Spain gave out land and plantations to church and royal elites and sent military resources to build the existing population into the system through their labor (slave and otherwise).
British colonization encouraged the everyman to hop on a boat and sail over, and the labor force was made up by a lot of these people (plus slaves ofc). The American Indians were not assimilated directly into the workforce (until later) but were usually excluded from direct participation.

This is the reason why Mexico in its current form isn't considered an active settler-colonial project (although a there's a solid argument that it's somewhere along the spectrum) while the US definitely is.

[–] Frogmanfromlake@hexbear.net 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So that’s why the global north thinks we’re all indigenous and are surprised when we do settler-colonial things like clearing out indigenous land for European settlers or have reactionary politics.

We absolutely are settler-colonial projects. Ask your average Latin American about the indigenous and it’s no different from how Israelis talk about Palestinians.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

we don't know how to make sense of mestizo nationalism because anglos didn't integrate.

i'm not sure what people are supposed to do when they have no connection to half of their heritage.

[–] spectre@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

Appreciate you coloring in my sort of clumsy explanation comrade!

[–] thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Every country in the americas is a settler colony except haiti

[–] spectre@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cuba was a settler colony but is now a revolutionary socialist state?

[–] thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

yea, but its origins is still a settler colony

[–] spectre@hexbear.net 2 points 2 months ago

Fair, just wanted to make sure I'm on the right track.