>>17305219Nonsense!? When the Catholic Spanish Empire expanded into the Americas, it acted as a generative empire; an empire that mixed with the populations of the territories it conquered and sought to civilize them, guiding them down the right path. It aimed to steer them away from practices that would be objectively harmful, such as the ritual sacrifices of the Aztecs. On the other hand, English imperialism would operate in a different way. First, it would not mix with the conquered peoples and would be tolerant of the fact that these peoples had their own way of seeing things and doing things. However, when it came to exploiting the resources or territory of these peoples, it would have no hesitation in exterminating them. This is supposedly reflected in the fact that the territories in the Americas that were under Spanish rule now have a large population that is a mix of European and indigenous peoples, while in countries like the United States and Canada, which were conquered by Anglo-Saxons, the native-descendant population is very, very small. Even Hitler, as a racist, praised in his book Mein Kampf the way in which the Anglo-Saxons had conquered America, in contrast to the way the Catholic Spanish had done it. In other words, he despised the way the Spanish Catholics had mixed with the indigenous populations, while the English supposedly maintained the purity of their race by not mixing with others. The Christian Protestant colonialist approach has always renounced miscegenation, while in the 16th century, mixed-race marriages were already occurring in the Spanish Empire. In contrast, it wasn't until well into the 20th century that marriages between white and black people were legally allowed in the United States. This is where we see profoundly different cultural and civilizational approaches. This is the way Protestant imperialism would act.