4 ms·
You're hand-waving away both ease of extraction and also the minerals that were worthwhile in the industrial and pre-industrial ages. North America had plenty o
by vacri 9y ago
You're hand-waving away both ease of extraction and also the minerals that were worthwhile in the industrial and pre-industrial ages. North America had plenty of iron and coal, and it was easy to get them around, and also easy to extract and use them for most of the year (the temperate climate). Minerals you can't reach or can't use are not useful - there was not a lot of call for Tantalum in the 1800s.
Compare to Brazil, which is a tropical country choked with rainforest. There's a reason why industrial powerhouses develop in temperate zones, and not in tropical ones. Or look along the Andes, where there are a lot of minerals, but there's pretty hostile geography.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoThe dominance of the Spanish was based off of extracting natural wealth from SA, it's just they squandered that wealth instead of building up industry. From 1500-1800ish there was far more easily taken natural wealth in SA, only a myopic view of history isn't aware of that.
- vacri 9y agoApart from gold, which was only really useful in the advanced economy of Europe (a hammer made of gold isn't very good), what was the mineral wealth extracted from South America in this period? What minerals could be easily used to supplement agriculture and build industry in the local area? What mineral industries do you see as being far easier in SA than NA in your period? What are the mineral industries that you see SA as squandering? Don't forget either that west-coast minerals were a very long way away from advanced markets (also going via the hostile Straits of Magellan), and additionally could never benefit from the tradewinds that assisted the 'triangle trade'. Any commerce-based society there would have massive limitations.
- notfromhere 9y agoSilver, copper, etc.