in a flat desert... althoug when even the geography of most of the region, including most of Mexico's own geography, doesn't fit this description.
I'm not going to argue my anecdotes are solid facts, but in my native South Texas "Spanish" was used as a self-designation by some folks of Mexican origin to emphasize their whiteness. A bit of the lingering Criollo identity, maybe. It's more of an old fashioned term now, like people who use "Anglo" instead of White - used to distinguish WASPs from the Louisiana French, all of which goes to show that ideas of race in the US are pretty variable.
 
Actually for what I read it only got worst afterwards, especially from the point where they finally understood that there were almost no Christians there (at first they thought the Indus were Christians) and that the Muslims where the ones in control of trade Lisbon begun to act more and more hostile to everyone in the area to the point where either you were a client of Portugal or an enemy of Portugal, there was no middle ground.
Oh yeah, they got more violent on the big scale, with mandatory permits to be at sea.

However I haven't yet read any account of events as psychotic as Vasco's expedition. And I'm not sure I actually want to be proven wrong on this one: I like to sleep
 
Oh yeah, they got more violent on the big scale, with mandatory permits to be at sea.

However I haven't yet read any account of events as psychotic as Vasco's expedition. And I'm not sure I actually want to be proven wrong on this one: I like to sleep

Then I advise you not to read the accounts of the Viceroys that followed.

One of them got to the point where he dragged one of his own captain by his bear only because the poor man had disagreed with him and, supposedly, he even plucked part of the mans beard off (which the captain used as evidence when he complained to the new viceroy about the former viceroy). Also several arabic and african settlements might or might not have suffered a little of that viceroys' rage. A little pillaging, some city destruction, you know, normal parts of my countries colonial policies.
 
You'll be fucking surprised at how the words "Spanish" and any other adjective used to describe "Spain" is associated with nonWhitness and non-Western in the Anglo-Saxon World (with the exception of the UK and Ireland both which are in Europe). I seen Americans and Canadians scoff when I stated Spain was a white imperial power in the past. I still remember how one such person (blonde blue eyed Southern redneck) so flabbergasted she literally started asking the high school teacher I had if Spanish people were really white when I tried to inform her Spain was a white nation that had racist policies after she made a comment about "illegal Hispanic aliens" and their dirty language and culture. Even after history classes were already at the Age of Exploration, she still was having a hard time of the fact that Latin America ≠ Spain and was scratching her head why Spanish speaking people was intermarried to be so brown if Spain was a white imperial power.

Its not just WASP Americans either, there was one time when I stated I didn't like Spanish culture and hold a bit of a grudge towards Spain for her atrocities and a Mexican girl (looking stereotypical with the dark skin of the majority Mestizo population) felt offended and asked why I hold bigoted views about her home nation Mexico. I was so damn shocked because I came from a place that Spain colonized (Guam) and they'd always teach in elementary school about how abusive the Spaniards were to the indigenous people. I wasn't big into Latin America but even by that time I already knew that Mexico was an abused colony who'd have to fight Spain for independence (as one of my Guamanian teacher said when we were doing a brief lesson on world history). I told her I have nothing against Mexico and its Spain I had a gripe with but she was so convinced Mexico and Spain are the same that I just immediately stopped the discussion and avoided the topic.

Indeed its not just her, I've unintentionally angered other American-raised hispanics (one of them, of Mexican descent but by this point mostly white since its his grandfather who had all the "Hispanic blood" even was so pissed he was about to start a fight with me and threatened to break my neck a few times) before I realized just how fucked up American perceptions of Spain and the Hispanics are. TRUST ME I was really so shocked about all this having lived on Guam for at least half my life before going into mainland USA (as there are so many monuments about Spanish slavery and abuse on the island you can't think about the Spaniards without getting your blood boiled).

You've got to be kidding, right? Or trolling? Asking questions that equate to "Why are [nationality] so [messed up belief system]" is rarely productive, if only because it's usually baloney. Asking questions that are themselves based upon a misconception is not conducive to discourse.

You'll find idiots everywhere- believe it or not the USA does not have a monopoly on them. Using your logic, all Guamanians must be short, easy to anger, really good at climbing trees, and dumb as fenceposts. Because, y'know, I met one like that in basic training in 1989. (His name was Agun.)

While I might buy that a perception of Spaniards as "nonwhite" might be more common than the perception that e.g Belgians are nonwhite, if only for the historical reasons mentioned above and because of associations with Latin America, aserting that this is a common perception among US Americans is just plain dumb. Frankly, a lot more Americans (meaning US) are unaware that native ancestry makes up as large a fraction of modern Latin American genetics as it does. (As you mentioned, there certainly are Latins who describe themselves as "Spanish" as a way of bragging that they have no native ancestors, and in the hopes that bigoted Americans won't think of them as "nonwhite.") In the USA the pervading impression seems to be that the Spanish killed almost all of the natives off, as we did in North America. If Americans are ignorant of anything regarding Latin Americans, it is this, so perhaps many assume that Spaniards are more swarthy than is the case.

But, intellectually speaking, who cares? Race is an artificial construct anyway, so
all perceptions of it are inherently wrong. (Practically speaking, yes, clearly it has implications in some parts of the world.)

I will, however, admit that I don't spend much time among the dregs of the USA. The lowest socioeconomic stratum is, well, the lowest socioeconomic stratum. If I went polling the favelas I'm sure I'd produce some damned odd beliefs, too. And don't get me started on the conspiracy theories of the medinas, man-eating badgers, etc.

And, of course, Trump is a presidential candidate, now. I can't really defend that one.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

The one place where the population of conquistadors was high enough to challenge the natives, in Hispaniola, all the Taíno were eradicated
Nitpick, the Taino were not wiped out. The vast majority of then were, with the remainders fleeing into the hinterland and living on until they mixed and assimilated into the general population as settlers moved into the hinterland.

Precolombian DNA and ancestry can still be found (and usually is) amongst modern Dominicans, albiet in much smaller percentages than European and African DNA.
 
If the French, Dutch or British had colonized South America instead there would be almost no change in impact on racial identity. If said three European countries made many of these countries have a majority Native/European or African/European populations they'd still be perceived as "non white" so long as the majority of these countries are filled with people who aren't considered "white" by whatever standards and the majority of the immigrants from these countries in America are seen as "non white". Mexico is around like 8% "white" yet the country is like 90% brown skinned mestizo and the majority of the immigrant populations in America are brown skinned mestizos and so many people perceive Mexicans as being "brown people".

Race is almost the same in many New World colonies. Many New World countries consider Europeans and Arabs to be "white". people of Sub-Saharan African ancestry to be "black" and many Mesitzos/Mulattos are seen as "brown" people. Race is silly anyways. In Latin America you can see people who identity as "white" because they are light skinned but in a dna test or photos of family you will see that are mixed and have many African and Native ancestors.

Race is also almost entirely a New World Concept. I've met Europeans who reject the "white" label and would rather call themselves "European" instead. I've met West Africans who don't see themselves as "black" but rather whatever ethnic group they belong to.

As a Canadian I don't think I've ever encountered someone who viewed the Spanish as 'uncivilized, unwestern, and non-white'. They're more just lumped in with Italy and Greece as poorer south-European countries (Portugal kind of gets forgotten sometimes due to it's small population).

Greece's population is literally neck and neck with Portugal. Both are about 11M.

Sorry for bumping this but it's fascinating. In America, Brazil, Colombia and several Caribbean nations consider and classify anyone of "Arab" descent to be "white". But obviously this isn't the case for in society. I think celebs are a pretty good reflection of just how deep the construct of "race" effects America. People will debate endlessly if someone like Shakia is "white" because of her Latin and Lebanese heritage, Gal Gadot had a countless debate incited because people wondered if she was "white" because she's Israeli. Gigi Hadid ancestry is half Dutch/Half Palestinian and raised in America so Gigi's white, and her own Arab father was light skinned and has green eyes. But there are many people saying Gigi is "not white"...

And some Asian Americans I know were shocked to find out that I consider Gal Gadot "Asian" even if she is.. she's from West Asia (Israel).

You have a simultaneous existence of race by colour (Black and White) and race geographic location (Hispanic,Asian).

That itself is a contradiction. Asian is supposedly a "race" and they're "not white" yet West Asians in America and other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean consider West Asians (like Lebanese for example) to be "white"... even if they're technically "Asian". And there are people in America who don't consider Arabs "white" even if "officially" they are.

And race in the European colony sense was never about colour. There are Europeans and Arabs who can be very dark brown naturally.. but they are still seen as "White". While there are Asians (you know what I mean when i say "Asian") with skin as white as a ghost yet they can't call themselves white in the West... fun fact: centuries ago European explorers described East Asians as "white" because of their pale skin.

Race is a social construct with virtually no biological reality, "white" as a concept was built around the idea of being rich and respectable. People that are perceived to have failed this criteria were and are considered non-white, one example of this would be Benjamin Franklin's Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind which states that Germans are non-whites and thus unsuited to settle in America, the pseudo-scientific study of phrenology was about separating whites and non-whites when skin color failed to do so. So, the better question would be what pitfalls could French or British Latin America avoid that Spanish and Portuguese Latin America fell into. If the alternate Latin America has a strong economy and is popularly believed to have a high standard of living then they probably would be considered white, if the alternate Latin America is seen as poor or a military threat then America would probably be more likely to believe that these people are nasty foreigners.

Funny you mention this. I know this is late but I read an article asking why Asians can't be called "Yellow" when we call Sub-Saharan Africans "black" and Europeans and Arabs "White", and other groups "brown". When Euro explorers first arrived in East Asia, they described the pale skinned East Asians that they saw as white people. And some East Asian friends I know consider themselves "white" in reference to their skin tone. But then someone decided that East and Southeast Asians are "yellow" and so on and so fourth.

Where do these ideas come from? Arab sources categorized people by race using colour as one criteria in numerous occasions. SSo, perhaps your hypothesis is only appropriate for the west or your hypothesis should be expanded to understand Arab sources also on race and ethnicity, such as al-Jahiz.

So did Europeans.
Originally "red people = Native America", "yellow = Orientals", "negro = Sub-Saharan African" and "white = European and or Arab". And sometimes Pale Skinned Asians were called "white". And I've known swarthy Europeans who have described themselves as "brown".

Yellow, red and negro all became offensive slang. So Now they're called "Asian, Native American and Black" people. "colour" is a flawed metric because you don't have to be of SS-African ancestry to have the same skin tone as a "black person" and you don't have to be European to have "white skin".
 
If you have all of South America colonized by France, I can safely say you can stop worrying of their perception in the United States as the whole thing is butterflied away.
 
There are so many misconceptions here that I have to wonder if you get your information about Americans exclusively from 4chan or something. While it is true that some Americans assume Spaniards look like Latin Americans, it's simply because they haven't interacted with Spaniards or looked into the people of Spain. Not that most people would even care whether the Spanish are white or not. Also, even people who know barely anything about geography, still know that the Spanish language comes from Spain. There is no sort of 19th century imperialist context that you seem to want to ascribe to it. Even vocal racists usually go toward more passive aggressive, dog whistle language instead of going full "uncivilized and inferior". Obviously with exceptions.

I know this is old, but talking about misconceptions...


Also, the most internationally famous cultural region of Spain is Andalusia, with Valencia a close second, and those areas are a bit darker skinned than the northern Basque counties. The world's image of Spain is from those famous places.

In fact, this is not true... There are important populations in Sierra Morena (Andalucia) that descend from German colonists settled there in the XVIII century. And basques are usually dark haired.




In regards to your alternate history suggestion:
like @Doctor President said, "Hispanic" derives from Latin "Hispania". The Spanish word for Spain is also "España", derived from the same Latin term. It's not some random "His-" prefix.
The British did not have any special tendency to kill native peoples in the areas they colonized compared to other colonial powers. They had a different colonization strategy involving settlement/emigration of religious minorities instead of simple conquest. This led to a higher colonial population, which overused their own resources, and the colonists then pushed the natives off of their land. After the independence of the United States, genocidal acts like the Trail of Tears, Indian Removal, and near extinction of the buffalo (to damage the Plains way of life) were committed.


However, similar actions occurred in Mexico, during the Yaqui Wars and Caste War of Yucatán, as well as in Argentina, meaning brutal atrocities were not unique to the British colonial nations, although the US committed more of them.
The Spanish and Portuguese Empires were not particularly open minded about culture from anything but a 16th century context.

Where do the "Leyes de Indias" cope with this idea? Probably there were bad actions made by individuals, but the legal framework was something different.
As for being open minded to other cultures, let's see:
1492 - First Spanish Grammar
1530 - First French Grammar
1531 - First Nahuatl Grammar
1536 - First Portuguese Grammar
1560 - First Quechua Grammar
1581 - First English Grammar
1612 - First Aymará Grammar
...

If the spanish were not open minded to other cultures, why writing and publishing grammars for languages they despised?

Do you know it was compulsory for missionaries to learn other native languages before going to the Americas?




The conquistadors pioneered slavery and conquest in the Americas, and created a system of limpieza de sangre and the racial caste system.

I do not know who those conquistadors were, but I do know that a legal framework was created in 1510 an 1555 to protect the Amerindians. Probably it was impossible to implement it in a perfect way in the XVI century, but they tried.
I do not think they tried that "limpieza de sangre" thing as they melted with the amerindians (just have a look to the populations in México, Guatemala, Paraguay, Bolivia...). They married local women and local caciques were given nobiliary titles and accepted as peers.


While they allowed intermarriage, it was mainly because they were unable to bring significant amounts of Spanish women to the New World. The goal was resource extraction, not cultural assimilation except to eliminate traditional or idolatrous practices.

The goal was evangelization and cultural assimilation. Universities, cathedrals, schools and hospitals were built.

The Inquisition that also dealt with forgery, bigamy and piracy had a minimal impact. In New Grenade only 3 people were killed in three centuries!!


Spanish language actually only became the majority in most countries in Latin America after independence, as the new nations pursued a policy of blanqueamiento. Back in the colonial era, there were a few Dominican and Franciscan friars and Jesuit priests who stood up for the rights of the natives, but they were often ignored by colonial lords.

First part true, second... false. They were so ignored that Charles V ordered to stop conquest until a commission that met in Valladolid decided on the issue. He even considered abandoning conquered territories!
Vicerois were subject to the "Juicios de Residencia" after their mandate ended, and anybody (including natives, of course) could testify against them.

The French were probably the most liberal colonizer in mainland North America with their emphasis on trade. But if they had sent more settlers, the need for land would have led to more significant conflicts with native polities. New France had the highest growing population of any European colony at the time.
The Dutch were only liberal colonizers in North America because they could barely get anyone to settle company ruled New Netherlands. Their rule in South Africa and Indonesia was not liberal.
Cortes did not conquer South America, only Mexico. Pizarro was the one who conquered Peru from the Incas, and that expedition was rather lucky in its timing. Another kingdom besides Spain is unlikely to replicate those circumstances.
Belgians and Italians had absolutely no chance at colonizing the New World in the 16th century unless it was through the Spanish Crown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top