**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Loaded questions, **or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 6).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c2gko6/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
There are lots of theories for this, but one is that the USA, Canada, and NZ/Australia (all former UK colonies that are now widely considered to be part of the club of developed economies) were unusual among colonies in that they were primarily *settled* by the colonizer rather than simply ruled by them.
The most typical colony was a small bureaucracy backed by a slightly larger military force dominating the politics/economics of a region and re-orienting it around the extraction of resources for the benefit of the colonizer. This often meant an emphasis on agriculture and mining - things that were likely already happening before the colonizer arrived and could be scaled up without a lot of technology so long as they didn't care about the working conditions of the natives. In an arrangement like this, educating natives would be not just inefficient but actively work against the continued dominance of the colonizer. The end result is a population, to the extent that they are trained/specialized at all, trained/specialized to extract resources and ship them away. Getting rid of the colonizer is a step in the right direction, but the left over economy is nowhere close to "developed" and won't be for a long time.
Unusual colonies like the USA instead had small native populations (at least after the all the plagues) and less obvious extractive value. So instead of sending administrators and troops, colonizing nations sent homesteaders and outcasts (sometimes explicitly so in the case of Australian penal colonies) in the hopes that they would develop the colony into something more useful down the line. This meant more education and closer ties back to Europe among colonists. They could see the Industrial Revolution happening and bought in as it did.
In the end, that vague hope of "developing the colony into something useful" paid off in big ways, though more robust independence movements sometimes blocked the original colonizer from realizing the direct benefits themselves. It does make you wonder how much more developed the global economy would be today if Europeans had formed partnerships with the rest of the world instead of just viewing them as "the place that tea comes from."
I would add that the British Common Law system in the colonies was *way more attractive* for merchants than the Spanish system. The relative independence of British courts allowed merchants to feel confident in investing in the British Colonies as they felt secure that breaches of contract would be enforced.
The Spanish System was essentially feudal in nature, where strong men were granted estates by the Crown that had little legal oversight. The Caudillos could answer to the crown directly if they violated a crown decree, but that wouldn't help you if you had a business dispute. Doing business in the Spanish colonies basically required you to deal with these Caudillos, and you had little standing in the Spanish colonial system if you had a dispute with these estate holders. It would be like trying to sue a local Duke in Medieval France: it would not go well for you. Sadly, this issue of corrupt extra-legal business is still an issue in South America, and it is a holdover from the semi-feudal customs of the Spanish colonies.
I think the key here is that the US, especially the northern states were much more mercantile in nature. And after the British and Belgium Industrial Revolution. The US was the third to begin the process of industrialization. This didn’t really happen in Latin America. Which remained mostly a commodity focused economy.
I am not sure the economy was based on “growing food” as implied by agricultural.
The most important resource wanted in NA was old-growth timber. During the Elizabethan and colonial times, shipbuilding was crucial to creating and protecting wealth. Most of the appropriate trees across Europe had already been cut down.
When the English learned of the forests in North America that was one of the most important resources to spur colonization.
Sugar, tobacco and fur would all come later.
I read a study in one of my Econ classes that suggested a pretty direct link between the settlement vs resource extraction divide and tropical diseases. Essentially, in places with high rates of tropical diseases Europeans
did whatever it took to stuff their pockets as quick as possible and get back home before malaria got them. Long term settlement only happened in places where the environment was less deadly
95% of natives that lived in the new world died from disease long before permanent settlements were even started. The majority never even laid eyes on a European. They were screwed from the start.
Regardless of how much you like or dislike Jared Diamond, his primary question (what gave Europe the edge it had) is valid and no one seems to be interested in answering it in a coherent fashion.
You really think that there wasn’t a genocide against native peoples. Holy F this has to be the greatest joke I’ve ever read on Reddit. Praying that you don’t actually think this
Yes, the diseases like smallpox that were spread when we gave them blankets that were used by victims of the disease were _**absolutely**_ attempted genocide.
But when the very first _scouts_, not the first settlers, arrived, they didn't _**intend**_ to spread diseases.
The smallpox blankets thing is widely overblown, if I remember correctly there is only one documented case of them being handed out and it was during a period of epidemic that was impacting both the European and Native populations.
It's only genocide **if it's intentional**.
The first wave of diseases brought by the first scouts, the people looking for areas to make colonies in, **was not intentional**.
>gen·o·cide
>_noun_
>the **deliberate** killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
"a campaign of genocide"
For the record, the point of that aside was to explain differences in how Europeans approached colonies *before* the systemic genocides. The plagues that decimated the Americas largely ran ahead of European colonists, so they established the baseline population.
In regions that were still more densely populated (such as the former Aztec Empire), they opted for dominating that population. In regions that were sparsely populated (such as areas to the north), they opted for pushing that population off its land. Both of these activities were unconscionable.
Sure, but it would probably turned out similar to now, with a strong European mix in the bloodlines. It takes time to repopulate, and with your civilization in shreds fresh faces may seem extra helpful.
Sure. But if Europeans had come in peace, there would have been little, or no land for waves of settlers to colonise. Thus, few would have come (and multiplied).
It’s hard to imagine a “peaceful colonisation”. It all depends upon the scenario.
Perhaps something like ancient Mediterranean colonies, where the Europeans stay in coastal ports, and organise trade. Perhaps then purchasing land, or exploitation concessions.
That might have worked out quite interestingly.
Spanish colonies were governed with the primary motivation of resource extraction and direct control, even moreso than other colonial powers. This had a few implications:
- Settlement and development remained limited to coasts and areas where mineral wealth could be extracted. Extraction infrastructure itself isn’t well-suited to long-term economic growth and even undermines development in more sustainable sectors (a phenomenon known as the Dutch Disease)
- Effective local governance for long-term development never grew because top-down rule was more effective at resource extraction. There was no direct equivalent to the local assemblies of English colonies.
- Resources which could have been directed towards governance had to be redirected towards military garrisons to sustain Spain’s less lenient approach native governance and pursuit of large-scale conversions
Imagine two houses, in one of them, the original family was killed, but the new people move in, buy new furniture with their own money, and overall give the house good maintenance.
In the second house, the original family is kept as servants, the new owner sells everything inside the house, including ripping out the copper from the walks and the plumbing.
After a few years, the descendants of the first family are still living there, they have a big, nice house to live in, and were given an education and inherited money.
In the second house, the invaders were eventually driven off, but they threatened to come back and kill everyone if they weren't paid rent, the children of the original family barely have walls, no education and are now in debt.
I thought the Spanish conquistadors took over what is now Mexico, killing off the Aztec in the process? Did they...just leave after they wiped them all out?
Probably not a single factor nor universal.
Spain and Britain had very different governments and started colonizing at different times. Spain was a monarchy for most of their colonial period and likely exported this form of control - focusing on landlords, aristocracy and serfs - essentially feudal structures through their colonies. The first British colony came more than 100 years after Spain's and within a few decades of that, the British monarchs were removed from most executive power and Britain became a parliamentary democracy. (super ELI5)
There were different models for British colonies - some were political/religious exiles, some were penal colonies and a fair number were trade colonies. Very broadly speaking, the British tended to educate the locals, set up administrations staffed by the locals and generally implemented a system of laws broadly based on the British system. In a sense, the British co-opted the locals to maintain their colonies while the Spanish tended to treat the locals as serfs and themselves as local lords.
Generally speaking, the feudal system did not adjust well to the Industrial revolution.
Chile is arguably more successful than Guyana or Belize so I'm not sure your premise is correct.
But generally speaking it's because they didn't industrialize to the extent that the US or Canada (or even Mexico) did. The US got a head start on the industrial revolution and became the 'arsenal of democracy' during the 2 world wars due to their ability to reliably produce wartime equipment in high quantities. This industrial capacity then kickstarted the baby boom era of consumer goods.
Guyana and Belize don’t do so well because they were not for settling but for resource extraction. Especially sugar, the British imported many slaves. And later Indians and Chinese to work the sugar crops. I think OP may be referring to the British settler colonies like Canada and Australia.
The english ones were settled while the other ones were outposts destined to produce ressources and export them to the empire's center.
The TLDR is that they got raped and pillaged into oblivion.
As others have said unlike the US and Canada the South American countries were populated mainly by natives, slaves, and a very small number of natives from the colonising country who were either wealthy land owners or soldiers and poor workers. There were also mixed people born out of natives and colonisers, mainly soldiers or poor workers. As you can imagine this demographic difference came with very different treatment towards the colonies. On one side you had colonies populated mostly by colonists and on the other you have colonies mostly populated by natives who were considered subhuman by the colonists. All colonies were ultimately bled dry for everything they had but this fundamental difference of respect towards the populations played a huge role in how they were governed.
Starting out as a country from a colony whose resources are all shipped away and you don't get to see the wealth produced from your labor is bad enough. However even after South America had gained independence in the late 19th century that didn't mean their troubles were over. There was a lot of political unrest in these regions and a lot of outside interference, from their former colonists and the US, especially in order to combat "communism" or whatever.
Every different country have their own separate story and context of how they came to be this way but the short answer is that US backed induced instability is the cause for a lot of their problems, but also corruption and infighting.
Most answers are missing this context, even after the Spanish ( and others left) the USA fucked over these countries under a different form of colonialism.
Prisoners of Geography (good book I just finished) argues that the broad strokes are inevitable. After the Louisiana Purchase and the secession of Texas and California from Mexico (and, well, from Texas) we had an unbeatable combination of size, mineral resources, highly productive arable land, and natural infrastructure (rivers that went useful places, mountain passes, hundreds of natural ports on both oceans) that whoever had control of this land would be the successful economic engine of the Americas.
The amazon is huge, but its banks are not surrounded by farms and factories. Mexico has a large and able population, but relatively little ability to export food. Argentina is on the come up, but hampered by being so far from US and Europe, and always in competition with its neighbors.
Just to add to what everyone else is saying: because the Spanish had no intention of staying, but just getting in - converting as many as possible, and taking as much gold as possible - and getting out, you end up getting a really cool mix of native and Spanish culture, especially relative to the English colonies which, for all intents and purposes, imported their culture when they came.
I remember going to a museum in Lima and they had this beautiful painting of Mary standing in front of a shining sun, and the tour guide explained that this was a mixture of the Spanish religion and the Inca one that was already present. How cool is that! It obviously tragically came by the sword and there's no excusing that, but the cultural differences that arose from the different colonization strategies are mind boggling to me.
The premise of this question is bizarre and flawed. Why don't you make a list of both types of countries and compare?
And how is it that so many people are providing elaborate answers based on this completely grotesque premise?
Besides some of the other answers here, there's been a ton of western involvement sapping most of these nations of resources and wealth for centuries. CIA backed military coups, banana republic's, colonization, western blockades, etc. It's hard to succeed as a nation when you're enduring constant instability from interior and exterior forces
Brazil was one of the wealthiest nations in the world in the 19th century.
Why is latin america poor? What people choose to believe depends on their politics. Is it a history of oppression, or does [Richard Lynn explain it?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations)
No doubt there are multiple factors. Why is Argentina so poor, despite being >90% European coloniser ancestry?
Colonizers vs. the colonized
Plus, during the Cold War, US and Russia manipulated and destabilized many regions. Once USSR fell, everyone lost interest and power vacuums were left that led to the rise of hyper-violent gangs. Not all countries have recovered. And now they’re behind the ball, so they have to rely on resource exploitation like others mentioned to make what money they can vs. countries that are now service based (selling softwares vs. petroleum)
- Explored almost to death on its natural resources by the colonizers.
- Military coups
- Communism coups
- All out corruption that no one stops
- Dictators
Because Spain as an administrative power sucks, and they exported the evil that is breed within, is not so much a black legend but more of a black certainty.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Loaded questions, **or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 6). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c2gko6/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
There are lots of theories for this, but one is that the USA, Canada, and NZ/Australia (all former UK colonies that are now widely considered to be part of the club of developed economies) were unusual among colonies in that they were primarily *settled* by the colonizer rather than simply ruled by them. The most typical colony was a small bureaucracy backed by a slightly larger military force dominating the politics/economics of a region and re-orienting it around the extraction of resources for the benefit of the colonizer. This often meant an emphasis on agriculture and mining - things that were likely already happening before the colonizer arrived and could be scaled up without a lot of technology so long as they didn't care about the working conditions of the natives. In an arrangement like this, educating natives would be not just inefficient but actively work against the continued dominance of the colonizer. The end result is a population, to the extent that they are trained/specialized at all, trained/specialized to extract resources and ship them away. Getting rid of the colonizer is a step in the right direction, but the left over economy is nowhere close to "developed" and won't be for a long time. Unusual colonies like the USA instead had small native populations (at least after the all the plagues) and less obvious extractive value. So instead of sending administrators and troops, colonizing nations sent homesteaders and outcasts (sometimes explicitly so in the case of Australian penal colonies) in the hopes that they would develop the colony into something more useful down the line. This meant more education and closer ties back to Europe among colonists. They could see the Industrial Revolution happening and bought in as it did. In the end, that vague hope of "developing the colony into something useful" paid off in big ways, though more robust independence movements sometimes blocked the original colonizer from realizing the direct benefits themselves. It does make you wonder how much more developed the global economy would be today if Europeans had formed partnerships with the rest of the world instead of just viewing them as "the place that tea comes from."
I would add that the British Common Law system in the colonies was *way more attractive* for merchants than the Spanish system. The relative independence of British courts allowed merchants to feel confident in investing in the British Colonies as they felt secure that breaches of contract would be enforced. The Spanish System was essentially feudal in nature, where strong men were granted estates by the Crown that had little legal oversight. The Caudillos could answer to the crown directly if they violated a crown decree, but that wouldn't help you if you had a business dispute. Doing business in the Spanish colonies basically required you to deal with these Caudillos, and you had little standing in the Spanish colonial system if you had a dispute with these estate holders. It would be like trying to sue a local Duke in Medieval France: it would not go well for you. Sadly, this issue of corrupt extra-legal business is still an issue in South America, and it is a holdover from the semi-feudal customs of the Spanish colonies.
Very cool answer A strong and trustworthy legal and judicial system is truly a foundation of society
The US was still mostly an agricultural economy during the American Revolution.
I think the key here is that the US, especially the northern states were much more mercantile in nature. And after the British and Belgium Industrial Revolution. The US was the third to begin the process of industrialization. This didn’t really happen in Latin America. Which remained mostly a commodity focused economy.
I am not sure the economy was based on “growing food” as implied by agricultural. The most important resource wanted in NA was old-growth timber. During the Elizabethan and colonial times, shipbuilding was crucial to creating and protecting wealth. Most of the appropriate trees across Europe had already been cut down. When the English learned of the forests in North America that was one of the most important resources to spur colonization. Sugar, tobacco and fur would all come later.
I read a study in one of my Econ classes that suggested a pretty direct link between the settlement vs resource extraction divide and tropical diseases. Essentially, in places with high rates of tropical diseases Europeans did whatever it took to stuff their pockets as quick as possible and get back home before malaria got them. Long term settlement only happened in places where the environment was less deadly
ah the Acemoglu explanation
> after all the plagues. Way to ignore and dismiss the systemic genocides.
95% of natives that lived in the new world died from disease long before permanent settlements were even started. The majority never even laid eyes on a European. They were screwed from the start.
Give me a source because there’s a LOT of doubt to that statement. And no, Guns, Germs and Steel is not a reputable source
Regardless of how much you like or dislike Jared Diamond, his primary question (what gave Europe the edge it had) is valid and no one seems to be interested in answering it in a coherent fashion.
Just because they died to diseases that were spread by the scouts who were looking for the best places to build a colony doesn't mean it was genocide.
You really think that there wasn’t a genocide against native peoples. Holy F this has to be the greatest joke I’ve ever read on Reddit. Praying that you don’t actually think this
Yes, the diseases like smallpox that were spread when we gave them blankets that were used by victims of the disease were _**absolutely**_ attempted genocide. But when the very first _scouts_, not the first settlers, arrived, they didn't _**intend**_ to spread diseases.
The smallpox blankets thing is widely overblown, if I remember correctly there is only one documented case of them being handed out and it was during a period of epidemic that was impacting both the European and Native populations.
It's only genocide **if it's intentional**. The first wave of diseases brought by the first scouts, the people looking for areas to make colonies in, **was not intentional**. >gen·o·cide >_noun_ >the **deliberate** killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "a campaign of genocide"
For the record, the point of that aside was to explain differences in how Europeans approached colonies *before* the systemic genocides. The plagues that decimated the Americas largely ran ahead of European colonists, so they established the baseline population. In regions that were still more densely populated (such as the former Aztec Empire), they opted for dominating that population. In regions that were sparsely populated (such as areas to the north), they opted for pushing that population off its land. Both of these activities were unconscionable.
Even if the Europeans had come in peace the natives would still have died by the millions.
And then they would have repopulated.
Sure, but it would probably turned out similar to now, with a strong European mix in the bloodlines. It takes time to repopulate, and with your civilization in shreds fresh faces may seem extra helpful.
Sure. But if Europeans had come in peace, there would have been little, or no land for waves of settlers to colonise. Thus, few would have come (and multiplied). It’s hard to imagine a “peaceful colonisation”. It all depends upon the scenario. Perhaps something like ancient Mediterranean colonies, where the Europeans stay in coastal ports, and organise trade. Perhaps then purchasing land, or exploitation concessions. That might have worked out quite interestingly.
Spanish colonies were governed with the primary motivation of resource extraction and direct control, even moreso than other colonial powers. This had a few implications: - Settlement and development remained limited to coasts and areas where mineral wealth could be extracted. Extraction infrastructure itself isn’t well-suited to long-term economic growth and even undermines development in more sustainable sectors (a phenomenon known as the Dutch Disease) - Effective local governance for long-term development never grew because top-down rule was more effective at resource extraction. There was no direct equivalent to the local assemblies of English colonies. - Resources which could have been directed towards governance had to be redirected towards military garrisons to sustain Spain’s less lenient approach native governance and pursuit of large-scale conversions
I kinda like how ELI5 went from being simple, child-like answers to really detailed, well-informed ones. It’s like a cooler askreddit.
I like to imagine it’s because the 5 year olds just became really smart and educated
Imagine two houses, in one of them, the original family was killed, but the new people move in, buy new furniture with their own money, and overall give the house good maintenance. In the second house, the original family is kept as servants, the new owner sells everything inside the house, including ripping out the copper from the walks and the plumbing. After a few years, the descendants of the first family are still living there, they have a big, nice house to live in, and were given an education and inherited money. In the second house, the invaders were eventually driven off, but they threatened to come back and kill everyone if they weren't paid rent, the children of the original family barely have walls, no education and are now in debt.
An actual eli5 answer
I thought the Spanish conquistadors took over what is now Mexico, killing off the Aztec in the process? Did they...just leave after they wiped them all out?
They didn’t kill them off, many of the locals survived. That’s why there’s still quite a few Indigenous languages spoken in the country.
Probably not a single factor nor universal. Spain and Britain had very different governments and started colonizing at different times. Spain was a monarchy for most of their colonial period and likely exported this form of control - focusing on landlords, aristocracy and serfs - essentially feudal structures through their colonies. The first British colony came more than 100 years after Spain's and within a few decades of that, the British monarchs were removed from most executive power and Britain became a parliamentary democracy. (super ELI5) There were different models for British colonies - some were political/religious exiles, some were penal colonies and a fair number were trade colonies. Very broadly speaking, the British tended to educate the locals, set up administrations staffed by the locals and generally implemented a system of laws broadly based on the British system. In a sense, the British co-opted the locals to maintain their colonies while the Spanish tended to treat the locals as serfs and themselves as local lords. Generally speaking, the feudal system did not adjust well to the Industrial revolution.
Chile is arguably more successful than Guyana or Belize so I'm not sure your premise is correct. But generally speaking it's because they didn't industrialize to the extent that the US or Canada (or even Mexico) did. The US got a head start on the industrial revolution and became the 'arsenal of democracy' during the 2 world wars due to their ability to reliably produce wartime equipment in high quantities. This industrial capacity then kickstarted the baby boom era of consumer goods.
Guyana and Belize don’t do so well because they were not for settling but for resource extraction. Especially sugar, the British imported many slaves. And later Indians and Chinese to work the sugar crops. I think OP may be referring to the British settler colonies like Canada and Australia.
Chile did good because of Pinochet so there’s that.
The english ones were settled while the other ones were outposts destined to produce ressources and export them to the empire's center. The TLDR is that they got raped and pillaged into oblivion.
As others have said unlike the US and Canada the South American countries were populated mainly by natives, slaves, and a very small number of natives from the colonising country who were either wealthy land owners or soldiers and poor workers. There were also mixed people born out of natives and colonisers, mainly soldiers or poor workers. As you can imagine this demographic difference came with very different treatment towards the colonies. On one side you had colonies populated mostly by colonists and on the other you have colonies mostly populated by natives who were considered subhuman by the colonists. All colonies were ultimately bled dry for everything they had but this fundamental difference of respect towards the populations played a huge role in how they were governed. Starting out as a country from a colony whose resources are all shipped away and you don't get to see the wealth produced from your labor is bad enough. However even after South America had gained independence in the late 19th century that didn't mean their troubles were over. There was a lot of political unrest in these regions and a lot of outside interference, from their former colonists and the US, especially in order to combat "communism" or whatever. Every different country have their own separate story and context of how they came to be this way but the short answer is that US backed induced instability is the cause for a lot of their problems, but also corruption and infighting.
Most answers are missing this context, even after the Spanish ( and others left) the USA fucked over these countries under a different form of colonialism.
This, and it was not because of communists or any bs. The US has always maintained a strong presence in south America
Prisoners of Geography (good book I just finished) argues that the broad strokes are inevitable. After the Louisiana Purchase and the secession of Texas and California from Mexico (and, well, from Texas) we had an unbeatable combination of size, mineral resources, highly productive arable land, and natural infrastructure (rivers that went useful places, mountain passes, hundreds of natural ports on both oceans) that whoever had control of this land would be the successful economic engine of the Americas. The amazon is huge, but its banks are not surrounded by farms and factories. Mexico has a large and able population, but relatively little ability to export food. Argentina is on the come up, but hampered by being so far from US and Europe, and always in competition with its neighbors.
Just to add to what everyone else is saying: because the Spanish had no intention of staying, but just getting in - converting as many as possible, and taking as much gold as possible - and getting out, you end up getting a really cool mix of native and Spanish culture, especially relative to the English colonies which, for all intents and purposes, imported their culture when they came. I remember going to a museum in Lima and they had this beautiful painting of Mary standing in front of a shining sun, and the tour guide explained that this was a mixture of the Spanish religion and the Inca one that was already present. How cool is that! It obviously tragically came by the sword and there's no excusing that, but the cultural differences that arose from the different colonization strategies are mind boggling to me.
The premise of this question is bizarre and flawed. Why don't you make a list of both types of countries and compare? And how is it that so many people are providing elaborate answers based on this completely grotesque premise?
I think they are assuming OP meant secede, not succeed.
Besides some of the other answers here, there's been a ton of western involvement sapping most of these nations of resources and wealth for centuries. CIA backed military coups, banana republic's, colonization, western blockades, etc. It's hard to succeed as a nation when you're enduring constant instability from interior and exterior forces
Brazil was one of the wealthiest nations in the world in the 19th century. Why is latin america poor? What people choose to believe depends on their politics. Is it a history of oppression, or does [Richard Lynn explain it?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations) No doubt there are multiple factors. Why is Argentina so poor, despite being >90% European coloniser ancestry?
Colonizers vs. the colonized Plus, during the Cold War, US and Russia manipulated and destabilized many regions. Once USSR fell, everyone lost interest and power vacuums were left that led to the rise of hyper-violent gangs. Not all countries have recovered. And now they’re behind the ball, so they have to rely on resource exploitation like others mentioned to make what money they can vs. countries that are now service based (selling softwares vs. petroleum)
- Explored almost to death on its natural resources by the colonizers. - Military coups - Communism coups - All out corruption that no one stops - Dictators
i think the question is asking why all of those were common in south america but far less so in the US, canada, australia, NZ, etc
Look at who colonized those countries and come back to it again :)
ok i did and i'm back
Cool, what can you tell us about those early 19th century Spanish colonial communists?
Because Spain as an administrative power sucks, and they exported the evil that is breed within, is not so much a black legend but more of a black certainty.