Which European nation had the best colonisation model in America.

Which country was better at colonising.

  • British

    Votes: 94 57.0%
  • French

    Votes: 42 25.5%
  • Portuguese

    Votes: 10 6.1%
  • Spanish

    Votes: 19 11.5%

  • Total voters
    165

jahenders

Banned
Perhaps the British, primarily because it obviously 'proved itself out' over time -- North America (esp US and Canada) has a much more 'British' legacy than the others.

Additionally, it's hard to ID a best model by nation because most of those countries had different models over time. Spain, for example, first used the conquest/slavery model, but then had rich landowner and several different mission models.
 
It really does depend on your criteria

Based on landmass colonised? - The Spanish

Based on native institutions exploited? - The British (Outside of America - Which I guess in this case, means the Spanish win here)

Based on economic success - The British / Portuguese

Based on avoiding intentional harm done to the natives - The French (I think)

Based on population - The British (Again, Outside the US - meaning Spain wins again).

Compared to initial resources - the Portuguese, by a mile.

Based on modern morality? The Swiss :p

Based on what I've learned from Viriato's Portuguese America TL, the Portuguese actually had the most 'resources' available in terms of warm bodies and the ability to almost completely ignore Europe; they shipped out far more people than any other colonial power. The thing is, the majority of them went to tropical regions where a large number died resulting in low population growth. Relocate them to somewhere more temperate, and there'd be far, far more Portuguese speakers in the world today.
 
Umm, can't we just say they were all assholes and leave it at that? because they totally were.

Other cultures when placed in a similar position tended to do similar things. Maybe retrospectively it can be judged morally, but otherwise IMHO it's too easy to climb on a moral high horse.

Since let's face it Europe and modern day countries in the Americas benefited and/or wouldn't have been there today. IMHO the period was both 'golden' and black, however one can't separate the good from the bad. Renouncing things we now think of as bad, with a high probability means renouncing (a part of) the benefits too; we may be eager to do the former, but no one does the latter.
 
New France, if only because the native to settler ratio was heavily skewed in favour of the native peoples, therefore the French settlers had to be friendly to, intermarry and trade with and, to a certain extent, adopt elements of the native peoples' cultures if they wanted to survive in their new home. Instead of, you know, wiping several civilizations out of existence.

If French immigration to North America had been more of a thing back then, they would've become just as genocidal as everyone else.
 
New France, if only because the native to settler ratio was heavily skewed in favour of the native peoples, therefore the French settlers had to be friendly to, intermarry and trade with and, to a certain extent, adopt elements of the native peoples' cultures if they wanted to survive in their new home. Instead of, you know, wiping several civilizations out of existence.

If French immigration to North America had been more of a thing back then, they would've become just as genocidal as everyone else.

Haiti certainly didn't give much of a suggestion that they would be merciful.
 
British/American. They completely destroyed the natives. Not good for the natives, but very good for the British/Americans.

Didn't they fill Guiana with Indonesian 'workers' ninety years back?

They did. It gives you a real good cuisine.
 

jahenders

Banned
Actually, the primary references to doing so are doubtful or discredited. One main one the Battle of Fort Pitt. It appears that the idea of distributing small pox blankets was recommended, but it's not clear that it was carried out or that it would have worked if it was because THOSE PARTICULAR natives had already been hit with Small Pox a few years before and would likely be immune.

The British actually tried to spread pandemic among natives by selling them blankets from those who had small pox.
 
Also on the topic of disease and native depopulation I've heard about (but not read) Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America (a collection of academic essays and not a book) and some people might want to check that out.
 
I would caution against too much angst about European treatment of the natives in North America. it was wrong, but the natives were pretty brutal to each other as well. they regularly conquered territory, forced mass migration, tortured and killed each other, and took slaves. they had a notion of taking over territory by 'right of conquest'. they used the Europeans to conquer and exterminate each other. someone mentioned the Natchez. The Choctaw were eager and willing participants in assisting the French in eliminating the Natchez, who were enemies of both. They tried the same to the Chickasaw, but couldn't pull it off. Many native tribes would switch allegiance at the drop of a hat if they no longer liked the situation.

Again, it doesn't make it right. Just saying that the natives, overall, didn't hesitate to do the same things that modern sentiment is castigating the Europeans over. It was the accepted norm at the time.
 
Top