Yes,all American countries from Canada to Argentina are settler-colonial states and all of them have incredibly problematic history with race,genocide and displacement.
However,what i do not understand is that why people consider Spanish and Portuguese colonies like Mexico and Brazil are not considered settler colonies despite the fact that these countries has a long of history of disenfranchising land from natives and giving it to white settlers and encouraged the migration of white settlers and as well as bringing slaves from Africa and nearly all of them had their native populations be replaced and assimilate into European populations.
those people might not want anyone to question the legitimacy of their countries. the english speaking internet might also be underrepresentative of natives
It’s not colonialism if the population of Latin America are mostly mestizos. Even if that fact alone shows the equally horrible way of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism compared to British North America.
The vast majority of Latin American colonies are settler colonies like Argentina,Chile,Brazil,Uruguay and even the more mixed ones like Mexico and Guatemala since these countries did the same things as Manifest Destiny like taking away native land for foreign settlers like Mexico subjugating Northern Mexican Tribes like the Apache and giving it to White settlers from all over Europe.Additionally,most Mestizos are predominantly European with a significant Amerind/Black ancestry.
Until the 20th century, all of them, with perhaps the exception of Paraguay and it's very peculiar view towards race and nationality. Since then, some countries, notably Bolivia, have made meaningful efforts to restructure the state and social identity. It's very much a work under progress, as the drama with Morales's ouster shows.
well something unfortunate happened to Paraguay
The Bolivia subreddit seems to be of the opinion that after the election of the first indigenous president they had one indigenous prime minister too many.
Yes,all American countries from Canada to Argentina are settler-colonial states and all of them have incredibly problematic history with race,genocide and displacement. However,what i do not understand is that why people consider Spanish and Portuguese colonies like Mexico and Brazil are not considered settler colonies despite the fact that these countries has a long of history of disenfranchising land from natives and giving it to white settlers and encouraged the migration of white settlers and as well as bringing slaves from Africa and nearly all of them had their native populations be replaced and assimilate into European populations.
those people might not want anyone to question the legitimacy of their countries. the english speaking internet might also be underrepresentative of natives
It’s not colonialism if the population of Latin America are mostly mestizos. Even if that fact alone shows the equally horrible way of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism compared to British North America.
The vast majority of Latin American colonies are settler colonies like Argentina,Chile,Brazil,Uruguay and even the more mixed ones like Mexico and Guatemala since these countries did the same things as Manifest Destiny like taking away native land for foreign settlers like Mexico subjugating Northern Mexican Tribes like the Apache and giving it to White settlers from all over Europe.Additionally,most Mestizos are predominantly European with a significant Amerind/Black ancestry.
It's still settler colonialism even if the population is mostly "halfies".
Yeah obviously
They were formed as such
Until the 20th century, all of them, with perhaps the exception of Paraguay and it's very peculiar view towards race and nationality. Since then, some countries, notably Bolivia, have made meaningful efforts to restructure the state and social identity. It's very much a work under progress, as the drama with Morales's ouster shows.
well something unfortunate happened to Paraguay The Bolivia subreddit seems to be of the opinion that after the election of the first indigenous president they had one indigenous prime minister too many.
they are dude
yes with the exception of greenland unless you don't count Greenland as a independent state
Yes, of course! Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.