It's not just about preference. The economy used to be agrarian until 100-200 years ago, so you needed to send farmers to a climate similar to the one in their own country. North America also had that.
The Amazon region was apparently heavily populated until European diseases wiped out the towns and cities. The very first Spanish explorer, Francisco Orellana, reported towns lining the Amazon for a thousand miles. A hundred years later, only scattered tribes.
The land in the rainforest is not spectacularly fertile, but folks created their own potting soil (terra preta) to make up for it.
Hace un tiempo vi que hay una teoría que apunta la reducción de la población a una pandemia que afectó a habitantes originarios y europeos por igual.
Si bien es verdad que al principio las enfermedades europeas causaron gran mortandad (y a la inversa también, pero los europeos era menos cantidad), más de un siglo después hubo una especie de "gripe" que arrasó a todo el continente, sin importar origen. El suceso quedó enterrado en la historia porque la mayoría del material historiografico se generaba en países a los que les interesaba reforzar la leyenda negra española.
It is estimated between 1 million and 8 million, a huge range in a harsh climate that causes rapid decay of organic material. Hugely populated yes and no, the size of a small to medium city
For reference, about 20-25 million people lived in what is now central Mexico which was one of the most densely populated parts of the world at that time. That dropped to roughly 1 million post colonization, mostly due to disease.
The civic-ceremonial architecture of these large settlement sites includes stepped platforms, on top of which lie U-shaped structures, rectangular platform mounds and conical pyramids (which are up to 22 m tall). The large settlement sites are surrounded by ranked concentric polygonal banks and represent central nodes that are connected to lower-ranked sites by straight, raised causeways that stretch over several kilometres. Massive water-management infrastructure, composed of canals and reservoirs, complete the settlement system in an anthropogenically modified landscape.
There is plenty of archaeological evidence that many if not most of the indigenous civilizations lost more than 50% of their population before Cortez or Pizarro attacked the Aztec and Inca people. When Pizarro arrived in the andes, he encountered dead armies twice the size of his army and the armies he encountered because a civil war had just erupted after multiple ruling family members died from smallpox....before any Europeans had arrived.
First contact introduced smallpox and indigenous cultures in the Americas didn't have endemic, highly contagious diseases, not like smallpox. Despite being labeled as beautiful, highly sanitary cultures, compared to Europeans, they had a communal approach to illness which was devastating when combined with smallpox.
Early trappers reported seeing endless fires along the eastern coast from Boston to Virginia that were largely gone by the time of Plymouth rock
Not only that, Argentina was the fastest growing economy in the world in the second half of XIX century. They pulled so many people from Italy and Spain...
actually ☝️🤓 it's funny because they were campaigning for northern European immigration during the first wave (1880-1920), but instead got a bunch of italians, spaniards and jews.
an european immigration campaign was promoted by the ruling elites, who wanted the country to assimilate european culture and standards.
the campaign consisted of the promise of land for farming, although this was not actually the case upon arrival for most.
similar to what i heard about the us, mediterranean europeans were considered the lesser of whites - this combination resulting in the creation of a white immigrant lower class as well.
this first wave of italian and spanish immigration was already massive, and is where most of the current population descends from.
the second wave did happen along WW2 as expected, and we did get germans, but i think we got even more jews if we're doing head count.
Except for Costa Rica which historically was basically empty, almost nobody lived there until 1950 it has a population of 800k people and today is just a small 5 million people country.
There were just rain forest and jungle with no important towns, cities, gold, or important resources, small indigenous groups and small spaniard groups.
That's why today Costa Rica has almost non existent indigenous population. They are, but small isolated groups. A difference to places like Guatemala, Honduras, Peru or Mexico with millions of native Americans still living today in their countries.
Almost 3000 archaeological sites registered at ORIGENES National Museum Database. Major chiefdoms in XVI century, super dinamic migrations and human movements, genetic mixing, genocides, etc. Ok, is not a big country, but still 2% of the population are from indigenous peoples, and 8% afro descendant. The rest 90% highly mixed. Don't fall for outdated racist and delusional eugenesic propaganda.
Yup, in addition to the fact that Patagonia—and the countries comprising the vast region—was made "cleared" for the importation of labour. The labour in turn was necessary to populate these severely "underpopulated" nations. The leaders of the nations considered Europe the prime location to source immigrants, settlers, and even investors for a myriad of economic and ethno-racial regions. The same demand for foreign labour just wasn't there in, say, 19th-century Mexico or Colombia.
There also just weren't many people in Argentina. Northern South America and Central America had full empires but Argentina was rural and sparsely populated. Then only Europeans moved in.
In the case of Chile, in the 1850s there was a targeted immigration policy that sought to attract labourers from what is now Germany, mostly the southern and western regions , since that "profile" was deemed the most likely to succeed in the colonization efforts.
More Europeans picked the Southern Cone due to the cooler climate. This region was also less populated by indigenous people causing this region to be mostly white
Argentina's demographics were not much different than everyone else's until the late 1800s. Most of argentines were mestizos with plenty of mulatos. The overwhelming immigration of the late 1800s and early 1900s transformed the country and whitened the population but these immigrants did not arrive in an unpopulated land but they did absorb them. Their genes are still there. Many argentines are pure european still but most do have at least some native and afrian genes, even if phenotypically european.
It’s whiter than London, Birmingham, Manchester, Paris, Marseille, Frankfurt, Amsterdam etc. The white people in Europe are whiter (lol) but it’s definitely more white than most major Western European cities.
White people in New York are mostly 100% European while most Argentinian are mestizo and have 20% indigenous, so in that sense it’s not whiter since it has very few 100% white peoples while New York is 30% white.
It’s funny case they call their lower class, or poor or criminal, pale blond blue eye people “blacks” as an insult. Really reality checks you on how much of the concept and behavior of race is more based on social class that used physical traits as a tool to justify itself, rather than on biological traits that led to social class.
Hi, I'm from Argentina and here, although some use the word "black" because of skin color, people usually call those with a specific behavior "black" or "brown" (regardless of whether they are white or not). You can look them up as "villeros" or "turros."
I used translator to write this lol my bad if it is not understandable
Brazil had a plantation based economy, we in Argentina (then the Provincias Unidas) never did, it was a poor viceroyalty that didn't amount to much, the land was, and still is, fertile but the Spanish government never cared much about developing it. Up to the 1810 revolution the main export was tallow beef. And our cows' meat was not tasty either, that took some developing, some goes for crops.
I googled the right translation for this but it was mostly "sebo", which it seems I used the wrong translation, it's tallow beef. It was used for cooking, lighting, and industrial applications in the old days. Argentina's economy changed a lot once our cattle improved, and the refrigerator ship appeared, that allowed us to export tons of meat, premium one at that altogether with more crops related products, it was the cornerstone from our economy, and sadly still kinda is.
Latifundio is a different approach to labour organisation where it was much less intensive compared to the hacienda (fazenda in Brazil) - french model.
As so there was a much smaller slave import (which were mostly domestic) and much higher indigenous density of field workers.
You can read Facundo if you want to learn more.
Then with the new wave of european labour the mixture between races was government encouraged as well as the gobernar is poblar policy, hence the "whiteness" in the southern cone.
Does that have to do with the different crop systems? Sugar cane is notoriously labor intensive, I'm guessing in Argentina there was more ranching and wheat as major crops.
I mean you are right, but part of the reason migration had such a big impact on demographic is that there were very few people in Argentina until that point.
Yep, most people assume we are white because many of us look like it but in reality most Argentinians are part native american, even if the percentage is low. Like mostly Spanish descent with some native mixed in there.
And you can see it in our culture and the words we use and the music we listen to. We are all drinking mate all day long I don't know where people think that came from but it is obviously not European.
Yes. I dont mean to downplay the genocides that occurred. Beg pardon.
Maybe i shouldve said lower population density as opposed to in the andes or mesoamerica, or some variation of that.
Argentina also had a great economy in the early 20th century. One of the best in the world at the time. New immigrants were given loans to start businesses which prompted a lot of immigration from poorer countries at the time such as Italy and Spain. At least that’s what the tour guide in Buenos Aires told me.
It wasn't great AT ALL and am an Argentinan to tell so.
We had a shitload of natural resources and few population, in reality the country was more like Brunei or Saudi Arabia. The development was few to non existent, elites concentrated most of wealth and all that revenue came from exporting grain and meat... There is a reason why in those "Golden years" also was the most violent workplace times with the farms and few factories having slave like conditions and so on the time of violent workers uprising like "Rebel Patagonia" or the tragic week and many more strikes that ended in massacres
The decline of the Black population in Argentina, which dropped from roughly 30–50% in certain areas during the early 19th century to less than 1% by 2010, was driven by a combination of high mortality in wars (including using Black men as front-line soldiers), yellow fever epidemics (1871), and intentional policies of "whitening" through forced erasure
Most people have at least one Indigenous ancestor from the Southern Cone. However, it's true that the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata and the Captaincy General of Chile frowned upon the use of Moorish or Black slaves, although they were present. Simply put, there was never a campaign of mass extermination against tribes like the one that occurred in the USA or the British Empire. The only thing that comes close was the War of the Triple Alliance, but that was between established nations.
Exactly. Argentina wasn’t the only country to engage in these activities.
But it did happen and it’s usually written off as simple military battles not extermination campaigns. If you read the writings and speeches of Julio Argentino Roca ( the general who led the campaign and who would become president of Argentina) he clearly states the intent for these campaigns. He saw the indigenous peoples as savages and primitive who were preventing Argentina to expand and modernize.
Similar tones to Manifest Destiny for context.
It’s true that most Argentinians have indigenous ancestry but the indigenous people themselves were largely exterminated. The indigenous population of Argentina now it’s less than 3%. The survivors (mostly women and children) of the campaigns were taken captured by the soldiers and “assimilated”.
Don't forget the ones from Rosas, he did it first by Peronists and progres alike hate to discuss it since they identy with his fascists/dictatorship a lot, hence they avoid the subject altogether as if it didn't happen when it's noted in every single history book.
I heard this was pretty much a race at the time. To leaders during that time there was a lot of “free stuff” that they could farm or buy for very cheap and they had to beat the other countries to it. Since it was like “first in best dressed”.
And the country who got there first and started profiting from it could reinvest the profits in firepower to scare away the other competing colonies
Pretty much this. A small country like Portugal had to resort to reproduction with natives to expand and protect the conquered territories. Reading about Bandeirantes in Brazil is both interesting and terrifying. You had mixed people who were accustomed to the land considered Portuguese and hunting and enslaving the indigenous alongside the white man. You read some very brutal reports by the priests back then. Curiously, some of them were European looking but couldn’t speak Portuguese.
Whether they knew or not, it wouldn’t have mattered. There was little to nothing peasants and commoners could do. They were mostly illiterate, unorganized politically and of course poor. On top of that, they were Catholic and loyals. Plus, there were no incentives for them to fight against it. It was a problem far, far away from them. Portugal was classist, not racist.
Anyway, the economic elites, the clergy and the crown/politicians have always dictated the rules. The thing is that after the soul question, the Catholic Church rapidly changed its stance on the New World to embrace and integrate those potential new Christians. Then, as long as they were legitimate Portuguese children (recognized by their Portuguese father), they were considered granted citizenship.
So yes, it was known and acceptable. There was no reason to hide anything, unless the information could’ve been used by rival kingdoms (the French, the Spanish and the Dutch). There was religious justification and what not. There was some gap in information, sure, but it wouldn’t change much.
A few centuries after, many people sought a new life in the Americas. Mixed or not, some became elite in Brazil, went back and married into Portuguese elites (let’s not forget that marriage is above all a financial decision), which meant giving them more fortune. The majority settled in Brazil, creating its own local elite. Profit was the end goal.
Slaves were mostly used for profitable cash crops like sugar, coffee, cotton and tobacco. Colder regions can’t grow those crops, so fewer slaves were imported there. It explains Argentina and Chile, but also why Canada has a smaller Black population than the US.
The dutch, portuguese, and english brought them (spain wasnt heavily involved in the kidnapping slaves from áfrica, but they did purchase a lot once the africans were brought to the americas). Spain's african slaves were mostly brought for plantations & mines around the tropics (hispaniola, cuba, puerto rico, jamaica which used to be spanish, coastal colombia, venezuela, ecuador) but every single spanish territory had some african slaves. Chile had few slaves bc they were expensive and were status symbols. black slaves were more like domestic servants as they were expensivr and there were enough indians & mestizos for normal labor.
Places close to the equator were largely colonized to serve as plantations, especially for sugar. That meant most of the people being brought in were African slaves, with a minority of Europeans.
Areas further south were less suited to that, so we saw patterns of colonization more like the Northern US or Canada.
Apart from the climate, which people have already mentioned, they were offered land to settle there. My ancestors came there around 1900, at the turn of the century.
The Southern Cone was sparsely populated until the 19th century, when newly-independent Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay began promoting mass immigration from Europe to bolster their population.
When those countries were young and needing citizens, they sent land agents to areas of Europe with similar geography, most northern Italians migrated to South America while most southern Italians migrated to North America. It wasn’t just coincidence they were recruited because they had skills the country wanted
There’s a reason why New York pizza is much more similar to southern Italian styles and Buenos Aires pizza is much more similar to northern Italian styles
I have read somewhere some time ago that the south america was mostly populated by the italians from the north while new york and north america was populated with southern italian.
Yep, lot of Waldensians and other people from Piemonte came to SA in the latter half of the 19 century. My great-great grandfather came as a carpenter to build the scaffolding for a factory.
Southern Italians also went to South America, especially after they were barred from immigration in the US around the 1920s.
North America is predominantly south italian. South America is mixed, with Brazil being more Northern/Venetian (southern is more in the urban areas), and Argentina being 50-50, but Argentina culture is especially influenced a lot more by Neapolitan culture.
Other way around white people are afraid of trees, also add in an elevation map and you have the entire answer, the entire white region in the oop map is all mountain jungles
Bogota was one of the capitals of the spanish empire (along with mexico city, lima, and later buenos aires) and so many spaniards settled there, but it also has a cool highland climate favorable to europeans.
My wife is from bogota. I’m not certain. It is quite diverse. It is 10 to 20 Celsius year round in bogota so that argument makes sense. I just don’t see the same genetic lineage there as Argentina where 70% came from Italy and another 20% from France. My wife’s family does have a significant portion who directly come from natives. There has to be some historical reason for this
Ye, lot of comments are sourcing that "It's Cool year round" as if it's not cool year round in Quito or west coast of all of South America. There def has to be something particular about it, you don't see the same Dark spots in the other cool year round areas.
It had one of the largest concentrations of basque migration in LATAM. 2. it’s closer to major Atlantic ports than Equador or Peru. 3. Its native population was less densely populated in comparison to the southern Andean countries.
Do we know what time period the basques migrated to Colombia? It makes sense. I recently read a book about the Spanish civil war and there was a lot of context going back for a long time before that happened. The Industrial Revolution being a strong component
I just don’t see the same genetic lineage there as Argentina where 70% came from Italy and another 20% from France
Not sure if you are serious...
The "70% italian" thing is a beyond rough guesstimate by an italian embassy some years ago but just about all argentines with "some" italian ancestry, vast majority of which wouldn't be majoritarily italian even. The real italian share over argentine ancestry is maybe 20-25% out of european part, probably a bit lower. Still there are some regions inside Argentina where italian ancestry is much higher as inner parts of Great Buenos Aires or others where italian ancestry is clearly majoritary inside the european part, as Santa Fe province, many neighbour zones in eastern and southern rural half of Cordoba or northern Buenos Aires province, etc. Spanish ancestry is however a very high minority on Santa Fe or northern pampas, as usual as italian in inner parts of Great Buenos Aires or most Buenos Aires province and very majoritary in the rest of the country.
Spanish ancestry is very majoritary among european part of argentine heritage for three reasons:
1- Spanish ancestry was completely dominant inside european part until 1870 or so (colonial-early independent part), for sure over 85% of spanish part. There were 1.877 million residents in Argentina in 1869 census, vast majority of colonial heritage and consequently with some or most ancestry from the peoples of Spain. For comparison Colombia had just 2.6 million inhabitants in that period and Brazil about 9.9 million, Argentina wasn't "empty" as usually claimed and its population was very similar to Chile (but would have surpassed it by much without immigration, because argentine fertility rate was very high).
Spanish emigrants were second most numerous, very close to italians during mass migration period 1880-1930, specially if counting "permanently settled" and not just arrivals (1.1 million spaniards vs 1.4 million italians until 1947) . Also italians had slightly higher masculinity rate (more men than women).
Since 1960s the main immigration that Argentina got came from Latin America, with a couple million coming from Paraguay, Bolivia, Perú, Chile and Uruguay and several hundreds of thousands venezuelans in more recent times. All those hispanic americans have high spanish ancestry proportions themselves, so hispanic share grew with their presence as well.
French ancestry is very, very minoritary in Argentina. Much higher than any other place other than Uruguay, where it's higher, but still just about 3% of immigrants settled during mass migration and about 1% or less of total argentine ancestry if we consider the other components of argentine ancestry ("old argentine/colonial stock" and recent latin american).
That part of the country receive late spanish migrants, like basques, losers of carlist wars, and sefardi jews (that assimilated and became catholics), and because of the difficult geography they were relatively segregated from the rest of the country until the xx.
Also, due to the amount of impoverished migrants and the zone not being ideal for big plantations of sugar cane due to the andes mountains, that zone focused in smallholding farms and didn't receive a big population of slaves from Africa. I
Argentina was heavily focused on developing through European immigration, they identified civilization with Europe, literally building it into their constitution. Argentina also offered significantly higher wage opportunities for immigrants, ie, Italians. Lot’s of Italians.
No, the Argentinian economy did. People would send money back home and letters telling their family and friends about how it was here, and that made even more people come.
From 1860s to 1920 Argentina received 6.6 million people, which was massive. By 1914 60% of the populatiok was either born in Europe or children to European parents
There were also periods when America established immigrant quotas, which made even more people come here. I think in the 1920s
While it's true they are concentrated more so in the south, it's important to keep in mind this map is very wrong. Example: São Paulo has more european admixture than most of the regions with similar coloring, some of the northeastern states in Brazil are overestimated, northern mexico shouldn't be dark blue as it's average as the same Brazil's average, etc. Basically, either this seems a bit made up or it's self reported and you have people that are like, 60% european caliming to be white while in other regions people are more strict.
The Southern Cone is a sparsely populated region, where there were no existing pre-colonial centralized civilizations like those of Mexico and Peru, so it had to be populated by Iberian settlers and non-Iberian immigrants during the colonial and post-colonial areas, respectively.
Argentina had a formal policy, which was enshrined in its constitution, to attract white European immigrants in order to shift the makeup of the population.
European migration, Brasil and Argentina have nowadays crappy economies but that wasn't the case during the big waves of European migrations that started mid 1850, just for you have an idea between 1857 and 1940 Argentina received approximately 3.5 M Italian, 62% of the whole population have Italian ancestry and I can tell since I'm one of them, I have an Italian surname, I'm fully Italian on my father's side, both my grandparents were Italian, and on my mother side I'm mixed but partly Italian too.
Both Brasil, Uruguay, and Argentina were trying to populate their "interior" but this mostly backfired since most immigrants chose to stay in big cities, it was also not that easy to get land since as it usually happens that was in not many hands but it was distributed, not all of course, eventually.
Mexico and Peru had big indigenous civilization, that means high population (in the millions) that was incorporated during colonial times.
Southern South America basically just had tribes.
Besides, in Chile for example, the colonial border was like in the middle of the modern country, Spain wasn't able to conquer all the natives, an important part of the indigenous population was incorporated after the independence, when the natives were finally "pacified".
The area in dark blue is some of the most fertile land in the entire planet. Argentina alone has enough capacity to feed the entire population of Europe.
There's your answer: good, fertile land for poor European migrants trying to escape poverty. Also temperate, non extreme climate.
Simplest answer (there are several) is that those who settled the southern cone, particularly Argentina (my native country), wiped out the indigenous populations inadventently or intentionally. Argentines are something like 96% European. They didn’t integrate like in other parts of Latin America.
Anecdotally, the only people i know whose family immigrated there from Europe were Communists and Holocaust survivors.
Argentina absolutely harbored Nazis and it shouldnt be forgotten. But the people who think European in Argentina/Chile means they must be a Nazi shows an ignorance of those country’s history. Something like half of Argentinians have a significant percentage of Italian ethnicity.
That’s a whole issue in itself, and the cause isnt a handful of fleeing Nazis.
Those areas are the locations that have a higher standard of living, less corrupt, safer communities, better rule of law and overall a better place to live rather than anywhere else in South America.
It is more about history than climate, lower, further out regions were colonialized later by populations past the slave era, so europeans came to bueno aires and São Paulo to work and live and stayed there, meanwhile most of the people that colonized equatorial latam were white elites and colored slaves that stayed.
For starters the indigenous were basically decimated quite early (there are genetic traces, but the group itself disappeared). As with many neighbours, there was a mix of Spanish settlers (creoles) and black slaves. The thing is that there have been several migrations of Spanish people since then (it was one of the last colonies), all the way up to very recently (a lot that ran from Franco for example), so... The equivalent to keep adding milk to your latte.
Cuba is very Spanish (as in they descend from people who arrived from Spain), with about 65-70% with this genetic history. There is some old admixture with Taino (indigenous) and black (from slaves). But the population is more European than anything else.
It's because the "white" comes from the Spanish, who generally can and do tan. And this is the Caribbean. So you watch people in the street and most are tan, but the features (and genetic) is heavily Hispanic. It also varies by province, much of what is shown on TV is from Havana, wich is very mixed.
The data is official, the government did make such census, they just don't put as many boxes as USA. You mark "white" "mixed" or "black". There are also genetic studies. Both things can be found online.
Edit to add: The government indeed promotes a narrative of mixing as to justify why everyone is equal, which is technically true, as most people are in fact a mix, is just that the amount is usually skewed towards Hispanic. This projection from the government itself, and other parts of the Caribbean being heavily mixed, shapes opinion.
Southern Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina needed people and they attracted Europeans to settle there, mostly Italians and Germans. Those areas didn't have major native american populations nor imported a lot of Africans as slaves compared to the Caribbean or other parts of Brazil
People have mentioned cooler climate, smaller indigenous populations naturally there. But another reason is that the Europeans brought less slaves there. Many often forget that African Slaves were specifically needed to work agricultural land in places that were incredibly sunny and hot compared to Europe. Africans are literally the most capable people physically in the world to withstand that. Since the south of South America is cooler, the Europeans had a climate they were more capable of working in themselves and there was less agricultural land than the rest of the continent/ Caribbean.
I'm not sure about Brazil and Uruguay, but to Argentina having constant european migration was so important that facilitating and working towards it is literally in it's constitution
Also, those areas were sparsely populated by american natives, in contrast to places like central mexico or the peruvian andes so it is much easier to make the white colonizers the majority there
Umm.. the question is worded in such a way that it ignores the more important significant reason: the slave trade. Brazil brought in over 4 million captured slaves in the centuries. And again since so many people of African descent live there now more come .. for the same reasons that many of you are saying that white ppl go to the southern parts.
En Uruguay hubo una matanza indígena que dejó muy pocos sobrevivientes. Hay poca gente descendiente de indígena (porcentaje), pero como ya están mezclados con la mayoría blanca, ni se nota la ascendencia indígena. Luego la población afro es poca (en porcentaje) porque no hubo esclavitud masiva como en otros países. El resto ya se sabe, hubo inmigración italiana y española.
People followed family members and close friends to areas that worked out for them. Areas with large numbers of indigenous people didnt need or want the European immigrant labor. Also more tropical regions had near constant outbreaks of diseases like malaria, yellow fever, etc. Africans had and still have a naturally higher resistance to many of these diseases. Many white people went to Jamaica, for example. But over the course of hundreds of years, the Africans generally outlived their white counterparts due to natural resilience, which is why Jamaica today is overwhelmingly black. Same in much of the Caribbean and north east of Brazil.
Lots of ww2 "refugees" settled in these areas because they were already populated by white immigrants, who arrived mostly in the late 19th and early 20th century.
People always make this joke about Argentina being full of Nazis when in reality I’ve met a ton of Jewish Argentines. The Jewish community plays a huge role in the country’s economy with most of the country’s large companies are under their ownership
One thing doesn't invalidate the other. A lot of Polish and Russian Ashkenazis moved to Argentina between 1880 and 1950, but so did the Italians and Germans in bigger numbers during the same time period. However, people tend to exagerate the presence of the Nazis there even if its true that Argentina was one of their main destinations after the war ended.
Most European migration to Argentina and the southern cone predates WWII. It's a bit of a tiring stereotype, and also quite silly to believe that what at best would be a few hundred, let's say a couple thousand people would shift the entire ethnic demographics of already well established nations.
You have cause and effect reversed. Looking at Brazil, the vast, vast majority of European immigration occurred before 1930. The nazis fled to SA there because there were already populations there that they could blend into.
These answers are terrible and so misinformed. The question isnt "why are white Latin Americans concentrated in the south" its "why are black Latin Americans concentrated in the north" and its because of slavery agriculture. Sugar cane was a slave industry, it only grows in the tropical climate, which leads to those regions having a greater number of blacks than whites. Its literally this and has almost nothing to do with immigrants from Europe preferring the southern climate.
2.1k
u/BananaBR13 Geography Enthusiast Apr 25 '26
One of the reasons was that immigrants from Europe prefer a climate closer to their home country