Comments on: Colonial North America, Native South America

By: Hamish

Hamish — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:21:15 +0000

I think one should also remember that religious freedom was a big factor in settling the United States. Non-conformists moved to the Plymouth colony (and others) in order to be free of the religious strife and strictures in England and the continent. When they did this they tended to bring their whole family. Look at the Mayflower passenger list 28 of the 102 were women, including many unmarried daughters. Very different from soliders or adventurers trying to make their fortune in the ruins of the Aztec or Empire. They came to build a new society, not just to get rich or glory.

By: Chirol

Chirol — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:56:00 +0000

Another issue so far untouched is geography. Areas that were inaccessible such as Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and other highland areas retained their local populations whereas easily accessible and especially coastal areas were the first decimated by disease or subjugated by Europeans.

Second of all the intention of the colonizer was clearly different. Britian established many settler colonies (US,CAN,UK,AUS,NZ) and less ‘work’ or resource colonies (like the Caribbean islands) whereas other powers like Spain did not seek to settle but rather extract resources as their main activity.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:35:34 +0000

The big reason is disease. Tropical areas have diseases Europeans aren’t cut out for. That’s why Africans weren’t wiped out like north americans.

By: Skin Color Like Scars « Left Flank

Skin Color Like Scars « Left Flank — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:54:43 +0000

[...] Skin Color Like Scars November 2, 2009 Joseph Steinberg Leave a comment Go to comments Curzon offers a friend’s question for discussion“…why is it that only North America is so predominately white European and South America… [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:33:22 +0000

I’m probably being lazy, but a glance through the comments doesn’t suggest anything contradictory to each other. Geography (on both sides of the Atlantic), history and economics probably did combine to make the Americas what they are today.

By: T. Greer

T. Greer — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:28:33 +0000

I have found this thread to be quite amusing. It seems everybody has an opinion as to how America became white and Brazil became Creole, but few bother to stop and analyze the theories of their compatriots. An amusement indeed!

By: Bruno

Bruno — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:37:55 +0000

I believe it is much simpler, different pattern of immigration. North America, particularly the British part, actively encouraged immigration whether from Britain or elsewhere. Immigrants would flock to there to stay often driven by the chance to obtain land.
Latin America (not South America – e.g.Mexico is in North America) on the other hand was colonized in a more “feudal” way with large landowners being granted huge swathes of land (as opposed to a large number of people gaining access to enough land to make a living on). Immigration to the lands held by Spanish crown was also for a long time limited only to the subjects of the Spanish crown (many of which never resided on the Iberian peninsula, e.g. much of southern Italy was Spanish). Many Spanish subjects would go to the New World to make their fortune but would return home afterwards, certainly more often than with people in the English colonies.
One could of course call the premise of white North America and non-white Latin America to question – Atlanta is certainly less white than Buenos Aires, New York is certainly less white than Punta Arenas.

By: elambend

elambend — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:59:04 +0000

There is a great book, written by a Kiwi, that just came out called: “Replenishing the Earth”
It is essentially about how population growth in Anglophone countries far outstripped anywhere else during the 19th century (except perhaps Russian Far
East and Manchuria). Prior to 1800, the Europeaness of North and South America was not too different and the population of the Americas was definately to the south. However, all English speaking countries (ex England) diverge from others during the 19th century and through a series of booms and busts rapidly expand in both population and economic size. Some other places did it on a smaller scale, but then fizzle out, notably Argentina.

It is a fascinating and dense book and I highly suggest it. Just it’s history of the different population booms within the US is worth it.
The reasons for the growth are varied, but the underlying fact of the population growth answers the question. For some reason, Anglophone colonies became enormous engines for permanent settler immigration in the 19th century (not before), while immigrants to other places tended only to stay temporarily.

By: nmv

nmv — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:53:31 +0000

The under population of North America can surely be a factor, but the reality is that if you compare patterns in the colonization by Northern Europeans and Iberian nations (similar traits are visible both in Spanish and Portuguese colonized countries) you will notice that the former tend to generate no demographically relevant mixed population, even in heavily populated areas (think India, Kenya, etc.). Iberian colonized countries or regions, by the contrary, tend to produce a thriving mixed population (think Brazil, Goa or Diu in India, Venezuela, Peru, Mexico, etc.). The argument that Anon puts forward regarding â��patterns of civilizationâ�� is worth considering, but against it can also be pointed out that some of the areas in Brazil that he mentions in support of his theory were mainly colonized not by Portuguese, but by Italians and Germans and, to a lesser extent, Dutch (pay attention to the Brazilian football players surnames and youâ��ll see that most that have German, Italian or Dutch surnames are clearly â��whiteâ�� and Portuguese surnames usually identify a mixed-race football wizard). The same applies to Argentina (including the â��surnameâ�� argument), which received a massive influx of immigrants from Italy that greatly counter balanced the Spanish influence. This is a complex and interesting issue that highlight the cultural differences that still exist between Europeans.

By: Master Cook

Master Cook — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:13:34 +0000

I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the demography of the western hemisphere before 1492.

PreColumbian population statistics are a matter of contentious, high politicized debate. However, the debate is mostly about how decimated the populations were after contact was made with Europeans and how developed preColumbian sociests were before contact. Its pretty clear that Mexico, Central America, and the Andean countries had much higher populations and much higher population densities than the places than the La Plata region and what later became the US.

Mexico and the Andes had agriculture, cities (quite large ones according to the conquistadors), centralized governments, all associated with high populations. They simply had more indigenous people. There was no need to import labor ~~note that not many slaves were imported from Africa to these places either~~ and not much free empty land that could be given to European settlers. More of the indigenous population survived, in absolute numbers, because there was more of them in the first place.

By: Lyman Stone

Lyman Stone — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:12:11 +0000

Another reason is the time of colonization. People often forget this but, by the time the first Anglo settlers arrived in Jamestown and Plymouth, Europeans had been in Latin and South America for 100+ years in many places. Smallpox, measles, and other diseases were only starting to hit the native populations when the Spanish arrived, meaning many of them intermingled with the colonists, even if they were later killed by disease.

By the time Anglo settlers got to North America (and French settlers as well), multiple waves of epidemics had already torn through the native population, and reduced it by, depending on who you talk to, at least 10-20%, perhaps as much as 75-85%. Such a huge population collapse naturally would also lead to societal collapse, leading to the appearance of an “empty” continent: which the archaeological record of North America strongly contradicts, up until the 1500’s.

Thus, a lower “whiteness” in South America could be in part due to the timing of European arrival in relation to epidemics.

By: M Brueschke

M Brueschke — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:30:30 +0000

I’m from the northern Great Plains, South Dakota to be precise and on the Indian Reservation I grew up on we had alot of families who were mixed as Anon pointed out, from the trappers and traders. I’d say a full third of the Sioux from that area, right along the Missouri and Cheyenne rivers, have French surnames from marriage with the trappers and traders. The phone book pages from my home town look more like those in Quebec than South Dakota.

And compared to Meso and South America, my guess is that North America was simply underpopulated, even before the Europeans came, there were no great civilizations in North America like the Maya, Aztecs, Inca had further south.

By: maknovist

maknovist — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:49:17 +0000

I think NMV got it. The Iberian peninsula has always been a great mix of different cultures. Conquered and reconquered dozens of times until de 1500’s.

Everyone comes from a mixed ancestry in the Iberian peninsula (personal example: I am spanish, my family is half basque-half castillian and I usually pass as a local in arab countries) so I don’t think the concept of mixed-race marriage impressed anyone during the colonisation.

You can’t say the same about northern european countries. Â¿How many mixed-race marriages were in Germany or Poland on the XVI century? Probably not to many.

By: nmv

nmv — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:05:19 +0000

The different outcome of European colonization of North and South America is mainly due to significant differences in cultural attitudes between Northern Europeans and Europeans from the Iberian Peninsula. Catholicism isnâ��t a decisive factor because some of the behavior trends Iâ��ve witnessed in protestant Germans are also present, for example, on Polish or Irish Catholics: these people basically tend to keep to themselves, regardless of the context where they are at. Portuguese and Spanish, although probably sharing some of the same Northern European racial and cultural superiority prejudices against â��nativesâ��, have a much greater tendency to quickly adapt and go â��nativeâ�� if they are placed on a different setting. The same Portuguese or Spanish that could be telling jokes about Africans one day can just as easily be inviting them for a barbecue the day after and, if single, be courting the local beauty queen. Travelling in Asia with your eyes and ears open you can get a good illustration of this. In British India the English basically kept themselves totally apart and you find little, if any, mixes. Visit instead Goa and one of the many outposts in Asia once colonized by the Portuguese (Sri Lanka is a good example) and youâ��ll find thousand of locals with Portuguese surnames and European facial features, inherited throughout the centuries, even if today, in some cases, they donâ��t have any memory of Portuguese presence on their areas. A possible explanation might simply be the fact that both Portuguese and Spanish populations were always more diverse than other European nations, probably making these people less prone to be intimidated by different looks. A woman is, after all, a woman, regardless of the color of the eyes or skin. ï��

By: McKellar

McKellar — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:47:06 +0000

Another issue is the way people of mixed ancestry are ’sorted’ by Anglo-American culture, as opposed to the open ambiguity practiced by the French, and others. When people can, they usually ‘pass’ for white, making a fairly mixed population seem much more homogeneous.

You also have to look at the scale of migration from Europe and Africa., especially the mass movements that followed industrialization in Europe.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:42:51 +0000

I seriously doubt that colonial American fur-trappers, tobacco and land speculators, debtors, and criminal deportees would have been too offended at the thought of sleeping with Indians, I am sure they did it as often as they possibly could. I am also sure the Indian men knew this, and faced with a choice between on the one hand dealing with European diseases, European guns, and Europeans after their wives and daughters, and on the other hand a sparsely populated and familiar hinterland, they plopped for the latter. That seems to be what happened in the US and Argentina. In densely settled agricultural land, as in Mexico and Peru, that was not an option, so they just remained subjects and slaves as they always had been, and it probably took as little convincing for exhausted Spanish sailors to start bedding the local girls as it would have in the pre-US, if the situation had been the same.

By: Finkelgruber

Finkelgruber — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:11:27 +0000

All the points made above seem valid to me and together suggest an answer to the initial question, which has always interested me. I might add to corroborate the point about religion my impression of the difference in French and British colonial patterns in Canada. For the reasons mentioned above (climate, low population density), Canada after colonization was and is predominantly European, but what mixed populations we did/do have (the Metis) arose predominantly from the mingling of French and indigenous populations, while the British mostly kept to themselves. This also seems to have been the case comparing British and French behaviour in the Caribbean and Louisiana (the Creoles, etc.). Of course, the British did their fair share of evangelism, so perhaps religion alone does not explain their behaviour as compared to the French, Spanish, and Portuguese.

By: barnstorm

barnstorm — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:38:33 +0000

A caveat about the “white Southern Cone” thing that Robert mentions: while broadly true for Argentina and such, it is most definately not true for Paraguay, the population of which is estimated to be about 95% mixed European and Amerindian.

The patterns of colonisation and culture of colonisation was very different in Latin America compared to North America. The encomienda system, which made native subjects an asset, and placed natives under the control of ex-soldiers, combined with a Catholic desire to protect the natives and a general lack of Iberian women led to a mixed population. Anglo settler colonies were a different case altogether.

Population disparity would play a part too, but I bet that if the east coast of North America had been colonised by the Spanish instead of the English, it too would be significantly more Amerindian than the United States.

By: maknovist

maknovist — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:22:36 +0000

You can see similar diferences between the portuguese african colonies (where mestizos are not uncommon, especially in Cabo Verde) and french and brittish colonies.

In general, I think Spanish and Portuguese didn’t gave to much importance to the race of their wifes-husbands as long as they converted to catholicism.

Also, the american colonisation started just after the end of the Reconquista, which wasn’t all about figthing the moors, usually it was about marrying their daugthers and allying with them.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:09:19 +0000

It has to do with the patterns of civilization in the places that were conquered. Mexico and Peru/Andes Incas were existing, enormous empires, which were essentially politically decapitated, the imperial structure remained in place and the large existing vassal populations were enlisted into mining and church-building. No doubt the Spanish would have loved to do the same in Argentina, but the local tribes were dispersed, decentralized, and mobile, and were simply gradually pushed back as settler agriculture advanced, much like in the US. Brazil is a bit of a mixture — there were no centralized pre-Columbian empires but the Portuguese knew they had only one outpost in the Americas and were mad to maximize it, so they went on something of a population spree, with pseudo-mandatory military service consisting of slave raids into the jungle, vast importation of Africans, and a Papal dispensation for extra-marital procreation (apparently still in effect to this day.) Though there are still parts of Brazil, near Uruguay, where European settlers predominate. Places like Colombia and Venezuela are a bit like the Caribbean on a larger scale — malarial swamps that had to be put to use agriculturally with whatever mixture of Galicians, Extremadurans, Africans, and indigenous locals could be mustered. Judging by the Miss Universe pageant the resulting gene pool seems to have worked out.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:07:39 +0000

I think climate probably has a lot to do with it. The Southern Cone, which I guess would be South America’s climactic equivalent to the US and Canada, are immigrant societies that are overwhelmingly European in character… including, interestingly enough, a good many Irishmen. In fact, dollars-to-donuts that Argentina and Chile are now “whiter” than the United States.

BTW, you might find this interesting:

http://www.irlandeses.org/fmi.htm

By: Nick Kapur

Nick Kapur — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:28:20 +0000

I think all your points are valid, but it’s also worth mentioning that the religion of the Spanish and Portuguese was Catholicism, which emphasized saving the natives, where as the particular Protestant sects which initially colonized North America had little interest in converting the natives.