The most "humane" colonial empire?

Colonialism has never been charity and all imperialist powers had their fair share of atrocities, yet distinct imperialist policies did make a difference.

Ain't fun

Ottomans, though some aspects were obviously pretty harsh.

The Spaniards had no choice Pinguin. Do you really think that if Latin America recieved immigration with the likes of America that the Spaniards would have absorbed the native population. not likely.
The British did not wipe out the Maori either.

Oh yeh look how prosperous North America is, then look at the majority of Latin American nations.

Anyway the different colonial powers faced different circumstances. Latin America never got the type of immigration that North America recieved. Like Pinguin said, just look at their demographics. The Southern Area of Latin America is unusually European, perhaps maybe due to more immigration, pinguin. The Native population has only exploded within the last century Pingiun, so Latin America for the most part of its life was sparsely populated.

I didnt know the Ottoman were a "colonial" power, what did they colonise ?

I can't really pick just one. Though, i find myself agreeing with edgewaters, in regards to the Russians. A very darn tough question! I can't even narrow it down to three.

I don't understand what the Tsarist Russia does on that list... during those two hundred years, Russia seldom saw expansion towards the east and concentrated more on south and north... as much as they could obviously.

I picked the Arabs however...

Originally posted by think The Spaniards had no choice Pinguin.

Nobody was asking why they were the way they were. When colonialists were humane or benefitted the locals in some way, it was almost always out of self-interest. The Spanish weren't particularly exceptional or unusual in that way.

Do you really think that if Latin America recieved immigration with the likes of America that the Spaniards would have absorbed the native population. not likely.

Probably, yes. By 1700 there were still more Spanish than English in the New World, but the English weren't living amongst the natives in quite the same way. They dwelt apart. Different era, different peoples, different forces behind settlement patterns - alot more complex than simple numbers. The Spaniards settled much earlier than the English, in an era that was more medieval in thinking - in which interbreeding was seen as a succesful method of pacification. Since this practice was already established in the area it would have been hard to stop in later eras regardless of numbers. When the English started settling in numbers it was a later era and they had new ideas about pacification, typified by things like the Plantations in Ireland.

I wouldn't venture to guess which was more humane. The Spanish were making an effort to build a feudal-style power bloc out of subject native populations and tried very hard to reform the practices of their settlers, even ushered in a concept of natural rights to try to protect the natives. The English had their own virtues as well; they accepted several native powers as allies and sovereign equals, such as the Iroqouis. The Spanish never did that. Of course - they had no choice about accepting them, they barely survived King Phillip, the Iroqouis could have wiped them out in the 1600s. But that doesn't concern me because it doesn't change the fact that they did accept them. Just like the reasons behind the mixed society the Spanish built don't change the fact that they did that.

These sorts of one-sided views are almost universally erroneous, that's why this question is such a tough choice. Everybody had their vices and virtues and it's really really hard to say anyone was more humanitarian than anyone else - they all perpetrated some horrors, but they all had their good side too.

That goes for the natives too.

The Native population has only exploded within the last century

What? No, not in Latin America. In places like Bolivia and Peru, they have never ceased to be the majority. In places like Mexico they have always been sizable minorities, and in certain sub-regions like the Yucatan Peninsula have always held a majority.

Plus, if you include mestizos, well the vast majority of Latin Americans have always been native to some degree. Up here, Metis are considered to be an aboriginal group, and they're the same thing as mestizos.

Edited by edgewaters - 24-Jul-2007 at 05:09

Originally posted by edgewaters ...What? No, not in Latin America. In places like Bolivia and Peru, they have never ceased to be the majority. In places like Mexico they have always been sizable minorities, and in certain sub-regions like the Yucatan Peninsula have always held a majority. Plus, if you include mestizos, well the vast majority of Latin Americans have always been native to some degree. Up here, Metis are considered to be an aboriginal group, and they're the same thing as mestizos.

Originally posted by Patch There has never been an English Empire so it is obviously the most humane.

Originally posted by calvo Originally posted by Patch There has never been an English Empire so it is obviously the most humane.   I meant by British. You should have known what I meant.   The "British" Empire was in reality more "English". Scotland, Ireland, and Wales were more like her "colonies" than part of the motherland; although since the 20th century, due to economic development as a unity all the British Isles developed a common identity. Still, many Scots and Welsh still have an antagonistic attitude towards the English for past exploits.... with the Irish I wouldn't mention any more.

Edited by Patch - 24-Jul-2007 at 13:30