How can we make South America stronger?

[Delvestius]

I have often wondered why no South American country ever reached the level of the United States or Canada, even though they have been settled for a longer amount of time. I have come to one conclusion that seems to be the most deciding factor.

While geography has a lot to do with it, I think the #1 thing that Spanish America missed out on was any true desire to populate their regions. Much of the United States was populated by those seeking religious freedom, refuge from overcrowding, prisoners and land-seekers. The Spanish had no such wide-scale movements of people into their colonies; They never had any groups with the intention of settling the colonies as the British did. The only people you really had coming into their colonies were noble plantation owners, fortune-seeking prospectors and African slaves. The same goes for Portugal; While modern day Brazil's economy and population is booming, their still not up to snuff, and this is a consequence of being settled on the back of slaves... lots and lots of slaves...

I wonder that if Spain had any groups willing to settle New Andalusia or Argentina, that these states would be able to create a society more akin to the U.S., and in the process reach better levels of economy and production by the modern age.

Here's one idea: Perhaps a more tolerant Spain gave the option to Jews and Muslims to relocate to South America. Perhaps a conquered Morocco would give them even more Muslims to ship over and colonize.

What other ways do you guys see that could make South America more on the level of "Western" countries by today's age?

 

[Æsir]

IIRC Brazil was very much on the up before the Emperor was overthrown and the new republican government screwed up. Avoiding that and butterflying subsequent screw-ups and Brazil has almost as massive a potential base as the United States does, although much less of it is enticing to European settlers.

Have things go right for Argentina and Chile and while they would not be powers on the level of the US they would be economic forces on par with the likes of Australia or Canada. What exactly that involves is less clear to me; IIRC for Argentina the root of it's 20th century political troubles was the unpleasantness regarding the establisment's dislike of President Yrigoyen, although it should be noted that the Great Depression hit primary sector focused countries like Argentina and Australia particularly hard. Chile has long had a fairly strong economy and middle class, but from reading DValdron's Axis of the Andes, it was built on a mining sector which had thoroughly captured government and brutally even by Latin American standards suppressed the labour movement.

 

[Plumber]

Gran Colombia has the resources and population. Just keep it together. Bless Santander and get rid of Bolivar.

 

[Faeelin]

IIRC Brazil was very much on the up before the Emperor was overthrown and the new republican government screwed up. Avoiding that and butterflying subsequent screw-ups and Brazil has almost as massive a potential base as the United States does, although much less of it is enticing to European settlers.

People always blame the fall of the emperor for why Brazil wasn't more prosperous.

Can someone explain why to me?

 

[Thande]

I totally have no vested interest in this thread. At all. Honest.

 

[Razgriz 2K9]

People always blame the fall of the emperor for why Brazil wasn't more prosperous.

Can someone explain why to me?

It is because during the early republican age, the Early Brazilian Presidents have often mismanaged their governments. This, coupled with the increasing Industrial strength of the United States and other Western European Nations, meant that it retarded it's domestic industrial base. Brazil remained economically unsecured until around the 1990's.

 

[Gonzaga]

It is because during the early republican age, the Early Brazilian Presidents have often mismanaged their governments. This, coupled with the increasing Industrial strength of the United States and other Western European Nations, meant that it retarded it's domestic industrial base. Brazil remained economically unsecured until around the 1990's.

Actually during the Old Republic Brazil had economical growth, and during the 1890's this growth was much faster than it had been during the last decades of the monarchy. The early Republic had political instability during it's first decade, but it didn't necessarily translate into economical troubles (except for the Encilhamento crisis, but the conditions for its creation were already brewing since the last years of the monarchy).

The point is, I can't see how only by keeping the monarchy Brazil would solve it's main economical issue, that is the dependency of exportation of a single commodity (coffee, and rubber for a while) against the need of increasing the industrial basis. The end of slavery only meant the replacement of one agrarian elite (the farmers of Rio de Janeiro and Eastern São Paulo) by other (based in Western São Paulo and Minas Gerais), but their goals were identical (keeping the economy dependent on agricultural exports).

 

[wolf_brother]

For Brazil you need to get more Brazilians directly involved in the long rubber boom, and either have the crash happen earlier (and thus smaller), or have it happen much slower instead of all at once.

For Argentina, I'd suggest less crapshot dictatorships, and losing wars against the her neighbors over mineral resources and control of trade routes and waterways. I mean you can be a crapshot dictatorship and still do relatively well as long as you win the wars you fight and have good trade relations with important powers.

 

[Hyperbolus]

My initial thought (for the larger states anyway) was an earlier and more thorough development of banks, as they'd facilitate the fraught transition from a rentier/natural resources economy to a capital intensive manufacturing one. But I realized this development would require more stable currencies generally and probably higher tariffs to secure the domestic market. OTL cottage industries were devastated by (largely) British mass-produced textiles. Perhaps, if the early contretemps over indebtedness+ill-conceived loans (particularly the 1825 crash) is deeper and protracted, natural resource exports from S. America would fetch a relatively higher price on the burgeoning world market. Meanwhile, paucity of credit slows the industrialization of Europe, augmenting migration to S. America and buying time for its industrial development.

 

[Dan1988]

For Argentina, I'd suggest less crapshot dictatorships, and losing wars against the her neighbors over mineral resources and control of trade routes and waterways. I mean you can be a crapshot dictatorship and still do relatively well as long as you win the wars you fight and have good trade relations with important powers.

The easy way out is either to prevent Yrigoyen from taking power or, failing that, preventing the coup against Yrigoyen. After all, in the 20th century it was from the coup against Yrigoyen that the military got involved in politics. By avoiding the downfall of Yrigoyen, that removes the reason for the military to get involved. And of course, the currency will be much more stable in the long run.

 

[wolf_brother]

The easy way out is either to prevent Yrigoyen from taking power or, failing that, preventing the coup against Yrigoyen. After all, in the 20th century it was from the coup against Yrigoyen that the military got involved in politics. By avoiding the downfall of Yrigoyen, that removes the reason for the military to get involved. And of course, the currency will be much more stable in the long run.

Honestly, I think the 20th century is far too late. To fix the underlying problems and make Argentina as strong as, say, Canada, or Japan, you'll need to go back to the 1850s, 60s, and 70s, and change the trends there.

 

[werehawk]

I'd probably go earlier than that all the way back to early Spanish colonial administration...

That is go straight to the root of the probelm which was the entire Spanish colonial administration which basicly set a de facto caste system as to how high one could go based on one where one was born as well as a caste systwem based on how much of your ancestry was Spaniard...

Under the Spanish colonial system if you were born and educated in Spain or son of someone born in Spain you were set for life you could rise very high in the Spanish government. However if you were second or more generations you'd still be able to get in but wouldn't rise very high. As for those of mixed race (mestizos) you get in to but be limited to very low level positions.

As for those of Amerindian ancestry or worse African ancestry you were thoroughly screwed over. You might become alcalde of a back country
town but that was pretty much as far as you'd get.

Independence in Latin America came more as a result of the fact that the Spanish Empire pretty much ran on auto pilot after Napoleon conquered Spain and sat his brother on the throne so for about ten years or so the colonies pretty much well ran themselves with little or no input from Spain.

The indepence and revolution movements in Latin America for the most part came from the large property holders and descendants of Spaniard conquistadors rather than from the Indian or Mestizo populations. Take a look at the paintings of most of the revolutionary heroes of latin american indepedence most of them are very much whites not that many mestizos, Indians or Africans among them.

 

[wolf_brother]

That's not much different from the British colonies though... Hell replace 'Spanish caste system' with 'British self-rule' and you're still looking at a White Man's only club. Whichever European monarch is nominally in charge, whether of Buenos Aires or of Boston, isn't going to change that.

 

[Snake Featherston]

You're talking about an entire continent where there are huge differences within individual countries. Using as one analogy a state that rose because everyone else conveniently self-destructed and as another a province of continued imperial rule, to claim that an entire continent emulating either would be feasible.

 

[Killer300]

Perhaps if South America somehow united into even less states?

After all, North America has only three countries in it(not counting islands) and all those are quite successful, considering a superpower, a great power, and a country that's... doing okay to bad but still quite powerful at times.

 

[Consul Arrianus]

Comparing South America to North America is somehow more or less the same as comparing Europe and the rest of the world.

Europe has compared to the rest little ressources, so the people had to invent something to compensate it. That's why in Europe there were made the most important inventions including the searoute westward, the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.

Back to America: When the first settlers came to North Amrica they found almost nothing: during the first winter the people had hard to fight to survive.

In South America, the Spanish conquistadores found wealthy lands and established a feudal based system, which as we how isn't going to be productive and efficient.


So you have to butterly away the ressoures of the continent or some other dramatic change. Hope your're European
Keep the discussion up.

 

[werehawk]

That's not much different from the British colonies though... Hell replace 'Spanish caste system' with 'British self-rule' and you're still looking at a White Man's only club. Whichever European monarch is nominally in charge, whether of Buenos Aires or of Boston, isn't going to change that.

True there are certain parallels but I will observe that the British colonies had a greater deal of local rule than the Spanish colonies ever did. Colonial governors were appointed by England but the rank and file of colonial administration as well as local Mayors and Councils were for the most part born in North America. In the case of Spain anything above a mid level administrator was more than likely the second or third son of Spanish aristocrat who was appointed to the post directly from Spain.

I'll also add in a factor that people often overlook is that cultural factor. British colonists and Spanish colonists came from very different cultural backgrounds also the British crown and aristocracy were nowhere near as powerful as the Spanish crown was.

Plus the fact that the Spanish had pretty much conquered a whole set of long established nation states in South America which enabled them to coopt many of the existing social structures to their own benefit while in North America for the most part they were dealing with mainly tribal states which are very hard to coopt.

Another advantage of North America is that expansion was on a East to West basis which means you can use pretty much the same crops across a broad swath of territory. South America it is in a north-South axis with the addition of the Andes Chain all of which complicates what crops you can grow.

 

[Dan1988]

Honestly, I think the 20th century is far too late. To fix the underlying problems and make Argentina as strong as, say, Canada, or Japan, you'll need to go back to the 1850s, 60s, and 70s, and change the trends there.

By the 1920s, Argentina was one of the richest countries in South America. That could be used as a base - and, as such, it's not too late. And honestly, taking Yrigoyen out of the picture is rather easy, too. At the time of the coup in 1930, the man was in his late 70's (he died in 1933 aged 80). A simple POD in that case would be that Yrigoyen decides one term is enough, and thus doesn't return after Alvear. That leaves one question open, though - once Alvear finishes his OTL term, who's left to succeed Alvear amongst the UCR in a scenario with no Yrigoyen second term. Apart from that question, once it's settled it would help avoid getting the military involved, for the benefit of everybody.

 

[Dan1988]

I'd probably go earlier than that all the way back to early Spanish colonial administration...

That is go straight to the root of the probelm which was the entire Spanish colonial administration which basicly set a de facto caste system as to how high one could go based on one where one was born as well as a caste systwem based on how much of your ancestry was Spaniard...

Honestly, though, *Argentina was in the periphery so such things were not as common as elsewhere. Essentially, for the most part, Madrid paid no attention to events in the Río de la Plata. More so in the case of land, as BS-AS was largely a commercial town, but since everything had to go through Lima BS-AS was largely built on smuggling to compensate (primarily because BS-AS was on the periphery). There's a reason why Argentina was the first country to declare independence from Spain.

 

[juanml82]

I wonder that if Spain had any groups willing to settle New Andalusia or Argentina, that these states would be able to create a society more akin to the U.S., and in the process reach better levels of economy and production by the modern age.

Here's one idea: Perhaps a more tolerant Spain gave the option to Jews and Muslims to relocate to South America. Perhaps a conquered Morocco would give them even more Muslims to ship over and colonize.

Didn't Spain loose a lot of population due migration to America? There is also the fact that the British colonies in North America were located in a (relative) small area, while Spain was occupying a huge territory. European population density was going to be lower.

For Argentina, I'd suggest less crapshot dictatorships, and losing wars against the her neighbors over mineral resources and control of trade routes and waterways. I mean you can be a crapshot dictatorship and still do relatively well as long as you win the wars you fight and have good trade relations with important powers.

What wars are you talking about? Argentina didn't loose mineral resources in war, it failed to annex them in war: in the final years of the independence war, when an offensive towards current Bolivia could very well end up in most, if not all, of Bolivia becoming part of Argentina. Such an offensive never took place. And looking at the history (and present) of Bolivia, it's really debatable whether that would have helped anyway. Mineral resources help as long as they are transformed into industrial goods. And that couldn't be done in the 19th century as the internal market was just too small to provide the economy of scale needed to out-compete the British goods and their use of gun point diplomacy to discuss custom taxes.

The easy way out is either to prevent Yrigoyen from taking power or, failing that, preventing the coup against Yrigoyen. After all, in the 20th century it was from the coup against Yrigoyen that the military got involved in politics. By avoiding the downfall of Yrigoyen, that removes the reason for the military to get involved. And of course, the currency will be much more stable in the long run.

I think the raise of the UCR during the early 20th century is inevitable unless the socialists manage to get their act together and become some sort of ATL peronism. And that's a very long shot. Still, since neither party would have the support of the rather aristocratic military, coups are still on the cards - unless the military decisively stays out of politics. The coup against Yrigoyen might actually be decisive there is loyalist officers avert it, maybe even with force. Still, social conflict was going to crash some way or another without a corporatist movement like Peronism. And corporatism has it's own set of troubles.
Plus, in any case, that doesn't mean the economy is properly managed. A fair portion of the industrialists of that period were military officers who thought in terms of heavy dual use industry which depended a lot on public expending.

Looking back at the 19th century, I think an earlier public education law in, let's say, the 1820s or 30s is not *that* farfetched, but hard to get. The civil wars are unavoidable but, even with it, if a generation or two of urban dwellers get used to kids going to school until, let's say, they are twelve, there might be major changes in the long run. Even if the country isn't totally pacified until the 1860s-80s