|
|
Post by justiniano on Jun 24, 2022 21:47:56 GMT
I mean colonialism has produced some horrifying results, but Spain eventually became 1st world. So would these countries be richer or poorer?
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 25, 2022 1:19:19 GMT
I suspect the odds are against Spain holding on to its its empire in a happy-go-lucky manner. I think the struggle to hold on to it would be costly to people in Spain and the colonies. Furthermore, I have doubts that the economic integration with and subsidies from Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the rest of Northern Europe that helped make Spain 1st world can be enough to "level up" all of Latin America.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jun 25, 2022 18:06:48 GMT
raharris1973, Ok, would the average Spanish colony, if held on to until the late 1890s be any wealthier or poorer than in OTL?
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Aug 18, 2022 16:40:55 GMT
I dont think Cuba would continue to be under Spanish rule considering the imperialist mistreatment of her island, but Puerto Rico is more plausible. Purto Rico is smaller and in other ways more suitable for Spanish rule. During the Spanish-American war, the Puerto Ricans didn't rebel in the same manner as the island was easier to control. www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/bras.html Spain, toward the end, granted Puerto Rico those reforms. Cuba was in a more difficult situation for Spain, and the island rebellion had lasted longer than any insurrection Puerto RICO endured. While I don't think Spain is holding on to Cuba, her lesser island is a possibility where the people may have enjoyed longer Spanish rule as the motherland had granted the colony reforms. www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/30/puerto-rico-movement-pitches-solution-to-economic-woes-rejoin-spain By the time the Americans had annexed the island government and her people had pleaded they rejoin the sp[anish empire or have independence. Of course, the island of Cuba wished to be fully independent, and it didn't seem possible that Spain could control Cuba. In all honesty, most colonies, especially the African colonies, were more stable under imperialist rule than in the decolonization chaos that sprinted. Had at least most of the colonies had stayed in control of her overlords, the colonies' wealth gaps would have been even more expansive, The imperialist would have ensured more aggressive family planning to the Africans along with more effort to preserve the African pristine wilderness possibly at the expense to the natives, but not the economy of the colonies. But back to the American colonies, if Spain can retain some of her American colonies, then she is in a better situation around the globe no matter how practical or most likely impractile her imperialism ambitions are. I have a pod of a stronger Spain, and while I might have the empire lose Cuba, she retains some of her global holdings and prestige. So the short answer, I think, is yes for those who had wished to stay loyal to Spain. The ship had sailed for cuba by 1898 for there to be worthwhile reforms if the Spanish government could even truly grant them. The Spanish empire had been known for its autocratic,beucratic incompatence and even corruption as it was apart of its tentacles of old style rule |
|
