Substantial mestizo population in British America?

Modern South American Population:

Pre-Columbian Civilizations:


Part of the reason for that is that the places where there were fewer natives ended up having fewer colonists too and consequently lower populations in general. So yes, they had fewer natives, but there were also fewer Europeans to dilute the native influence. The introduction of African slaves was obviously hugely influential for the demographics of Brazil and the Caribbean.

Certainly though there was much more reluctance to interbreed with Native Americans and Africans in the United States.

Still, if you see my last posts, I didn't even start to talk about Brazil or the Caribbean, where the Africans was dominant. In a phrase I was specific about countries like Colombia and Venezula, where the African influence is limited to the coast that isn't as populated as the Cordillera; and Chile that, even though it was a part of the Inca Empire, it was a peripherical part much less populated than today's Peru and Bolivia. All three are Mestizo-majority countries.
 
That's a pretty bad map, it only shows the famous civilizations. Otherwise there wouldn't be a glaring space between the Maya and Mexica. It also ignores the Muisca and other people in Colombia, from whom the El Dorado legend is derived.
Yeah, I wasn't crazy about it either. But I was showing that many of the more densely populated places in South America today correspond to the large population centers of pre-Columbian South America.
 
Still, if you see my last posts, I didn't even start to talk about Brazil or the Caribbean, where the Africans was dominant.
Yes. I shouldn't have brought it up. I wasn't really responding to something you said more like just acknowledging the contribution to the continent's racial mixture. It just added confusion.

In a phrase I was specific about countries like Colombia and Venezula, where the African influence is limited to the coast that isn't as populated as the Cordillera; and Chile that, even though it was a part of the Inca Empire, it was a peripherical part much less populated than today's Peru and Bolivia. All three are Mestizo-majority countries.
And I would also argue that in those three populations, it's fairly apparent how much more diluted the native influence is. Chile in particular.

That's on a continent with a pre-Columbian population density more than three times that of North America.
 
An interesting Protestant mixed society is the Dutch Cape Colony. There we also have the European refugees living in self-sustained societies but, there's also a considerable number of mixed-race people (Cape Coloured), how is that?

Simple, the Cape wasn't only a place for refugees seeking peace, but for adventurers as well. As a vital entrepôt to India it saw a large number of Protestant sailors and adventurers seeking fortune in the East, these single men mate with African, Indian and Malay women in the Cape.
There were also a significant number of mixed race people in other Dutch colonies, like Ceylon, the Dutch East indies or Taiwan. That suggests that it realy is not a protestant thing.
 
There's no historical evidence of an Amazonian civilization, it's only archeological evidence and The Mississipi isn't exactly in Latin America.

Still, it's clear there was no major Pre-columbian population in countries like Colombia, Chile, Venezuela, etc. and they do have a considerable Mestizo majority in their population.

IMHO there's not necessarily a relation with a great Pre-columbian civilization with a great Mestizo population. It's the way the colonists deal with the natives the most important factor.

Yeah, but those places never got large scale white immigration, which is inevitable in the US because of the great farm land. Everywhere that had a small native population and European immigration (the US, Canada, southern Brazil, Argentina) doesn't have much of a mestizo population.
 
There were also a significant number of mixed race people in other Dutch colonies, like Ceylon, the Dutch East indies or Taiwan. That suggests that it realy is not a protestant thing.

Indeed, like I said, the difference of a settler and an adventurer is also an important factor.
In Latin America, even if the adventurers were the majority of the Europeans there was also a strong settlement feeling in colonial times (see, v.g., the Órfãs del Rei). However, these Spanish and Portuguese Catholic settlers eventually mixed into the major colonial melting pot.

Yeah, but those places never got large scale white immigration, which is inevitable in the US because of the great farm land. Everywhere that had a small native population and European immigration (the US, Canada, southern Brazil, Argentina) doesn't have much of a mestizo population.

All massive European immigration to these places took place only by the 19th century (French-speaking Canada and Argentina were very sparcely populated, Southern Brazil too). Only today's US northwestern coast had a considerable white population (if we compare with the European countries) by the end of the 1700's and that was basically because massive immigration of persecuted Protestant population from Britain, France and Germany.
Without this religious persecutions British North America would have a population density comparable with New France, probably a little higher.

Also, Chile attracted considerable European immigration by the end of the 19th century.
 
There were also a significant number of mixed race people in other Dutch colonies, like Ceylon, the Dutch East indies or Taiwan. That suggests that it realy is not a protestant thing.

I don't think he was saying it was a Protestant thing so much as it was something that resembled the hypothetical Protestant, racially mixed society in question.
 
Yeah, but those places never got large scale white immigration, which is inevitable in the US because of the great farm land. Everywhere that had a small native population and European immigration (the US, Canada, southern Brazil, Argentina) doesn't have much of a mestizo population.

Hence why the POD should increase the native population.

If the natives in the east coast are as numerous as in Peru, where even after a 90% crash in population over the curse of a century are still a sizeable majority compared to the colonists, then you are going to have a very different colonial reality. One closer to the Irish plantations, with English/Scottish farmers numerous in some areas, but elsewhere occupied by great latifundia managed by natives on behalf of English/Scottish landowners.
 
I really don't know where the idea came from that Chile isn't as mestizo as the other Andean countries. The indigenous culture isn't as prevalent, probably due to the fact that there wasn't a large survivor population after the diseases and conquest, such as in Peru and Ecuador, but the country is as "brown" as they are. The only countries that compare to the US and Canada, in terms of the indigenous peoples being almost completely and overwhelmingly replaced by European settlers, is Argentina and Uruguay.
 
Why exactly was it that a substantial population of people with a mixed European-Native heritage never arose in British North America, as it did in much of Spanish America?

Spanish colonists were mainly men who arrived to make a quick fortune and go back to Spain. Those that stayed needed wives so they married local Indians.

British colonists in North American arrived to settle the land. Established families came over which included women. Men looking for wives could do so among their own people.

These are very general statements and not 100% accurate, but they have enough true for the sake of explanation. If lots of British men arrived without British women accompanying them, there'd be lots of mestizos as well.
 
You could also have a pretty large black and white mestizo population. Throw Natives in the mix and you'll end up with an Anglo Brazil.
 
Still, it's clear there was no major Pre-columbian population in countries like Colombia, Chile, Venezuela, etc. and they do have a considerable Mestizo majority in their population.

The cultures of Central America, Colombia, and Venezuela were high chiefdom level, and they had considerable influence from the big civilizations to their north and south. As a result, they had a higher population density than most societies north of Mesoamerica.

The islands of the Greater Antilles may look like an exception, but recent genetic studies have shown substantial survival of indigenous ancestry in the current populations of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and Aruba.

As for places like Paraguay, Patagonia, and the Brazilian Amazon, the indigenous peoples there lived in marginal lands that weren't very attractive to European settlers. As someone else already pointed out, this favored the survival of indigenous and mestizo populations in these regions. You can compare them with regions like the Arctic (Alaska, Greenland, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut) with a more prominent ratio of indigenous peoples to descendants of settlers.

precol.jpg
 
Top