Settler colonialism practiced in Latin America.

Are you sure, that, the Spanish only let Castillians to the New Worlds? In our timeline, there were many Basques in the New World.

I won't be making overly strong claims about it, but it's my impression that the Germans, Basques, Greeks (Lebanese, Catalans, Polish, Hungarians, Italians etc.) are overwhelmingly, like 90%+, 19th/20th cc. emigrants.

There were however Irish settlers who came in the 18th c.
 
I won't be making overly strong claims about it, but it's my impression that the Germans, Basques, Greeks (Lebanese, Catalans, Polish, Hungarians, Italians etc.) are overwhelmingly, like 90%+, 19th/20th cc. emigrants.

There were however Irish settlers who came in the 18th c.

Both Simon Bolívar and Agustín de Iturbide had colonial Basque ancestors.
 
Both Simon Bolívar and Agustín de Iturbide had colonial Basque ancestors.

Yeah, I'm aware that people in service of Castille went to the new world as Castillans. I'm just saying that the modern situation doesn't say very much about what a 16th c. POD would result in, given the 19th/20th c. immigration rates.
 
People got the wrong ideas, this thread help to dismantled those myths


Err nope...OTL they tried to play later mestizos and that failed and backfired spetacullary as much decided better work with criollos for the upcoming independance...nobody like spanish rules post the austria and by 1800 was already loathed.

You need to look up the Casta System of Latin America and when you are done looking at that and the various colonies racial policies from the institutionalized gracias al sacar and informal Casta mobility you can come back here and talk to me.

Until then saying "nope" just shows a lack on studying know the topic.

Or you can just ignore it, either way I chimed in and said my OTL arguement against the need of White Family at large settlement.
 
You need to look up the Casta System of Latin America and when you are done looking at that and the various colonies racial policies from the institutionalized gracias al sacar and informal Casta mobility you can come back here and talk to me.
Nope, i studied that a lot, that is our national story and culture, that was a state sponsored social division was very real, as you say there some flexibility but that is something was very real and used to divided the population till independance times, even during that time, mostly of natives and mestizo joined the independentist ranks and that is something exist a lot, but later on 'blanqueamiento'(whitening) was very real between mestizos and poor criollos and even liberated slaves, slowly integrating, but that post independance.

Your idea of more white people from europe could explode anyside but the spanish tried OTL and failed, they prefered the more temperated north america
 
That happened OTL and much were second class citizens vs the pure white Criollo(creole)
Not always The case, as long the parents were lawfull Married and both christian, don't matter if The mother or The father was the "Spanish" one, The Kids were considered as Good as puré white for marriage and societal aspects, when The Kids were Bastards, by concubinate or rape, they were considered second class.
But at always exceptions and caveats existed, Looking at you Paraguay
 
I thought someone already mentioned elsewhere that most of those "Basques" were actually Roma and similar nomadic peoples that were banned from emigrating so they chose another route to leave.

No offense but I am skeptical of that claim, especially in the cases of Bolívar and Iturbide's ancestors, Bolívar's Basque ancestry is well documented.
 
No offense but I am skeptical of that claim, especially in the cases of Bolívar and Iturbide's ancestors, Bolívar's Basque ancestry is well documented.

I did say most, not all; some for sure were genuine Basques, like the case of Bolívar and Iturbide, and there are cases where Basque influence is noticeable (for example - in modern Latin American Spanish varieties, listen to how the letter <r> is pronounced; if it sounds similar to Czech's <ř> or are retroflex sounds, then that's a sure sign of Basque influence). But the usage of "Basque" to hide nomadic identities is also well-documented, too.
 
Subjects of the Crown of Castile were allowed to settle in the Spanish Americas, not strictly Castilian-speakers. Guipuzkoa, Alava, and the rest of the Pais Vasco were lands of the Castilian crown, and consequently a significant number of Basques were able to legally immigrate to the New World.

Additionally, there were an impressive number of Portuguese that settled in the Spanish Americas with little to no difficulty - and this being before the 1580 Iberian Union. Members of many different nationalities were able to do likewise due to the enormous difficulty in keeping foreigners from percolating into such a vast territory.
 
Not that Higher, Latam Population didn't exploded till late XX century(argentina as exception but that was closer to europe climate anyway), i can imagine a 20% tops and even more mestizage(mixing) that OTL. Remember we got hard border thanks to disease and low densitity(the inmigration can solve the latter...but the former is a challenged)
Just 20% more migration or 20% more population?

I don't see why you would come to this conclusion, the Spanish seem to have been pretty restricitive in terms of who would come and it doesn't seem that there was per se any ecological barrier to further migration, also why couldn't regions climb up to their pre-columbian levels quicker than they did IOTL?
Even if for a reason or another the carrying capacity was lower during this period compared to the pre-columbian levels I don't think it means that IOTL the Spanish were limited by ecology, rather it seems it was the decisions they made and their direct and indirect consequence that influenced amount of migration and population growth.

Additionally, there were an impressive number of Portuguese that settled in the Spanish Americas with little to no difficulty - and this being before the 1580 Iberian Union. Members of many different nationalities were able to do likewise due to the enormous difficulty in keeping foreigners from percolating into such a vast territory.
But it's still clear that far fewer people migrated than would have had the Spaniards actively allowed people to migrate or even supported them.

But the usage of "Basque" to hide nomadic identities is also well-documented, too.
You said "most of those Basques were actually Roma" that's something quite different from whatever you say is well documented, you'd need to prove that, considering Roma people weren't exactly as much of seafaring people nor were they established enough to migrate to the same extent actual Basques could.
 
To be clear, you think the population can only be 20% higher than IOTL?
Could get higher but there unaccountable factors could affect it anyway, some might be 20% as the lowest minimum possible in all the continent, 25%too, with 33% to 50% as optimist one(or super ones would be 100% but with the pre independance economies might not be enough to that growth)
 
Could get higher but there unaccountable factors could affect it anyway, some might be 20% as the lowest minimum possible in all the continent, 25%too, with 33% to 50% as optimist one(or super ones would be 100% but with the pre independance economies might not be enough to that growth)
I don't follow your train of logic, given higher migrations rates I don't see what would stop population growth given even with a 100% growth we still are below pre-columbian levels in regions like Mesoamerica and the Andes.
 
I don't follow your train of logic, given higher migrations rates I don't see what would stop population growth given even with a 100% growth we still are below pre-columbian levels in regions like Mesoamerica and the Andes.
I'm talking European not native, different people,etc, apples to orange.
 
I'm talking European not native, different people,etc, apples to orange.
Europeans apparently have completely different nutritional needs compared to natives? You seem to give precise numbers, there must be some intelligible logic behind it but if we don't hear it the numbers are as good as any random number.
 
You said "most of those Basques were actually Roma" that's something quite different from whatever you say is well documented, you'd need to prove that, considering Roma people weren't exactly as much of seafaring people nor were they established enough to migrate to the same extent actual Basques could.

OK, let's put it this way. It's been ingrained in my head to use the term "Roma" instead of other terms that would be more offensive, like "Gypsy". I know that there's a specific term for it in Spanish (they even have their own language, Caló, which is basically relexified Castilian over a Romani base, which is better known as the source for an alternate emphatic/intensive form of the 1st-person singular pronoun in Spanish itself, <[el/la] menda>, which takes normal 3rd-person singular verb conjugation), but I just can't think of it. All I was doing was trying to remember that one nugget I remember seeing in AH.com about how the number of Basques was inflated, so if it seems different and contradictory, please bear with me and my brain.
 
Top