What if Latin America was Rich? 

"Why is Latin America poor?" Whatifalthist guy: The Spanish Brazil: **CONFUSED SCREAMING**

On one hand, the region offers Neruda, Borges, Magical Realism, and many other groundbreaking advances in Western culture. On the other hand, it gave us Lele Pons.

Latin America isn't poor. It's overall Middle-class as far as economies go, not amazing, but there are certainly worse places to live

I love Panama’s resource being “Canal.” Okay, Mexico is mixed, Argentina is agricultural, Brazil has cash crops, Panama has- CANAL. Yes, but there has to be something else- *CANAL.*

1:03 you are wrong. Latin America has many similarities with Southern Europe: more agrarian and less industrialized than it's northern neighbors; Their governments were also relatively authoritarian and religious (both Spain and Portugal suffered from dictatorships until the end of the 70s). Edit: thank you. I really like your channel and just thought you kind of contradict yourself by saying Latin American countries aren't similar to Western Europe, when you showed in this same video some examples on how they are pretty similar to their western european colonizers of Spain (the democratic and relatively liberal Spain is quite a recent development).

So, I think there's ONE good thing about patronage: Art is better when artists are sponsored by patrons rather than essentially being publicly hired. Italy, Spain, France, all had magnificent art compared to Northern Europe.

I think that calling Latin america as a whole "poor" is a bit unfair when relative to other countries. While instability is fair as unlike many other nations in the west, latin american nations suffered through years of instability, coups and civil wars ending in at best like in Mexico, Uruguay and Costa Rica, the early to mid 20th century, and at worst, like nearly everyone else, the late 20th century. Many nations have stable economies and decent standards of living.

I can't believe I have to say this, but Brazil is part of Latin America

Lots of love for these south and Central American alternate histories from an Australian! all so fascinating!

"Sorry for destroying ur awesome history" Bro, just talking about us and showing our "continent" to the rest of the world is already a bless, thank you :D

One of the reasons why Southern European countries industrialized later was that they had very little fossil fuels, especially coal. This is the case with Italy, which as a result has always been economically dependent on importations from other countries (especially Great Britain and Germany, until oil replaced coal as the main fossil fuel) in order to make its industrial economy work. The Netherlands have heen majority Protestants until very recent times, so by your logic they should have industrialized before Belgium, which has always been majority Catholic. But Belgium industrialized before the Netherlands and more than the Netherlands, because its territory has lots of coal basins. This seems to indicate that religion has little or no impact on industrialization.

Ok, you mentioned you didn't know what would happen in Brazil. Well... Untill 1580, Brazilian colonists were basically restricted to the coast and whatever was east of the Tordesillas line. In in the end of the 1570's there was a succession crisis in Portugal because the king died and had no children. But the king of Spain (Phillip I, I think) was married to the king's niece, and was technically in the line of succession. He them took over the government of Portugal and established the euphemism called Iberian Union. Spain took over every aspect of the portguese government including it's colonies. The Brazilian colonists then proceeded to colonize westward, into unknown territory. (There was also a group of people called the Bandeirantes, who explored those lands and made native slaves on the way. The Iberian Union ended I'm 1640. (I don't quite remember how) Now, as Portugal was under the jurisdiction of Spain, wouldn't it be integrated on that colonization method? And perhaps maintain it's ways even after the Union ended? Maybe they would be applied on Brazil, who would see greater progress. Edit: although, Brazil really developed after the Portuguese royal family and royalty fled to it, elevating it to a kingdom. (They created banks, paved roads, build palaces, etc...) But they fled there in the first place because Napoleon invaded the homeland and they needed to flee. As Spain is stronger in this timeline, perhaps Napoleon wouldn't get to take Portugal at all, leaving Brazil undeveloped for much longer.

Actually, the British exterminated the people in the places they settled, and didnt mix, thus having no need to deal with cultural differences or new social classes arising. The spanish on the other hand, did create a system wich integrated the indigenous, and greatly mixed with them. Dont forget the army that took the city of Tenochtichlan was mainly indigenous who allied with Cortes to overthrow the Aztecs, which took prisioners from other tribes for sacrifice. The independence of Latin America was greatly supported by the English, and made the american colonies in general poorer than what they where during the spanish empire. Having lost their link with spain and trying to create an independent feel that never existed in the common population ( which in the US did appear), Latin american countries struggled creating a stable goverment

As an Argentine i would consider my people closer to Brazil or USA than to Colombia or Venezuela despite speaking the same language

OMG I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS VIDEO SINCE YOU MENTIONED YOU'D DO IT SEVERAL YEARS AGO!!!!!!

I love your alternate history videos, but from what I watched in this video and other previous that mention Spain, it looks like all your knowledge about Spanish history comes straight from the black legend. Initially, the premise that the "poverty" of the South American countries is the direct cause of the colonizers of 500 years ago is quite skewed. In addition to other huge mistakes you mention. But I don't take it very seriously, a video from an interesting point of view. Nice job.

As a Sonoran that map of a giant Sonora made me click on this video.

Europeans drawng Latinamerican borders: "We will divide the provinces in accordance to the inhospitable terrain of the continent to prevent conflicts between them". Europeans drawing African and Middle-eastern borders: "rEcTaNgLeS".

Sadly, this video contains a lot of historical inaccurate arguments, specially against the Spanish and while I see and praise the effort of the author to inform himself, as a Hispanic historian myself, I see this video is another example of the black legend against the Spanish. I could write many examples, but going straight to the point: - Why does the author compare Spanish colonies to the USA? Wasn’t for example, Jamaica a British colony? Or Haiti a french one? Are these ex colonies in a better position than the former Spanish ones? Or that doesn’t fit to the idea that the colonies inherent from colonisers? - There are several points leading the viewer to think that Spain has taken everything from its colonies...please be so kind to compare the human heritage sites built during the Spanish Empire on its colonies compared to the British ones. When Mexico had independence from Spain, Ciudad de Mexico had more carriages per capita than Madrid. - “Look kids, we made Spain a superpower” -> Spain didn’t really need you to make it one, as it already was one. In fact, an hegemony during 130 years and a global power for another 200. - This one, as a classic of every black legend video, is to show the Spanish Empire as a ignorant, regressive society. That is very far from the truth, as while still a middle age thinking Crown, Spain had the first global empire, first one of its kind in Europe after Rome in scope. The development of administration and governance to control so vast and large territories, including technologies and mastering of the sea was unprecedented before. Not just the discovery of America (for the Europeans) was an astonishing feat for its time but the first world circumnavigation was a complete game changer in the understanding from the world, only surpassed by the first man on the moon, many hundreds of years later. As conclusion, great channel, bad historical video. Hispanic Black Legend lives.

I been watching your videos for quite a time now, and I find them quite entertaining and fun. In addition, I would like to point that you have gained a lot of quality over time and that each video is better that the last. Great improvement for sure! That said, I have noticed in some of your videos that every time the Portuguese or the Spanish empire are treated, you have this estrange image of them being almost failed empires, exporters of decadence, corruption, mistreatment of their subjects and that they destroyed everything they touched. I never commented before on RU-vid, but for this video, I wanted to point some characteristics to the Spanish empire and why I find some of your perceptions incorrect or not fair when talking about it. It Is true that in the academic world it has always being the trend to identify the “bad habits” of the Portuguese and Spanish empires, and why the are the reasons of the “failures” of their old colonies. But it is also true that in recent years, more focused and unbiased (modern) works had being done in the matter and started to challenge these assumptions some decades ago. Of course, my arguments are based on these new studies and I will add some of my favorite works on the matter (I will only add work in English) I have to warn you all that the post is very large! So feel free to go just for the bibliography if you find the post boring: P Some interesting bibliography: - By far the one of the best work, I have ever read about the topic. It explain how the empire was not based on an extractive wealth economy and that intercontinental trade was common and necessary for the existence of the empire. It has a very interesting argument about how the collapse of the intercontinental economic system was the origin of the politic unrest (and civil wars and unrest) and not the other way around: www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-History/Assets/Documents/Research/GEHN/GEHNWP23-IrigoinGrafe.pdf - Independence’s effects on the economies of latin American countries eprints.lse.ac.uk/22482/1/wp10.pdf - Economic growth of latin american countries from 1820 to actuality. scielo.conicyt.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0719-04332011000200001 - Of course, anything written by John Elliot is pure gold and totally unavoidable if you like the topic of the spanish empire. I let here a PDF link to one of the books, but shhh :P cheirif.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/j-h-elliott-imperial-spain_-1469-1716-penguin-books-2002.pdf Now, some of my concerns about some of your points in the video; 1) Latin America does not behave as a western European nation. We could argue about what to “behave as a western European nation” means, but anyways; Of course latin america has slightly different approaches to politics, culture, way of life, and so on, but I’m not sure they cannot be considered as western countries. In fact, their political systems are based on the Presidential system of the USA, and many cultural traits are the same as in Spain o Portugal (with differences, of course). At the end, they are close to the Spanish and Portuguese culture (and vice versa, because a lot of what is now Spain comes from the Imperial period). For example, Latin American history in the XIX century has many similarities with Spanish one. Instability and unrest, constant changes of regimes, civil wars and economic devaluation (notably because of the previous reasons), and civil wars were a common thing in Latin America, but also Spain. In fact XIX century Spain witnessed a sequel of coups, countercoups, civil wars, restorations and constitutional experiment, just like (if not worst) the territories in Latin America In tends to be attributed to the end of the Spanish Empire and the consequent instability that this created. Like the end of the Roman Empire, the loss of governance, legitimacy and political authority was happening in all the territories at the same time and provoked vacuum of powers that made emerged factions that ended up fighting for power and resources. Every part of the empire was now crumbling and fighting for his own piece of land. Even the independence wars happened in different contexts and timings. For example, the Argentinian revolution started because of the will to obtain a more libertarian government (not tolerated by Spain) and avoid commercial tariffs but Mexico’s one really succeeded after the government in Spain enhanced the Liberal Constitution on 1820. Mexican elites saw this liberal constitution as an attack to the “criollo” elites and therefore decided to declare independence to maintain a status quo. As you see, every Latin American country as a different origin history. We could also point out; that during his timeframe, the Spanish Empire in the Americas was quite stable. Not big rebellions, revolts nor independent movements until the French invasion of 1808. That can only be explain if the population was relatively conformed to the situation. We have to think of the elites being okay with the situation but also the lower classes. The backbone of Spanish America, Native Americans and mixed population, seems to have been in consonance with the imperial policies. Of course, revolts happened when taxes were raised and policies not fair, but is IMPOSIBLE to maintain a system during more than 3 centuries without the validation of the subjects. P.S: 2 tiny things I saw that were incorrect or that need a little bit of further information. 1) You mention that the Spaniards enslaved the native population but it was not the real situation. The natives had a different status from other social classes (Peninsulars, creoles, free blacks and slaves) with benefits and downsides. Of course being a white born Spanish was the best and being an slave was utter shit, but neither of the classes had full disadvantages (except, again, slaves). For example, native population could not be touched by the inquisition or they had granted free access (payed by the state) when having to use the Spanish “judicial system” to which they had access to defend themselves (like slaves, they had an status on the system and were able to use some of the benefits of a complex estate). In the bad side? Many things… forced to work for a low salary, had to pay taxes and could not access some post of the Spanish bureaucracy, and a long list of mistreatments. However, at the end of the day, they were not enslaved but integrated in the civic life (for the good or the bad). 2) Casta systems, I have read a lot about them and the general conception in the scholar ambit is that we do not have enough data to confirm is existence. The “casta paintings” do not give information about their existence. In fact, they show a lot about the Spanish American territories; how they lived, what they ate, what they worked on and how they mixed. However, they never showed that a caste system existed. It is sure that differences between the social classes existed, but it seemed closer to the medieval states. The reasoning behind this conception is the fluidity between the classes. In a caste system, it is impossible. For example, in USA or South Africa during the apartheid a black person would be forever a black person. You cannot enter a bathroom only for with people and for sure, you will not be able to become white. he cannot change his legal situation, nor move between the social classes. In the Spanish system, fluidity between these classes existed (they were low). In fact, at the end of the XVIII century, a “mestizo” could pay money and became “white” therefore climbing posts in the social echelon. A similar situation could be found in different Europeans countries were titles of nobility could be purchased by a bourgeois to become a nobleman and gain access to better status and the right to work on some administrative positions. At the end of the day, color or race was not the main issue (a big issue, for sure, but not the driving force) but a secondary one to religion, quality of the family, nobility and status given by your job. That would explain the differences between natives among themselves. Natives that were part of the nobility were excepted to work or to pay taxes and could carry guns and ride horses. In contradiction, low class Spaniards that had to kill themselves on serfdom in Andalucía for a cacique had quite few rights. Best to be from peninsular Spain than a Criollo (bot white, but what matters is the origin), as better to be a Native Nobleman than a low born Spanish in the peninsular Spain, but better to be a peasnt on spain that a native peasant in America.

Dude Spain was a massive super power, the reason why latinoamerica it's poor is because they had bad government after the independence. Contries as Argentina, Venezuela o Mexico were very rich but they had wars, dictatorships and bad governments and the brithish colonies did thinks far much better working together.

That would mean i would have money Im from México 🇲🇽🇲🇽🇲🇽

8:17: To be completely fair, Sterling said it was never about realism and was more of a thought experiment.

I'm not sure about the population of Latin America being larger. Their Birth Rates are higher in the modern day than the USA, which counteracts a lot of the early advantage. Also, Northern Mexico has horrid geography (minus California) that really make it difficult to make wealthy, especially as an independent state. It's comparable to Afghanistan in terms of geography, and the Americans can use the Mississippi's tributaries to secure all the land in its watershed- taking most of the actually decent land (minus California) and thus still being a global power.

This channel is so underrated, one of my all time favorites.

Unlike Europeans and North Americans , Spanish South American nations refused to take advantage of 300 years worth of free labour. Emperor King Charles V outlawed the disgusting and immoral practice of chattel slavery 350 years before the USA and Protestant Europe (thus forfeiting a USD$700 trillion head start for all of Spanish America). This Spanish anti-slavery tradition was so important at the time, that SPANISH FLORIDA became a safe haven for tens of thousands of American Slaves running from American captivity and brutality. Unfortunately the Florida territories were handed over to the US Gov't in 1820 which immediately enacted pro-chattel slavery laws across the entire peninsula.

Latin America was already rich during the Spanish Empire, the question is why, after independence, it stopped being rich, not why it isn't now. Bad research in this video, marred by the Black Legend.

Man, im sorry to tell you that Catholics abolished slavery and gave equal rights to native Americans only 40 years after the start of colonization, so for you to say they slaved and mistreated the natives as the main reason... You just have to compare what remains of north American natives with central and south American ones. In north America natives where massacred, in the "Spanish ones" that didn't happen. On the other hand, you say books where only for rich people in Latin America... well, you didn't mention books arrived north america more than 150 years later, and that Spain built several universities while North Americans where still trying to figure out how to print books there. Also, there where, on this first american universities, colleges dedicated to native american studies and religions, so, no, spain didn't impose Catholicism at that extreme, they permitted native believes, that's why we find those believe systems today, still breathing and flourishing. Ask native north americans if they ran that luck... if you even find some...

Latin America was more rich than USA in 1800 for much

I've got to say, I wished I lived in this timeline

17:52 - Ironically, this is the most commercially dynamic border region in South America. The border between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay is currently one of the regions with the greatest economic growth in the three countries, even during the current period of crisis. There are three important cities in the region, one from each country and after the free trade agreements of the Mercosur they are mending and becoming a large metropolitan area. I would say that this region is the equivalent of the border between France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg: terrible wars in the past and economic dynamism today. And Uruguay is like the Netherlands in the region (because of legal marijuana). They may be bad frontiers for the past, but today they are excellent frontiers, mainly because they are open.

14:20 you forgot that the Spanish (and Portuguese) empires lost their colonial possessions mostly due to French occupation. A richer Spain might put up more of a fight against Napoleon (or Napoleon would have kept them as an ally... And the war of the Spanish crown might never have happened for that matter.)

@1:15. Till the Pinochet dictatorship, Chile had the 2nd longest standing democracy in the Americas, only surpassed by the US. How ironic that it was the support from the US that ended that streak. @3:30, after WW2, Argentina had the 3rd highest income in the world, only surpassed by the US and Switzerland, and It was all screwed after the 50s. Having taking a comparative Economics Course, where it was touched upon that Latin America has received more aid in the 20th century than Europe had received under the Marshall Plan, having the region seen both leftist and rightist governments, democracies and dictatorships, etc. that one reason that experts can see on why the region has not developed was not the form of colonialism, because once the Spanish were overthrown, the local elites, the Creoles or Criollos took over power and did not share it. One reason for this was that the Criollo, being mixed or European descended, and having access both to economic means and education did not want to share power with the large native american, mestizo and Afro Antillean population. This meant that neither political power nor economic means were distributed (the so called oligarquias). Comparing English colonialism to Spanish colonialism does not explain the differences either, as you can point out the US, Canada, Australia and NZ as success cases, however in all those cases there was small indigenous presence, and huge influx of Europeans settlers, different weather (ie not tropical), as was Argentina (which also fitted that mold and was successful till the 1950s, btw). If you study English colonization of India, Africa, the Caribbean, you find similar or worse outcomes when compared to Latin America. You could argue that the Monroe Doctrine had even worse effect on Latin America in the last 200 years. At the end of the day, Latin America has the means to fully enter the developed world, the only reasons keeping them are only internal, as of the 21st century.

The caste system supposedly stablished by the Spanish, although commonplace in the anglosphere, has been challenged by academic studies such as those of Pilar Gonzalbo, Joanne Rappaport or Berta Ares and its considered a flawed and ideologically-driven reinterpretetion of the colonial period. Just one google search away.

In our timeline, the Spanish Empire promoted Catholic mission more than any other country in history. While elements of indigenous American and African faith can be seen in Hispanic America, the Catholic Church has remained dominant from Tijuana to Cape Horn. But in this timeline, we have these premises: * The Spanish government is more tolerant to non-Catholics. The Spanish Inquisition is nonexistent or limited. * The Protestant Reformation still happens, and appeals to merchants, craftsmen and independent farmers. * Sonora and Argentina gets populated by independent farmers (with a lifestyle similar to the US Midwest). * Some Spanish colonies have a black majority; while slaves, they maintain their African customs (compare Haiti). Spanish America would be much more religiously diverse than they became in our timeline. As countries become independent, the government can take very different religious policies: * Enclaves of religious settlers (compare Pennsylvania). This will probably happen in Argentina. * Syncretism of Protestant, Catholic, African and Indigenous American faiths. Probable outcome in Mexico and Peru. * Separation of church and state, with the government de-facto adhering to the majority religion (compare the United States). Probable outcome in rural Sonora. * French-style secularism (laïcité), with an effectively non-religious government. Would require an urbanized, educated population. Might happen in California or Panama. Migrant streams would amplify each nation's religious identity. The Latin American countries would be less of the "sister republics" they are in our timeline, and we might see religious conflicts between them.

At the end, in the way Spain colonized Latin America also gave us the oportunity to keep some of our ancient history with us. If we were colonized by France or Britain, we would lost so many things about the mayans, aztecs, incas and many other cultures, just as the US lost so much of their indigenous culture. We surely would be culturally lost, and possibly many of the actual countries would dissapear. Mexico and Peru surely wouldn't exist as we know them. I wish my dear Mexico were part of the first developed countries, we have all the sources to be an economic potience, but for many reasons it hasn't being possible so far, not only because the way Spain dealt with it's colonies. I wonder if in the timeline you propose, we could have both, the actual rich culture of Latin America, and the economic richness of the US, Canada and Europe . (sorry if my written english has many mistakes, I'm still learning the language) Amazing video, new sub from Mexico :D

Great video! greetings from Argentina

If the British controlled areas like Canada and the US are richer, how come Belize, Jamaica and Guyana are poor?

"If Spain didn't invade everything would be better" Actually: ding dong its the uk and we're going to import more slaves.

Because upper middle class college kids have little life expierence or expierence with suffering, base themselves around supporting idealistic morality when they do not understand the consequences of their actions. I say this as a middle class college kid in the developing world.

Lets mourn for the lost opportunities of Latin America..

The amount of black legend is off the charts

Hmmm that’s a hard choice Having Argentina controlling southern Brazil where I live in and the Spanish speaking Latin American countries having big economies which mean that I cannot meme on their countries being poopoo... Or living in a world where a country that calls itself “America” leads the world? Difficult choice indeed...

Latin America was rich until the second half of the XXth century, your point and video is null and void. (When only counting whites and even mestizo people, blacks and indigenous are poorer in the US than in Latam today and have less avenues to climb socially) And at independence, en the early XIX century, income and quality of life was higher in Spanish America than in Europe, including Paris, London or the low countries. The average worker ate more meat and had higher wages. Look up the economic historical research on the region. And 80% of the production of the American Viceroyalties were kept in America, only 20% went to Spain, and that's saying something since we were all part of the Spanish Empire, we were only subjects of the king and "Spanish" at the time. so we were just contributing our part.

As a teen I felt very welcomed when we said “Look kids looks like we’ve just made a SUPER POWER”

Now something I have always wondered about - Are Eastern Europeans part of Western I.e. European culture and if so why are they treated as a second-hand people by the Westerners?

Latin America is a land of contrasts, there are “more westernized” countries in Latin America than others. And inside a country, there may be more westernized regions than others. For example, it’s not the same visiting Mexico City than visiting Oaxaca. Or it’s not the same visiting Honduras than visiting Colombia for example. So, there are zones and regions that are as western as North America and Europe, and there are other ones that just have nothing to do.

As a whole... Is a good experiment. But as a chilean I'm allowed to say that you forgot about Antarctica, Lithium, and the fact that we all hate each other in Latin America.

0:42 Peru is one of the countries that are the most indigenous though. Peru and Bolivia are even more indigenous than Paraguay and Mexico, which are mestizo-dominant.

I love how I, an American, can listen to an Aussie discuss Europe and Latin America on a Chinese-built phone

It’s crazy how quickly your able to pump these out! Great work!

the question of wether latin america is western or not varies from country to country, for argentina, uruguay, southern brazil, and even chile the answer is definetly yes, but when going north to places like peru or ecuador indigenous culture gains a lot more weight

I would love to see actual lectures from you, you know so many minor major trivias!

As a Brazilian, I was hoping you'd talk more about Brazil! XD Great video nonetheless!

Latin America does not behave like North America or British because their cultural afiliation is Spanish. The core of the West started in Italy and Spain. Saying that Latin America does not behave like British/North America and therefore arent Western is like saying that North America does not behave like Latin America/Spanish and therefore arent Western. Again, lets reminds ourselves that the core of the West did not start in Anglo Europe but started in Italy, Spain was like an extension of it.

17:28 inospitable land?? Have some cities who are larger than even more good lands to live, Manaus (capital of Brazilian state of Amazonas) is actually 2.182.000 Or over than two million But in amazonas outside Manaus and some minor cities are only a BIG forest almost no human live And some parts of amazonas, never touched by human life

the video is pure gold , pretty well done and very well researched, but I think saying "Spain" is the main cause of why Latin America is poor, is wrong in so many ways! I think it has more to do with what the criollos did in the XIX century, the high % of native population and mestizos that caused various "independence wars/internal wars" like the one from Yucatan from México, the back up dictatorships that the USA imposed during the late XIX century and early XX. the monopoly from european commercial companys in the caribbean that made profit of the infighting between the central american criollos etc. before their independence the Spanish colonies had the biggest cities and in average the most quality of life of the entire Americas, especially in the urban areas, You are partly right tho, I think the Spanish without knowing it , damned the future latin american republics, but purely because Spain ruled them without having in mind that in the future they would become independent republics, thus making things like the presidios,casta system etc obstacles in the development of the new hispanic republics , Spain didn't consider his colonies "true colonies" but more like an extension of itself, so as a man who loves latin american history I wouldn't blame the Spaniards at all if I'm being hoenst and I would actually "blame" what happened in the XIX century,the criollo elite in general and the USA. but still I have to say that I love your videos, I woud love to see more videos like these! maybe what would have happened if Aragon united Spain and not Castile

Hello from Costa Rica 🇨🇷. Thank you for mentioning our happy exception. Oldest democracy in Latin America and of the oldest in the world

I would like to add that religion really plays a role. Protestanism is centred on the belief that if you have more wealth, you are favoured more by God. While in Catholicism, it's the opposite. In Latin America, people are hard workers, but they know when it's time to relax and when its time to work--something that North America has a problem with since its work all the time. Moreover, this ties then with culture, as Latin culture (from Portugal to Italy and France) give higher importance to family and a life of balance than the anglophone world.

Interesting take on Northern Mexico and the Western US. Of course, in the actual history, there was never any major European immigration to the American Southwest until well into the 19th century and it was the same for Mexico as well, with some very limited exceptions. Most of the land marked as Sonora on that one map, and as being Mexican territory in maps promulgated on the internet today, were claimed but not actually owned by any European nations or any of the nations such as the US or Mexico that claimed them. Rather the land continued to be owned and controlled by the Indigenous peoples well into the 19th century which is when the first Europeans, including Spanish and English speakers, began to establish settlements in the area. You should consider doing a video on what if the Indigenous peoples of the Western US and even Northern Mexico's Indigenous peoples, were able to continue their independence instead of become part of the US or Mexico. Comancheria would be a place to start.

as a teen living in Sonora, Im surprise my state has gone this far... Good video dude

I disagree with your ethnocentric focus. Who said the Indigenous America could not prosper on their own? They already had their highly organized social structures and highly developed engineering skills?They already had their writing and history and codex which nefarious figures as missionary Diego de Landa systematically burned in the bonfire. The same way as China and Japan prospered independently from the West with limited contact. Instead of conquest and servitude, they would take up useful knowledge, conserving their social structures, trade being the main factor in their development. How different would history have been? Instead of the ragtag greedy bands of Hernán Cortez and Francisco Pizarro who ravaged and pillaged the wealth of Native America. They would have had limited contact between these cultures. Perhaps it would not be the Spanish, not even the British or French, but the more tolerant German or Dutch which would have brought with them the mercantile mentality based on mutual respect. How different would the world be today?

Hispanic countries are the majority in the Americas, we should unite

this is actually one of the better alternate histories scenarios (as in like the world overall is slightly better in terms of technology & standard of living), but also depressing af because this could have easily happened if some people decided to do things differently ages ago, vs what we have now is just, embarrassing to say the least, lol.

It's great to see you pump out Latin American videos. Not many people interest themselves in the region, even though it is extremely interesting and historically rich. Again, I don't know if you will ever do it (especially after this one), but it would be nice to see a 'What if the English invasions of the Rio de la Plata succeded' video. Thanks again for your content, you're great.

Guy, you made A LOT OF MISTAKES... Will try to clarify you some points: 1. Spanish people was far more free than any other europeans for the simple fact that they did not have feudalism and they were all people in arms ready to fight against the muslims or anyone that appears, was a quite free society where everyone fights in the war and the local parlaments were really powerfull ( Concejos abiertos) they put conditions to the King to enter in a war.. They vote if they go to war or not. 2. The Spanish Empire was far more powerfull in 1780 than the US... if the US got their independency from UK was thanks to Spanish troops and weapons.. ( allways ready to fuck UK) ... but there was a turning point.. TRAFALGAR AND NAPOLEON. 3. Napoleon was the Hitler of the XIX century and for a decade ruined Spain also the Spanish fleet was destroyed in Trafalgar do ships can not go from Spain to America without being caputred by the pirates of the Navy itself... 4. The masonerry creates "free movements" in each big Port to fracturate the empire in as much countries as posible.. the smaller they are the easier they are to be controled by UK and the masons... Also the Spanish Monarchy was awfull and control by the French Borbons.. That alos works against Spain... So with all the enemies working together against Spain..Game over.. but the society they create in America was quite fair and people was quite happy far more than in other parts of the world.. there war relatively peace for 300 years. on the contrary in the US they KILL ALL INDIANS... and leave a few on them in the mountains and deserts... Maybe is a lesson to learn for the future.. the more cruel you are the better it goes... at least worked for the US.

Actually the spanish are to credit for these post colonial states wealth… the indians were poor before we arrived

Please do: What if the Inca repelled the Spanish? (You said were going to do this one) What if the Trail of Tears never happened? What if the Iroquois fully allied with the US during the American Revolution?

More accurate description: What if the spanish colonies were properly managed as an actual territory instead of an gold mine extraction.

As a Latino I wouldn't blame Spain, there's no one else to blame but Latinos themselves

A Wealthier, early Industrialised Italy that became a Great Power is such a cool concept, well done

Hey I recommend you "The Making of Modern Colombia: A Nation in Spite of Itself" written by David Bushnell, precisely he wrote that book because he couldn't find any historical information of the zone. if you're searching for information about the northern South American countries, it's about Colombia but it shares some precolombian, colonial and even independent history with Venezuela, Ecuador and even Panama, and touch economics, political and cultural topics. Hope you find it :)

How are the Spanish responsible for their poverty? You were fed 'la leyenda negra' and ate it up. All these countries when they were part of the Spanish empire were prosperous full of freedom and had way less slavery and inequality than anglosaxon countries. You realise indigenous and europeans lived together peacefully and even back then had kids together thats why there are so many mestizos not just now but back then too. Inform yourself from real sources first man, lots of sources are extremely biased and have extremely incorrect information. Many english explorers back in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries claimed the best places to live was the Spanish empire.

Why did you mention the fact of Ecuadorian world domination Now the whole world knows Ecuador’s secret

Also, the World in general that has a Higher Quality of Life/Higher Living Standards as a result of a Wealthier, more Inventive Latin America is amazing. I can just imagine places like Argentina and Northern Sonora here being major High-Tech powerhouses and Innovators too.

Great video, man! I aspire to reach your level of videos one day. You clearly have a thorough grasp on the overall trend of history, which I assume came from years of thorough reading. Keep up the good work.

Dude, why do you state in all of your videos that the Spaniards enslaved the Amerindians? While that is partially true in the beginning, it is not entirely correct, as once annexed, Latinamerica and the Iberian Peninsula, were Spain, one and the same, providing the American population with all of its casta rights. Whilst the Brits decided instead to exterminate all of the Amerindian population inhabiting North America, you completely waive that key factor, don't manipulate history, I swear that I cannot keep on with your videos any further as soon as you start speaking such inaccurate facts because it is horrendous how many people you're infecting with this level of misinformation.

Western Civilization as any other civilization is based on culture, language, religion, etc but not just your current per capita income, I mean, I didn't see anyone kicking out Germany from the Western World when the were super broke after WWII, on the other hand, countries like UAE, Singapore and South Korea are super rich but I don't think anyone would consider them to be part of the Western Civilization.

This is amazing content and I would just really love to thank you for the dedication and quality of your videos, keep up the great work!

Spain approved the abolition of indigenous slavery and mixed marriage in 1512, England decorated slave traders and pirates with the title of Sir and the US did so in 1967. Universities in New England in 1636: 1. Universities in Spanish America: 15. While the 13 colonies still lived in huts and used the Spanish royal of eight, the American cities were barroque jewels. UNESCO Cultural World heritage sites built by the British outside the UK: 14. Built by the Spanish: 48. In 1713, GB thought that trading 500t a year of Spanish products was a big win, that´s how advanced the imperial economy was. "A Proposal for humbling Spain 1711" talks about the strengh of the American economy and cattle. Renta per capita 1800: New Spain 475$. UK 500$. US 750$. Río de la Plata 750$. Renta per capita 2020: México 10.400$. UK 40.000$. US 67000$. Argentina 9700$. "London Morning Post 1802": The real wealth of Spanish America is on the face of the earth, which is where the British will harvest it. "John Adam, US military 1804": Mexico outshines us. "Thomas Gaige, British priest" There´s almost one car for every 2 people in México. Humbolt was prohibited from travelling through the British Empire, however he was allowed to travel through the Spanish one: "New Spain has a notable advantage over the United States and that is that its number of slaves is practically 0, those of the United States exceed one million, one sixth of its population." "The Indian farmer is poor but free, his situation is much better than that of the peasants of Northern Europe." "I do not see happier peoples than those governed by the Spanish empire." "The Indians are protected by Spanish laws, which are generally wise and humane." "No city in America, not excepting those in the US, can exhibit such great scientific institutions as Mexico City. Other cities also have scientific establishments comparable to those in Europe." Meat consumption 19th C: Paris: 163lbs. México: 189 lbs. Average salary of a miner: Germany: 4,5Fr. México: 30Fr. While Spain traded silver coins with China, the British gave them cannon shots and opium. "Spain is owed the wisdom of Greece, the greatness of Rome, and everything that is not savage in modern politics, but despite everything, England is the Turkish corsair of modern Europe: it dedicates itself to robbing others and when it cannot do it openly, it does so treacherously." Samuel Johnson (Bowell´s life of Johnson 1779 Vol III) Rome duplicated Rome everywhere it went. Spain duplicated Spain everywhere it went, that´s why it lasted twice as long as the other modern empires and needed British funded criolles to destroy it from within, becoming the separated states of America and paying its indepencede debts until 1976... But yeah, I guess Spain is the villain of the story.

America is not a country, America is the whole continent from Alaska to Patagonia.

If the Great Colombia survives in your world, it would become a small US, divided between a the small farmer free Andes and the plantation Caribbean Coast.

It is not correct to exclude Latin America from the West because it does not have stable democracies and peaceful transfer of power. (most) Western Europe didn't have any of that until 50 years ago. Before that, European politics was as unstable as of any Latin American country, but with way more wars.

Why is Latin America poor? -Theft of Latin American gold reserves by the British post-independence (independences sponsored by them of course) and intermitent economical interventions until the present days

Economically speaking: Latin America: rich lands, poor people, USA: rich land, rich people, Japan: poor land, rich people, Afghanistsn: poor land, poor people.

"the argentinians were very wealthy before ww1, being wealthier tha most of europ" However the only reasonable motive behind them being poorer now is once again spanish colonialism, maaaaan thats a bit of a strech

Grear job. Your videos have improved so much over the past year and half in terms of analysis. Keep up the good work and I'll keep watching.

An interesting what if. What if the Roman Empire collapsed during the crisis of the third century? I’ve always wondered what would be the fate of the Gaullic Empire if they held to Spain and Palmyrene Empire if they held to Egypt in the event of Rome collapsing early.

Astronomically based timeline

While you're 100% right that Indigenous culture has played a significant role in shaping the cultures of several Latin American countries, you couldn't be further off the mark when you describe the history of coups, dictatorships, and civil wars as setting Latin America apart from Europe. Wow... that was incredibly, amazingly short sighed for a history student. I mean, literally all of European history from the French Revolution until World War II was coups, dictatorships, and civil wars. Like, literally, ALL. OF. IT. Wow....I love your channel, but that actually left me speechless...

also French Canada is part of Latin-American. because French language came from Latin too like Italian and Rumanian

Loved this video! Thanks for posting

As opposed to Panama, I think a better place for a major city would be on the narrow stretch of land between Lake Nicaragua and the Pacific. It's much more narrow, being only 11 miles wide at certain points, so a city could easily span it, making it both an Atlantic and Pacific port.

I love your work, extremely well thought out!

The best possible timeline on America is where Mayans Inca and Aztecs over powered technologically the European colonizers.

1:40 I love how you very politically correctly listed "Middle Eastern slave trade" instead of saying it as it is. Islamic slave trade 😂

3:27 England: *attempts to deport Scots* Scotland: *Independence Intensifies*

8:05 I actually laughed out loud. You could definitely be the crazy history professor in a disaster movie

To the maker of this video: please study History (not anglo-propaganda) before make a video about the Spanish Empire. Too much mistakes in only the first 5 minutes. It would be appreciated if you explained the difference between Spanish Empire and British colonialism and the aftermath over the population. In Australia (at the 2016 census) the indigenous or aboriginal population was 2.8%, meanwhile in Mexico, this population represented in 2016 nearly 85%. The reason: British fulfilled an extermination policies in Australia and no rights were given to indigenous or aboriginal Australians. Spaniards promoted the mixture between Spaniards and the indigenous people and they were recognized with rights (like private property) and freedoms.

Spanish: sees gold. Also spanish: IS IT FOR ME? 👉👈