WI Balkan christians emmigrate to Latin America instead of italians/spaniards?

So, I was reading @Koprulu Mustafa Pasha timeline (here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...lternate-resurging-ottomans-1747-1947.439993/ ) about an Ottoman Empire that reformed in the mid 18th century and didnt loose any territories in europe or the middle east and by the early 19th century starts to slowly centralice its rule in the balkans. And the author stated his intention of avoiding italian unification and the spanish decadence in ttl 19th century. And I thought that, without italian unification or spanish decade the demographics and cultures of countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, etc. would be radically different.
The effects of the risorgimiento in southers italy from wikipedia: "The southern economy greatly suffered after the Italian unification and the process of industrialisation was interrupted. Poverty and organised crime were long-standing issues in Southern Italy as well and it got worse after unification. Cavour stated the basic problem was poor government, and believed the solution lied in the strict application of the Piedmonese legal system. The main result was an upsurge in brigandage.[30] Because of this, the South experienced great economic difficulties resulting in massive emigration leading to a worldwide Italian diaspora, especially to North America, South America, Australia, and other parts of Europe. Many natives also relocated to the industrial cities in northern Italy, such as Genoa, Milan and Turin. A relative process of industrialisation has developed in some areas of the "Mezzogiorno" after World War II. In the 1946 referendumafter the war, the region voted to keep the monarchy, with its greatest support coming in Campania. Politically, it was at odds with northern Italy, which won the referendum to establish a republic.[31] Today, the South remains less economically developed than the northern and central regions, which enjoyed an "economic miracle" in the 1950s and 1960s and became highly industrialized."
"Starting from the unification of Italy in 1861–1870, a growing economic divide between the northern provinces and the southern half of Italy became evident.[32] In the early decades of the new kingdom, the lack of effective land reform, heavy taxes, and other economic measures imposed on the South, along with the removal of protectionist tariffs on agricultural goods imposed to boost northern industry, made the situation nearly impossible for many tenant farmers, small businesses and land owners. Multitudes chose to emigrate rather than try to eke out a meagre living, especially from 1892 to 1921.[33]"
Also in the same period spain sufered inmense emigration to the americas (for example around 2 million left for Argentina between 1850-1950) especially from the poorest provinces like Galicia and Andalusia, because of the political repression but mostly because the lack of modernization and poverty.
So, if Spain and southern italy do better in ttl then their emigration would be far smaller and so would be their cultural and demographical impact on the societies of Latin America.
But if the Balkans remain under Ottoman rule (one thats slowly modernicing, is capable to defend its territory form external and internal threats) then is qute likely that they would experience massive emigration of the christians (just like the levantine christians/druze/shias once the ottomans started to rule more directly on the levant in the second half of the 19th century) to the Americas. Also is quite likely if the ottomans centraly their rule in the middle east sooner there quite likely going to be earlier and more massive levantine minorities emigration and latter also christian ans shia emigrants from Irak.
So the question is how different would be Latin Americans societies if the origin of most of their immgrants was the ottoman balkans instead of italians and spaniards? How different would they be if they ressived more and earlier non-sunni arabs (christian, druze, and shia) from the Ottoman Empire?
I made this thinking about latin america (mainly Argentina) but speculations about other New worlds countries with significant italian/spanish immigration in the same time period (1800-1950) is also apreciated.
 
So, I was reading @Koprulu Mustafa Pasha timeline (here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...lternate-resurging-ottomans-1747-1947.439993/ ) about an Ottoman Empire that reformed in the mid 18th century and didnt loose any territories in europe or the middle east and by the early 19th century starts to slowly centralice its rule in the balkans. And the author stated his intention of avoiding italian unification and the spanish decadence in ttl 19th century. And I thought that, without italian unification or spanish decade the demographics and cultures of countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, etc. would be radically different.
The effects of the risorgimiento in southers italy from wikipedia: "The southern economy greatly suffered after the Italian unification and the process of industrialisation was interrupted. Poverty and organised crime were long-standing issues in Southern Italy as well and it got worse after unification. Cavour stated the basic problem was poor government, and believed the solution lied in the strict application of the Piedmonese legal system. The main result was an upsurge in brigandage.[30] Because of this, the South experienced great economic difficulties resulting in massive emigration leading to a worldwide Italian diaspora, especially to North America, South America, Australia, and other parts of Europe. Many natives also relocated to the industrial cities in northern Italy, such as Genoa, Milan and Turin. A relative process of industrialisation has developed in some areas of the "Mezzogiorno" after World War II. In the 1946 referendumafter the war, the region voted to keep the monarchy, with its greatest support coming in Campania. Politically, it was at odds with northern Italy, which won the referendum to establish a republic.[31] Today, the South remains less economically developed than the northern and central regions, which enjoyed an "economic miracle" in the 1950s and 1960s and became highly industrialized."
"Starting from the unification of Italy in 1861–1870, a growing economic divide between the northern provinces and the southern half of Italy became evident.[32] In the early decades of the new kingdom, the lack of effective land reform, heavy taxes, and other economic measures imposed on the South, along with the removal of protectionist tariffs on agricultural goods imposed to boost northern industry, made the situation nearly impossible for many tenant farmers, small businesses and land owners. Multitudes chose to emigrate rather than try to eke out a meagre living, especially from 1892 to 1921.[33]"
Also in the same period spain sufered inmense emigration to the americas (for example around 2 million left for Argentina between 1850-1950) especially from the poorest provinces like Galicia and Andalusia, because of the political repression but mostly because the lack of modernization and poverty.
So, if Spain and southern italy do better in ttl then their emigration would be far smaller and so would be their cultural and demographical impact on the societies of Latin America.
But if the Balkans remain under Ottoman rule (one thats slowly modernicing, is capable to defend its territory form external and internal threats) then is qute likely that they would experience massive emigration of the christians (just like the levantine christians/druze/shias once the ottomans started to rule more directly on the levant in the second half of the 19th century) to the Americas. Also is quite likely if the ottomans centraly their rule in the middle east sooner there quite likely going to be earlier and more massive levantine minorities emigration and latter also christian ans shia emigrants from Irak.
So the question is how different would be Latin Americans societies if the origin of most of their immgrants was the ottoman balkans instead of italians and spaniards? How different would they be if they ressived more and earlier non-sunni arabs (christian, druze, and shia) from the Ottoman Empire?
I made this thinking about latin america (mainly Argentina) but speculations about other New worlds countries with significant italian/spanish immigration in the same time period (1800-1950) is also apreciated.
Well for one Chile will be more of less the same, the principal immigrants to Chile where from former Ottoman´s levant and the Balkans Ottoman lands, the so called "turcos" Croats, Greeks, Palestinian, Lebaneses, that in fact are of equal or more significance than the Italian and Spanish Diaspora that arrived to the country, so the principal difference, for Chile at least, will be that you will pump those numbers.
 
So, if Spain and southern italy do better in ttl then their emigration would be far smaller

Really? If a country "does better", that might well mean population growth. Which, depending on the available land, at home or in colonies, might result in emigration to those colonies.
 
Really? If a country "does better", that might well mean population growth. Which, depending on the available land, at home or in colonies, might result in emigration to those colonies.
Yes, but it wouldn't reach the otl levels, southern Italian emigration was a demographic cathastrophy.
 
Yes, but it wouldn't reach the otl levels, southern Italian emigration was a demographic cathastrophy.

Michele does have a point. If the populations keeps growing, it triggers people to move elsewhere. Especially among the poor as there is either no work or there are food shortages or tax issues. But I doubt it would be on OTL levels. Another factor is Latin American States promoting such immigration from Europe.

If Italian and Spanish population is less likely to leave then there are enough people in Eastern Europe and Middle East. Who knows... its up to speculations what the Latin American States would do.

My TL by the way, would divert more Catholic Europeans to Latin America than the USA. Mexico and Colombia would more Militaristic while Argentina would be wealthy on parr with Spain, Italy or even France. The natural population growth in my TL was in certain areas higher for various reasons. Not only Christians but also non-Christians would migrate. The theory is, "if a certain group migrates to country that shares the same religion as others of their group, they assimilate faster". So Shia, Druze, Eastern Orthodox and Sunni Migrants will be more likely to end up in the dominant Christian Catholic population if they are far away from home.
 
Top