Make south America as industral as North America

Peronist or Peronist-style government joins the Allies? We're talking ASB now. Of course we could tweak things to prevent the predeliction of Southern Cone polities to develop 'strongman' and other psuedo or near facist government types, but that would mean changing their culture because everything else flows from it.

You make it sound as if it's impossible to change a culture, and that the only way for a Latin America that's industrialized is for some one else to colonize it.

I don't think you mean this, but this thread reads like everyone saying that Latin America is unsalvageable unless some one else colonizes it.

Please pay attention to the phrase "... different European powers.... Notice my use of the plural form of the word 'power'? Not "power" and definitely not "Britain", I wrote "powers".

I stand my opposition. This strikes me as a lazy approach, one that just washes off all of OTL South American history instead of looking at how it could be changed.
 
Faeelin, ...

Bill

Does culture matters? Yes, of course. It's an important factor, and may well be discussed here. I'm Argentinian, and, personally, I don't mind at all this subject being discussed.

But a few things must be clear:

1) "Culture" is not genetical. (Of course, you haven't said so, Bill, and i know you don't believe so, but i just want to leave this clear ). Each "culture" has become what it is because its society has responsed differently to different historical circunstances. The English hadn't always had the culture they have now. Had things gone differently around 1400 (or 1200, if you prefer), you could easily have an absolutist monarchy in Britain by 1700, and a constitutional monarchy in Spain or France. ITTL, Spanish or French culture would be much more favourable to democracy than English one. As you know, by, 1500, Parliaments existed not only in England, but also in Spain ("Cortes"), France ("États généraux") and many other countries. But, for different circunstances, the English one grew in power, while the other ones didn't.

Medieval Spain had institutions that, given different circunstances, may well have evolved into a more "democratic" society. The same thing applies to other aspects of culture, such as how work is viewed by people from a certain culture.

2) Culture may change, as Faeelin stated. And change may be quite fast. If not, how did Spain suddenly abandon it's supposedly more backwards culture (in European terms) and become a First World Nation... in less than 30 years? Or, what made Argentina become a reasonably rich nation by 1910, after being one of the poorest in the region in 1850?

Finaly, concerning this:
A Peronist or Peronist-style government joins the Allies? We're talking ASB now. Of course we could tweak things to prevent the predeliction of Southern Cone polities to develop 'strongman' and other psuedo or near facist government types, but that would mean changing their culture because everything else flows from it.

First, not all governments were "Peronist or Peronist-style". Among the democratic ones, Alvear's, Frondizi's, Illia's or Alfonsin's definetely weren't. I'm going to write a TL someday in which Roberto Ortiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_María_Ortiz) doesn't get ill and resign in 1940. Had it been so, you could very easily have had no Peron, a democratic government by 1944, and Argentina in WWII with the allies.
Secondly, you don't need a non "peronist-style" government to have Argentina siding with the allies. Vargas, in Brazil, wasn't very different form Peron, and led his country into WWII on the side of the allies. (But this doesn't undermine your point, of course.)


So, to sum up, I agree with you in the sense that culture is comething to keep into account. But, as Faeliin states, you don't need a different colonization to industrialize South America. Minor changes could have modified culture in order to make it more favourable to such a process. If, for example, Cabildos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabildo_%28council%29) had been stronger in America as they had been in mediaval Spain, the region would have been much more used to self-governing after the independence. If more Spanish peasants or merchants had came, instead of soldiers, things wouldn't have been the same. If no cheap labour had been available, other would have been the colonizers attitude towards work. If President Sarmiento had succeded in his proyect to give cheap land to immigrants, you would have a middle class made of farmers by 1910, and so, a more stable democracy (this has to do with Baron von Feldspar's post).

All this is important, but may be even unnecesary. Because you can have industrialization first, and then a change in culture, adjusting to the new model. Like in South Corea.

Best regards,

Adm Brown
 
"Culture" is not genetical. (Of course, you haven't said so, Bill, and i know you don't believe so, but i just want to leave this clear ).


Admiral,

Thank you for that. I've had enough words crammed into my posts during this thread.

Culture may change, as Faeelin stated. And change may be quite fast.

Agreed, and I never said cultures couldn't change. In the last 20 years I've lived through a massive cultural change and the last 40 years pretty much turned everything upside down.

If not, how did Spain suddenly abandon it's supposedly more backwards culture (in European terms) and become a First World Nation... in less than 30 years?

One word: Money. Spain was a relatively backward 'marcher' kingdom that won the world's biggest lottery. Portugal had too much of a head start for Spain to catch up, so they bought a ticket by funding Columbus and stumbled into the biggest jackpot in human history. The fact that Spain was crawling with tough, experienced, combat veterans was an added bonus. Disease and those Reconquista veterans allowed Spain to knock over the Amerind civilizations, keep a firm boot on the neck of both the remaining natives and the slaves brought into replace them, and fight off the other European powers who wanted in on the booty.

Of course, all the money eventually harmed Spain too. Despite it, she lost her position by ~1650 and quickly slid into the role of weak ally, pawn, and victim.

Or, what made Argentina become a reasonably rich nation by 1910, after being one of the poorest in the region in 1850?

Completion of her long delayed unification, European industrialization, cheap shipping, and increased European immigration.

As you can undoubtedly tell us, as late as the War of the Triple Alliance, parts of Argentina still disliked the Buenos Aires-centered scheme of things. Argentina had to divert troops from the war against Paraguay to put down internal rebellions. It was only after the late 1870s that government of Argentina could be said to finally control the territory of Argentina.

European industrialization meant vastly increased imports of food and nitrates while cheap, fast shipping meant those imports could come from further away. Chile exported nitrates, even going to war to secure them, and Argentina exported grain and beef. Argentina had an export market and did well from it.

Increased European immigration (lots of Italians, right?) allowed Argentina's population and, most importantly, skill set to grow faster than either could grow on only a native basis.

Minor changes could have modified culture in order to make it more favourable to such a process.

I strongly agree with that. The culture needs to be changed, but the amount of change is open to debate. I would lean towards the minimal side.

If, for example, Cabildos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabildo_%28council%29) had been stronger in America as they had been in mediaval Spain, the region would have been much more used to self-governing after the independence. If more Spanish peasants or merchants had came, instead of soldiers, things wouldn't have been the same. If no cheap labour had been available, other would have been the colonizers attitude towards work.

All of those require a different Spain and a different New World than the 1492 OTL Spain and New World. Such a different Spain may not have played the 'Columbus Lottery' to win the jackpot and such a different New World may not have been subjugated in the same manner.

In that case a 'different European power' does colonize the Southern Cone because a 'different' Spain did so!

Because you can have industrialization first, and then a change in culture, adjusting to the new model. Like in South Corea.

Korea's post-WW2 industrilization depended on so many worldwide factors specific to our time that comparing her progress to the progress of nations in the 1500 - 1900 time span is worthless. You could transport the factors involved to the period in question, but you'd be forced to make so many changes to that period and the centuries proceeding it that it would be unrecognizable to us.


Bill
 
Last edited:
"If not, how did Spain suddenly abandon it's supposedly more backwards culture (in European terms) and become a First World Nation... in less than 30 years?"


One word: Money. Spain was a relatively backward 'marcher' kingdom that won the world's biggest lottery. Portugal had too much of a head start for Spain to catch up, so they bought a ticket by funding Columbus and stumbled into the biggest jackpot in human history. The fact that Spain was crawling with tough, experienced, combat veterans was an added bonus. Disease and those Reconquista veterans allowed Spain to knock over the Amerind civilizations, keep a firm boot on the neck of both the remaining natives and the slaves brought into replace them, and fight off the other European powers who wanted in on the booty.

Of course, all the money eventually harmed Spain too. Despite it, she lost her position by ~1650 and quickly slid into the role of weak ally, pawn, and victim.

I think he might be referring to Spain after WWII, not in the 16th century...(Spain's GDP/cap was only about 10% higher than Mexico's in 1950).

Bruce
 
I think he might be referring to Spain after WWII, not in the 16th century...(Spain's GDP/cap was only about 10% higher than Mexico's in 1950).


Bruce,

The answer to that is money too, although there were other factors in play.

Lots of lovely EU subsidies were among the many goodies which came with that EU membership.


Bill
 
You make it sound as if it's impossible to change a culture, and that the only way for a Latin America that's industrialized is for some one else to colonize it.

Almost
In 1762 Britian conquered Cuba in the 7 years war,
for most of 1763 the British army found it cheaper to buy lot of the small articles needed locally.
They encouraged local craftmen to open businesses, Havana's economy boomed.
in 1764 the Spanish returned.
One of the first acts by the new Spanish Governor was to outlaw and close all the small independent businesses.
The Local economy crashed.

Spain traded Florida to get Cuba back.
By 1765 British/American settlers began building Roads and draining swamps.
When the Spainish got Florida back in 1783, they chased the settlers out. And sent men out to stop up the drainage ditches.
they let the roads deterioate.
By 1800 it was hard to find the remains of this settlement.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Easy. Make NA less industrial. Minor yellowstone explosion perhaps, or Spain has complete controll of all or almost all of North America as well as South America
 
I said nothing of the sort.
I simply stated that Kenya is doing fine and until Mugabe Zimbabwe was pretty damn well off too.


I think having other nations colonising south america is cheating here. Its likely had other countries got to the big gold reserves first they would have treat those regions quite similar to Spain.

Zimbabwe actually did pretty well with Migabe in charge for 20 years. It was only in 2000 when a real threat to his rule came about, the MDC, that he started doing nutty things like seizing white-owned farms.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Faeelin,

Tell us, were those terrible events internal or external? Were there invasions by foreign powers? Ethnic cleansing? Occupations? Or were all the root causes of all those historical mistakes, gaffes, blunders, and terrible events primarily internal?

Culture and climate counts. Most of South America was handicapped by climate and the Southern Cone was handicapped by the culture they inherited.



A Peronist or Peronist-style government joins the Allies? We're talking ASB now. Of course we could tweak things to prevent the predeliction of Southern Cone polities to develop 'strongman' and other psuedo or near facist government types, but that would mean changing their culture because everything else flows from it.

Oops, there's that word again. Culture.



Careful, that jerking knee made you read far much more into my original post than what I actually wrote or intended. Here's my single sentence original post again so you can easily re-read it:



Please pay attention to the phrase "... different European powers.... Notice my use of the plural form of the word 'power'? Not "power" and definitely not "Britain", I wrote "powers".

Your idea of French Hugenots is an excellent one, as is the idea of a Dutch Southern Cone. Actually, I believe that multiple European colonies, even if they all eventually merge into one colonial or post-colonial polity, would result in an improvement. Immigration into the region began relatively late and proved generally unequal to the task of destroying the Iberian caudillo-peon colonial social structure whose after effects still plague most of Latin America.

More people with different viewpoints arriving earlier would cause a change in... wait for it... CULTURE and give the Southern Cone a better chance of success.


Bill

I concur.

But when I blame culture, it is not so mutch the culture of the colonists, but the culture of the ruling european nation. And IMO comercial attitude is included in the term culture.

Both Iberian nations at various times explicit forbade manufacturing facilities in their colonies out of fear that merchandize from Iberia should loose markeds.
 
Both Iberian nations at various times explicit forbade manufacturing facilities in their colonies out of fear that merchandize from Iberia should loose markeds.


....So did Britain. What do you think the Hat Act and all those other Acts were for?
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
....So did Britain. What do you think the Hat Act and all those other Acts were for?

No need to get obnoxious... :rolleyes:

Timing is essential here. Those acts came later than for the Iberians, and AFAIK were retrictions on an alredy excisting "industry" and future expantion, not a total strangeling of a not yet established sector.
 
Culture is important, and so are money and resources.
Let's set a pod in witch Lavalle's uprising is stopped, so Manuel Dorrego isn't shot and unifies Argentina right after the war with Brazil, by 1825 or so. Is there a way to industrialize Argentina even if the foode export model begins 50 years before?
 
There are two options to make South America industrial as North America:

First:

British colonizes Argentina, Chile (except to Northern Antofagosta and Taracapa region), Paraguay, and Uruguay because the British ensures equal land distribution to the settlers and then, it will lead to industrialization in Argentina from 1880 onwards. Argentina would become a South American version of Canada if the British had colonize the Rio de la Plata from 1806 with dominant English (assuming the British are the majority of migrants from 1806 to 1910) and minority Castillan.

Second:

British investors industrialize Argentina from 1880 immediately instead of focusing on meat. Argentine government focuses on equal land distribution to the new settlers from Europe, strenthening the education system, and the most strategic, strenthening the democracy to prevent the military from staging a coup.


If Argentina industrialize from 1880 onwards, Brazil could follow suit and if Argentina is a British colony, Brazil also could be economically controlled by the British due to the influx of the British investors in South America.
 
So how could we make south America as industral giants as north America ,

I don't think such a thing would be possible,it would take too much effert..one to stop the chaos that is naturally South America..and two,to have enough stability to encourage development.
 
Also, culture hinders the economic development in the Southern Cone. In the Spanish colonization system, the caudillo-peon system hinders the Southern Cone region to develop economically 'cause caudillo-peon system of the Spaniards discourages the peasants to be an innovative and self-reliant whereas the British colonization provides all settlers with land (peasant or merchant) and the British encourages the settlers to be innovative and self-reliant.

British Southern Cone would be the best scenario for all South America.
 
More protectionism. In the mid-19th century Brazil had a surge of industrial growth only stopped by the issuing of a new pro-free trade tariff policy, which benefited the plantation owners, but proved fatal to the nascent industry (remember, one of the countries that got most heavily industrialized in the 19th century, the USA, was quite protectionist).

Essentially, the problem can be summed up as being that the landed aristocracy, which was dominant in most latin american countries, wasn't very interested in industrial development, especially if it meant higher tariffs, which would result in a foreign reaction with higher tariffs to the agricultural products of the countries in question.

So, you either need a government that is powerful enough to promote industrialization policies, with a good amount of intervention in the economy, OR earlier and more massive exportation of European capital to those countries, and not restricting investment only to agriculture and mining OR the formation of a class of investors which could develop the nation on their own.

Better education would be necessary as well, especially for training specialists, scientists and etc. and promoting newer management techniques, for example. This would be hard to achieve, as the amount of people capable of teaching was not high enough to educate the population en masse. Allowing foreign teachers and professors to teach in the countries could prove benefitial, though the slave owners feared that they could spread dangerous ideas among the slaves.
 
This is an old thread. Going back there is Coal in South America.

Located in La Guajira state, in northeastern Colombia, El Cerrejón is the world's largest export open pit coal mining operation

Colombia is such a rich nation when it comes to resources and agriculture.

And what Andrelvis said is right.

Latin America was settled differently. Many soldiers of fortune or people who were broke in Spain migrated there. They mixed with the locals. Many expected to get rich and back to Spain.

The UK. migration to the US was different. It involved settlers with families who were seeking better lives, Religion was also one reason. Some were leaving UK. because of pressure put on them because of there religion,

In time those Spaniards that stayed in South America became the Creole class. They owned everything. They ran those nations once they became independent. Some did not care for change. An educated people means sharing of political power and loss of cheap labor.

Think this is why Bolivar had so much trouble getting a united Gran Colombia. He needed to do what Paraguays first President José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia did which was to crush all Spanish and Creole landowner oppositiion after Independence.
Under Francia, Paraguay underwent a social upheaval that destroyed the old elites.

If he had not done that chance are what happened to Gran Colombia would have happened to Paraguay but worse. There probably would have been no Paraguay left.

This some info. on him:
http://countrystudies.us/paraguay/7.htm
http://countrystudies.us/paraguay/8.htm
http://countrystudies.us/paraguay/9.htm
 
Top