Colonial Latin America and British North America. These are two areas where people lived. These people are the Spaniards and the British. The two groups are very similar, but at the same time, entirely different. The aspects of their social norms or ways of living can be considered fairly pre-modern and similar. It is the differences that determine which group of colonies was better. So, which group was better, the British North Americans, or the Colonial Latin Americans? Which of them had the better system, the most productive way of living, the way that makes the most sense. Is it the social hierarchy of the British North Americans with family hierarchy, or the Colonial Latin Americans with racial hierarchy? The belief that would enter most people’s minds almost automatically would be that British North America seizes the title no questions asked. But this essay will discuss the later. Socially, the Colonial Latin Americans were far superior to the British North Americans. The structure of British North America and Colonial Latin America are similar. They are both hierarchies but in different ways. The British North American hierarchy was family, gender, and wealth based while the Colonial Latin American was different. If you were a European, it was based on your place of birth and how long you have been living in the new world. For the British North Americans, there were two different kinds of people. There were the “better sort” and the “common people” (Main). Everything was opinion based. If people thought highly of you, you were higher on the social ladder. However, if you were looked down on, you were lower. Land was a large factor of status. It “depended almost exclusively on the accumulation of landed wealth” and “possession of land” (Orosz, Main). Overall, the British North Americans were very petty in that way. They didn’t care about anything other than wealth. The people in Colonial Latin America were a little different. Here, social status depends on “birthplace and race” for the most part (Orosz). If a person was native born to Europe (both European parents and born in Europe), they were considered a higher class. While some of these people still had to work, they were high class. The people who were natives born in the new world had almost the exact same rights as the people born in Europe. However, they were looked down upon for being born in the new world. These people are called mestizos. They are one level to the hierarchy. The next level would be the slaves and indentured servants. They were used to complete more labor and were at the bottom of the food chain. As people not born to Spaniards, they were looked down upon. They did much of the work and were believed to be almost disgusting compared to the Spaniards. However, they did get work done. British North Americans did not really have a slavery system. And even if they did, it would most likely fall through with the focus on gaining the land of Cuba. The British put a lot of energy into getting this land and in the end, failed. The British still took a part in the slave trade and didn’t want to mess with it too much. To purchase or receive Cuba’s land could potentially do that. This risk could turn off the idea to the Cuban people of giving away their land. The Spanish had control of Cuba though and they did not want to lose their slaves. The British didn’t want to “meddle with the status of slavery” because they wanted to stay friends with the Spaniards (Rippy). The British needed help from Cuba. They had outstanding loans that Cuba could potentially help pay off. If the British could receive Cuba and get that help, they would be good. This is another reason the British are petty, they need help so they try to persuade another country by taking it. The Colonial Latin Americans had a different take on slaves. They embraced the concept. They didn’t try to take land from others to help pay off loans. They didn’t have loans because of the work