NationStates

Meryuma wrote:

Migas999 wrote:Then why is it named the age of discovery which everyone agrees was launched by Portugal and Spain?

Historical convention from a time when historians only acknowledged certain (European) perspectives.

Perhaps but,to close this topic and revert back to the colonial wars
You must see that Portugal and Spain led the Old World in to a age of global imperialism, international trade and colonialism

Migas999 wrote:

Meryuma wrote:
Historical convention from a time when historians only acknowledged certain (European) perspectives.

Perhaps but,to close this topic and revert back to the colonial wars
You must see that Portugal and Spain led the Old World in to a age of global imperialism, international trade and colonialism

This is true. When the Ottomans conquered Constantinople the Spaniard and Portuguese pretty much instigated the three processes you just named.

Napkiraly wrote:Aaaand hate to break this to you, but the majority of human history, especially the most important bits - yeah happening in the Old World. Hence, using the term discovering the Americas.

Someone had to say this.

Meryuma wrote:But "first to discover" has different implications.

No, it doesn't. Everyone knows exactly what he meant by that.

Calimera II wrote:

Migas999 wrote:

Portugal and Spain discovered most of what was discovered during the age of discovery

And the Brits stole it

Actually, they stole most of the rest of the world. The Spanish and Portuguese American colonies were never actually grabbed by Britain

In terms of materiel, men, and money Portugal's commitment to Angola and Mocambique alone was proportionally five times that of the US commitment to Vietnam.

Western Europe's poorest country? Unsustainable.

New Chalcedon wrote:

Calimera II wrote:
And the Brits stole it

Actually, they stole most of the rest of the world. The Spanish and Portuguese American colonies were never actually grabbed by Britain

Well... No. Most weren't. But there were small territories. Belize, Jamaica, Guyana, and Bluefields. This is mostly going off of Spanish claims, not settler history. Belize was settled by English and Scots peoples, but it was still a Spanish claim.

So going off of the Treaty, Britain did in fact steal territory claimed by Spain.

Also to note, Britain did fight Spain for Jamaica.

Napkiraly wrote:

Frasers wrote:

1)no that would be the native north americans



2)no nobody knows where columbus was from

1) We're talking about the discovery of the Americas by the Old World (Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Asia). Everyone essentially knew India, China, etc were real, just didn't know a lot about them. Apart from the Norse, no one knew what lay beyond. Aaaand hate to break this to you, but the majority of human history, especially the most important bits - yeah happening in the Old World. Hence, using the term discovering the Americas.

2) He was from Genoa.

Some say he was not from present day Italy or Portugal but Catalan. They say he gave many new discoveries Catalan names. Supposedly, he had been a pirate and had taken some Spanish ships. So being Spanish was a cover story.

The Carlisle wrote:

New Chalcedon wrote:
Actually, they stole most of the rest of the world. The Spanish and Portuguese American colonies were never actually grabbed by Britain

Well... No. Most weren't. But there were small territories. Belize, Jamaica, Guyana, and Bluefields. This is mostly going off of Spanish claims, not settler history. Belize was settled by English and Scots peoples, but it was still a Spanish claim.

So going off of the Treaty, Britain did in fact steal territory claimed by Spain.

Also to note, Britain did fight Spain for Jamaica.

You left out the Caribbean island of Trinidad which the UK. easily took since the Spanish governor supposedly did not put up a fight. The island of Barbados was claimed by Spain and once visited by Portugal but the UK. settled the island. Most of the islands and jungle territories like Belize had no gold or silver or had low quantities. Most Spaniards wanted to get rich quick.

Except, well, there is verifiable proof that he was, in fact, Genoese.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus

To note, during this time period, Spain had a strong relationship with Genoa. Genoese were widely known for their seamanship and seafaring. Spain employed many Genoese seaman for that reason. One such person, Cristoforo Colombo, was a skilled seaman who was hired by Spain to lead voyages to Asia, as he traded along the West African coasts from Lisbon. He also knew several languages such as Latin, Castilian, and Portuguese. Based off his residence for most of his life and his employment as an admiral for the Spanish Crown, it wouldn't be surprising if he dropped using Genoese in his writing.

Anyways, to the OP. I think the same. Futile attempt to hold onto their last possessions from imperialism. It was a fools errands from the start.

I could've forgiven the west for its imperialism if it had conducted a sane withdrawal of its colonies. Britain should have responsibly divided the new countries to reflect ethnic boundaries, for example. They should have infused democracy into the culture over a long period to ensure stability.

Of course, one cannot be so idealistic when the entire operation was conducted with a lust for money.

Libreng wrote:I could've forgiven the west for its imperialism if it had conducted a sane withdrawal of its colonies. Britain should have responsibly divided the new countries to reflect ethnic boundaries, for example. They should have infused democracy into the culture over a long period to ensure stability.

Of course, one cannot be so idealistic when the entire operation was conducted with a lust for money.

In Portugal's case it bit off a wee more than it could chew. Even if they'd legitimately attempted to develop their territories and educate and train the populace to prepare them for independence, they couldn't. Not enough money.

That is what happens when a miniscule backwater tries to administer an empire the approximate size of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined.

Ashworth-Attwater wrote:

Meryuma wrote:But "first to discover" has different implications.

No, it doesn't. Everyone knows exactly what he meant by that.

first white european christians :~)

Geilinor wrote:Portugal and the colonies would have been better off without the wars, Portugal should have focused on itself and the colonies needed a chance to develop.

Oh but if they kept Angola....

New Werpland wrote:

Geilinor wrote:Portugal and the colonies would have been better off without the wars, Portugal should have focused on itself and the colonies needed a chance to develop.

Oh but if they kept Angola....

oil $$$ for portugal and more exploitation for angola

Arumdaum wrote:

New Werpland wrote:Oh but if they kept Angola....

oil $$$ for portugal and more exploitation for angola

I dunno, Angola might be better of controlled by Portugal than by their own Kleptocratic government.

Arumdaum wrote:

New Werpland wrote:Oh but if they kept Angola....

oil $$$ for portugal and more exploitation for angola

To be fair, Portugal lacked the infrastructure or technical know-how to do anything with the oil in the first place. It would've most likely been exploited by a big foreign consortium like Gulf Oil... which is what happened anyway under the MPLA government.

Rio Cana wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:1) We're talking about the discovery of the Americas by the Old World (Europe, Middle East, North Africa, Asia). Everyone essentially knew India, China, etc were real, just didn't know a lot about them. Apart from the Norse, no one knew what lay beyond. Aaaand hate to break this to you, but the majority of human history, especially the most important bits - yeah happening in the Old World. Hence, using the term discovering the Americas.

2) He was from Genoa.

Some say he was not from present day Italy or Portugal but Catalan. They say he gave many new discoveries Catalan names. Supposedly, he had been a pirate and had taken some Spanish ships. So being Spanish was a cover story.

Then those people haven't opened a scholarly book.
He was born in northern Italy, within the Republic of Genoa.

Lydenburg wrote:

Libreng wrote:I could've forgiven the west for its imperialism if it had conducted a sane withdrawal of its colonies. Britain should have responsibly divided the new countries to reflect ethnic boundaries, for example. They should have infused democracy into the culture over a long period to ensure stability.

Of course, one cannot be so idealistic when the entire operation was conducted with a lust for money.

In Portugal's case it bit off a wee more than it could chew. Even if they'd legitimately attempted to develop their territories and educate and train the populace to prepare them for independence, they couldn't. Not enough money.

That is what happens when a miniscule backwater tries to administer an empire the approximate size of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined.

A miniscule backwater? you referring to Portugal?

Migas999 wrote:

Lydenburg wrote:
In Portugal's case it bit off a wee more than it could chew. Even if they'd legitimately attempted to develop their territories and educate and train the populace to prepare them for independence, they couldn't. Not enough money.

That is what happens when a miniscule backwater tries to administer an empire the approximate size of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined.

A miniscule backwater? you referring to Portugal?

Only in comparison to the other colonial powers I named (France, Spain, etc). Portugal had the weakest economy in Western Europe and was certainly the poorest in 1975.

Lydenburg wrote:

Migas999 wrote:
A miniscule backwater? you referring to Portugal?

Only in comparison to the other colonial powers I named (France, Spain, etc). Portugal had the weakest economy in Western Europe and was certainly the poorest in 1975.

That much is true I suppose

Libreng wrote:I could've forgiven the west for its imperialism if it had conducted a sane withdrawal of its colonies. Britain should have responsibly divided the new countries to reflect ethnic boundaries, for example. They should have infused democracy into the culture over a long period to ensure stability.

Of course, one cannot be so idealistic when the entire operation was conducted with a lust for money.

Unlike some of the other European powers, Portugal and Spain introduced the religious component into there expansion since it was official policy. Today, Timor leste and Angola are majority Catholic. Mozambique is 53% Christian. Out of that 53% around 28% are Catholic. Latin America is also mostly majority Catholic.

Arumdaum wrote:

New Werpland wrote:Oh but if they kept Angola....

oil $$$ for portugal and more exploitation for angola

Portugal did not need to keep Angola to get the oil since plenty of the oil is found in the small exclave of Kabinda which they could have kept. Same thing for Spain. They controlled Equatorial Guinea. They could have given independence to the mainland part of Equatorial Guinea but could have kept the small island of Fernando Poo. The waters off Fernando Poo is where the oil is found.

Rio Cana wrote:

Libreng wrote:I could've forgiven the west for its imperialism if it had conducted a sane withdrawal of its colonies. Britain should have responsibly divided the new countries to reflect ethnic boundaries, for example. They should have infused democracy into the culture over a long period to ensure stability.

Of course, one cannot be so idealistic when the entire operation was conducted with a lust for money.

Unlike some of the other European powers, Portugal and Spain introduced the religious component into there expansion since it was official policy. Today, Timor leste and Angola are majority Catholic. Mozambique is 53% Christian. Out of that 53% around 28% are Catholic. Latin America is also mostly majority Catholic.

It was official policy since the middle ages to christianize the natives of the colonized lands