Would relations between a great power Gran Colombia and USA be good or bad?

Good or bad in 1900s-1910s?

  • Good

    Votes: 37 38.5%
  • Bad

    Votes: 59 61.5%

  • Total voters
    96

Deleted member 67076

Hopefully Colombia would not be run by genocidal colonialists who will halve the population of their colony through, among other things, forced labour and an economic mdoel that--to put it mildly--prioritized exports over domestic consumption.
Thankfully, the differing institutions and needs of the state will likely ensure things don't ever get that bad.

And then, fertility rates will drop, as people respond to lowered infant mortality by having fewer children. Populations are not static entities: they evolve in response to changes.
Such a thing would take a century at least or more, judging from most of the world before 1950. Urbanization and education will be key to this drop, and unfortunately I don't see such a thing happening until well after the 20th century begins due to the need for better technologies that reduce the needed labor of the primary sector, efficiency of public health in cities (and the countryside) especially with regards to diseases and mass media increases the need for greater skilled labor.

And how do you do that?
Alter the start of the state. GC was dominated by a nearly even split between federalists and centralists. Very easy to see the federalists win the debate if say, Bolivar would be sidelined given his personal prestige was key in implementing a centralized government based in Bogota. Furthermore, federalism appealed to local elites well enough who were often chafing under Spain's recent reforms that curbed the powers of the criollos. However ironically enough, federalism would provided stability which begins the feedback loop of development, that means the local oligarchies will have their positioned weakened in the long run.

I would suggest that, among other things, that assimilation of migrants from central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean into the regional category of "white" has much to do with the desires of local whites to bolster their numbers relative to other groups as well as to the relative harmlessness of these small groups.
Undoubtably. Lets not also forget Middle Easterners who assimilated into elites very quickly.
 
Thankfully, the differing institutions and needs of the state will likely ensure things don't ever get that bad.

I'm not sure that you understand my point. The Congo Free State was only able to build extensive amounts of infrastructure cheaply with the use of labourers, not just slaves but disposable people. This was common in European tropical colonies--French Equatorial Africa, ostensibly better run, saw its population fall by up to a third building infrastructure using the same methods.

Unless Gran Colombia is going to be run by people ready to treat their country's workforces as disposable, the example of Congo Free state is irrelevant.
 
I never said that its neighbours wouldn't learn anything.

No. You've said that Gran Colombia's neighbours will not learn from its example, not enough to keep up with Gran Colombia never mind keep ahead, not even the ones that were better placed.

Some of my point work only in assumptions. If you want an explanation, alright, I'll try to provide one. Now let's focus here. Colombia and Venezuela in OTL attracted a fair share of immigrants both, so much that census say about 40% of each nation's population is white. It's natural to assume, thus, that a more succesful one would attract more.

40%? In which time frame, over which period?

Is it?

As I said earlier, Gran Colombia would actually be one of the more dinamyc economies, because while Brazil depends in coffee, Argentina in cattle and wheat, Chile in nitrates and Bolivia in copper, Gran Colombia would have coal, iron, emeralds, coffee, cacao, timber, silver, and possibly tabaco and sugar as well. All those goods produced enormous quantities of money, all of which was misused. By wisely using it to improve infrastructure, education and health, while slowly switching from a exporter economy to a producer economy, Colombia can industrialize.

Why is Gran Colombia going to avoid the fate of Congo?

South America would be its main market, where every nation is a exporter that depends in a nation buying its good and selling industrial goods back. Eventually they would pick up the lesson, of course, but it would take a while, especially if Argentina is a warlord mess and Brazil falls into disarray after the monarchy ends.

How are the outcomes in Argentina and Brazil connected to the successes of Gran Colombia?

Of course it is. Colombia could only get a better economy unless specific circumstances that would need to help it and cripple its competitors. And if we use "doesn't know the language" as an argument for why an immigrant doesn't choose a country... well, why did those millions of Germans choose the US?

Large-scale German migration to the United States dates back to the late 17th century.

And those Italians Argentina?

That was newer, but the Platine countries were always the best-off areas of Hispanic America, with relatively high wages going back to the late colonial era.

If the immigrants believe they will have a better life in Colombia, they will go there. I've admitted several times that most of Ireland would still go to the US, but you can't just dismisse the possibility of some Irish going to Colombia as well.

I can dismiss the likelihood of any significant number of Irish going to Colombia, on account not only of the many distances between Ireland and Gran Colombia and the lack of any prior migrational history, but because of the poor labour market that you yourself have described. Economies dominated by bonded labour are not going to attract large numbers of immigrants, especially not unskilled immigrants.

It's not obvious it would do worse, either. I agree that Colombia could be everything from a super banana republic, a hellhole, a slightly less disfuntional nation or a regional power, but my whole argument is that we should be open to the possibility of it being a Great Power as well.

The word "Great Power" means something very specific. In the time frame of 1900, that involves direct comparisons with Italy and Japan at the very least, Britain and Germany at the most.

It is imaginable that Gran Colombia may be able to modernize, at least enough to keep up to the South American leaders. It is not imaginable that Gran Colombia would be able to equal even the least of the Great Powers, not without demographic shifts that are unlikely, a political stability that would be unlikely, and economic successes that--frankly--would be unprecedented.

My point was about resources, not society. Japan was, I admit, in a much, much better situation than Colombia, but Colombia has more time.

Does it? The first half of the 19th century was an era of seclusion and relative stability in Japan. Is this at all likely in a Gran Colombia that you are describing as much less isolated?

What do you expect them to do? Peru is probably the only one who would be upset, but after the Independence Wars it either lays defeated at the feet of Colombia or Argentina.

Peru was a power of some heft arguably up until the War of the Pacific.

Or even if Colombia tries the extreme bad idea of invading Cuba, it's against Spain, which in that moment was enemy number 1 of Latin America, and doing so to complete the revolution it's not different from Argentina invading Chile to liberate it.

Who else would Gran Colombia feel the need to liberate? Its smaller neighbours might start to get nervous at this point.

Please, tell me I misunderstood. "without Latin Americans themselves opting to do things."... Are you implying Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Central America, Cuba and more wanted to be under brutal dictadorships that killed thousands?

Enough people in those countries did, yes.

Operation Condor and its component efforts were not forced on South American countries by the United States. Rather, in different countries different right-wing militaries took over and decided to do terrible things to people they feared endangered the security of the states they ran, with the acquiescence if not outright support of large portions of their citizenries.

What the United States allowed to happen to Santiago in 1973 was terrible, but it did not do anything close to what the Soviet Union did in Prague in 1968. There was no invasion, no occupation. All that there was were locals who were willing to do terrible things to their fellow citizens in the name of national security, locals who were willing to accept American aid for their own reasons.

Agreed, though, first, I've said that Colombia could only reach Italy when it comes to power, and I imagine Colombia having half the US population and a quarter or third if we're optimistic of its industry.

That is unrealistic. Increasing Gran Columbia's population in 1900 over OTL by a factor of five is impossible.

I do, but it's ironic you say that since you've been treating the US as the only major destination for the whole of this argument.

In that I've pointed out that Argentina was much more attractive than Colombia, Brazil, et cetera, I can only presume you are being willfully blind.

Because there was no racism against whites in any of Latin America. It was just "oh, it's white, so he has privileges" there.

Because of the relatively small size and homogeneity of the white population. What would happen when it became more diverse?

I never said the whole of Ireland would go to Colombia. In fact, I said several times that most of it would still go to the US or other anglophone colonies. But, it's natural to assume a powerful, united and rich country would be able to attract more immigrants than its poor OTL counterpart.

The problem, alas, is that not only are you not paying attention to the patterns of Irish migration OTL, not only are you not providing enough evidence for your argument that Gran Colombia would be "powerful, united, and rich", but that you yourself have described the labour market of Gran Colombia as one that would not sustain substantial immigration.

There would be racism against Asians or Indians, but I believe that every white would be accepted as a "pure blooded" Criollo.

Even the unskilled labourers who manage to make it over?

I know that, but I didn't feel I could quite explain it, since sometimes I have problems pharsing deep ideas in English.

Your skill in English is not in question. What is in question is the content of your ideas.

If you don't think my scenario is plausbible, that's fine, everybody has his own opinion.

And some opinions are more correct than others.
 
No. You've said that Gran Colombia's neighbours will not learn from its example, not enough to keep up with Gran Colombia never mind keep ahead, not even the ones that were better placed.

When did I say it exactly?

40%? In which time frame, over which period?

Is it?

Nowadays. It's people who identify as white, so it may be wrong.

Why is Gran Colombia going to avoid the fate of Congo?

And why can't it avoid that fate? The possibility of it falling into a Congo-like situation is enormous, but there's also a little possibility of it not doing that.

How are the outcomes in Argentina and Brazil connected to the successes of Gran Colombia?

Not much, unless Colombia manages to find a situation there and exploit it. I was just saying that if they do bad, they would take a while to pick up the lessons from their neighbours, and if they do fine, they will do it almost immediatly. Their outcomes als are directly related to the succes of Colombia, since if both do significantly worse than OTL, it would allow Colombia to get more immigrants.

Large-scale German migration to the United States dates back to the late 17th century.

I know, but I only said it to disprove your point of the immigrants not choosing some country for the language. Obviously, sharing a language is a huge bonus, and I've admited already several times that most Irish would still go to the United States.

That was newer, but the Platine countries were always the best-off areas of Hispanic America, with relatively high wages going back to the late colonial era.

Agreed, but this is the reason I said that the only form of Colombia succedding is Argentina being screwed.

I can dismiss the likelihood of any significant number of Irish going to Colombia, on account not only of the many distances between Ireland and Gran Colombia and the lack of any prior migrational history, but because of the poor labour market that you yourself have described. Economies dominated by bonded labour are not going to attract large numbers of immigrants, especially not unskilled immigrants.

Actually, during the Independence Wars a lot of Irish went to Colombia to fight alongside the Liberator Army, and then stayed there, becoming Colombian citizens and independence heroes. I've also corrected myself, and have admited that for a significative Irish population to go to Colombia, it would need to have a better economy and change its economic model.

The word "Great Power" means something very specific. In the time frame of 1900, that involves direct comparisons with Italy and Japan at the very least, Britain and Germany at the most.

It is imaginable that Gran Colombia may be able to modernize, at least enough to keep up to the South American leaders. It is not imaginable that Gran Colombia would be able to equal even the least of the Great Powers, not without demographic shifts that are unlikely, a political stability that would be unlikely, and economic successes that--frankly--would be unprecedented.

Assuming Colombia does fine, and Argentina and Brazil don't, Colombia could only be considered a Great Power, but only in the sense of it being the only significant power of South America. If compared in resources, population or other stadistics to, say, Italy, it would be clearly inferior, but the presence of the sea would allow it to remain being considered a Great Power. You can't assume the political situation would be bad, as in OTL the political situation of South America was the result of complicated proccesses and infighting during the Independence Wars. Great demographic shifts have happened, and umprecedented economic successes too. I must say that the possibility of them happening in Colombia of all places is quite minimal, but not non-existent.

Does it? The first half of the 19th century was an era of seclusion and relative stability in Japan. Is this at all likely in a Gran Colombia that you are describing as much less isolated?

Only if it manages to get its game together during the Independence Wars and finish them before 1816. That would give it a full 50 years more than Japan. I see Colombia as isolated in some sense though, only in order to change its institutions and be able to invest in education and infastructure while the rest of the continent gets into wars.

Peru was a power of some heft arguably up until the War of the Pacific.

I know that, but immediatly after the Independence Wars and with Lima occupied, it would need a while to rest before attacking. And in OTL there was a war between Gran Colombia and Peru, which ended in a Colombian victory.

Who else would Gran Colombia feel the need to liberate? Its smaller neighbours might start to get nervous at this point.

Which smaller neighbours, exactly? Central America is a jungle mess that isn't worth invading, the Guayanas, still under Europe are not an option; the Amazonas is at the south, simply impossible; and Peru is at the south, and invading it is a bad idea. Invading Cuba is a terrible idea also, but Hispaniola or Puerto Rico, for which Spain didn't care that much, are doable, especially if a kind of revolt success and joins Colombia.

Enough people in those countries did, yes.

Operation Condor and its component efforts were not forced on South American countries by the United States. Rather, in different countries different right-wing militaries took over and decided to do terrible things to people they feared endangered the security of the states they ran, with the acquiescence if not outright support of large portions of their citizenries.

What the United States allowed to happen to Santiago in 1973 was terrible, but it did not do anything close to what the Soviet Union did in Prague in 1968. There was no invasion, no occupation. All that there was were locals who were willing to do terrible things to their fellow citizens in the name of national security, locals who were willing to accept American aid for their own reasons.

I dare you to say this to the people who lost loved ones during the dictadorships and still mourm them to this day. Operation Condor was forced, by using military men to bring down democratically elected presidents. The people who you say "endangered the security of the states" were not terrorists or militia leaders, they were university professors or intellectuals that denounced little things like torture, forced kidnappings and lack of democracy. Or simply people suspected of being communists. And if the people had supported those dictadorship, Pinochet wouldn't have lost his plesbicite, don't you think? The fact that the United States were better than the Soviet Union doesn't prove anything, if anything it shows the sheer hipocrisy of the US, who led the democratic world while installing brutal dictadorships elsewhere. If you want invassions and occupations, try Central America. The things they wanted to do in the name of national security... like killing and torturing people who showed the slighlest hint of going against the regime? Like communists, socialists, people who fought for democracy? And those locals didn't accept the American aid, no, the dictators did. My grandpa lived during the dictadorship, and even when ours was tame and mercyful, he relates how thousands of national companies went bankrupt all in the name of receiving American companies, that took all our oil without giving us any benefit.

That is unrealistic. Increasing Gran Columbia's population in 1900 over OTL by a factor of five is impossible.

And why, exactly? If Colombia focuses in health, lowering death rates, rasing birth rates and gets a good number of immigrants, I see 40 million as a doable number. As I said earlier in this discussing, the United States suffered a 15 factor increase from their 5 million population of 1800. To go from the 4 million population of Colombia in 1800 to 40 million, we only need a 10 factor increase.

In that I've pointed out that Argentina was much more attractive than Colombia, Brazil, et cetera, I can only presume you are being willfully blind.

For Irish, I meant.

ecause of the relatively small size and homogeneity of the white population. What would happen when it became more diverse?

Nothing, I guess. I believe that perhaps Spaniards would get more privileges, but not being a majority white country means that every white would be accepted as "superior", unlike like the US and Europe where Irish, Italians et al were "not the right kind of white". Even today whiter skin is considered a sight of wealth and beauty here.

The problem, alas, is that not only are you not paying attention to the patterns of Irish migration OTL, not only are you not providing enough evidence for your argument that Gran Colombia would be "powerful, united, and rich", but that you yourself have described the labour market of Gran Colombia as one that would not sustain substantial immigration.

We can't know for sure how the patterns would be in a TL with a succesful Gran Colombia, as there was no succesful Gran Colombia in OTL. I've said, several times, that most Irish would still go to the US, and that's something you've seemed to be ignoring. I've provided several methods through which I believe Colombia could have become powerful, united and rich; and once again you've ignored them. I've also admitted that I made a mistake when describing the labour market, and that a different one would be needed, yet you also ignored that.

Even the unskilled labourers who manage to make it over?

That would be economic segregation, not racial one.

And some opinions are more correct than others.

Yes, but you're not the one that decided it. Quite frankly, it's truly arrogant to just decide that your ideas are the more correct ones (no offense, of course). My ideas aren't the correct ones either, mind you. Nobody is able to really know what would have happened, since it didn't happen. We're all speculating, and thus both our ideas are perfectly valid for that. I advice we just drop the discussion right now. It seems pointless to me. Nothing of what I say will convince you that Colombia has the potential, nothing of what you say will convince me that it doesn't. It's only an unnecesary headache I would rather forget about.
 
You need an economic reason to build a city, life isn't a strategy game. People produce their things by the Andes and they need to be there to -err- produce.



Err... nope? Do you realize how different these physical structures are? Please go see a physical map! Then you'll get it!
Cities aren't only nmade for economic reasons, sometimes it is strategic. Brasilia was not for any economic reason, only political. Washington DC is another example. Cologne, Germany was military/strategic, not economic. Jerusalem was originally for military reasons (on top of a hill, then 7 hills) and later religious, but never for economic reasons. This isn't Civ V where you need luxury goods produced to allow a city to reach a certain population. Strategy is almost always the number 1 reason for location, economic secondary
 
Top