Why are most former British colonies much more successful than most former French and Spanish colonies
>>220809975English settled people from EnglandFrance almost never settled, only exception is Quebec and surrounding area.A bit Louisiana but many moved after the purchase by USA
>>220810006What about the Spanish? They usually settled what they found.
>>220810084Hmmm...
Spanish colonists are generally better than Anglos. USA, Canadá and Australia are just a few of anglo colonies.
>>220810084they had too much sex with the locals
>>220809975Because they speak in the English, worldwide language.
>>220809975Race and IQ x
Calculate the average HDI of the 60 former british colonies in the world and compare it to the average of the 20 former spanish colonies.
>>220809975Spaniards are low IQ
>>220811823and mexicans are even lower
>>220810084
Most ex-British colonies are shitholes. The vast majority in fact.
>>220809975Because you only count the White first world countries (UK, US, Australia, NZ) and conveniently leave out everything else (African & Caribbean shitholes, India, Bangladesh, etc.).Most French ex-colonies were filled with African slaves and turned into massive plantations and are living hell on Earth.The French also conveniently only count Quebec and maybe Louisiana as their ex-colonies, and ignore the dozen Caribbean and African shitholes they also colonized.The reality is that of all places touched by European colonialism, ex-Spanish colonies are doing the best ON AVERAGE.Everywhere Spain went it built civilization or at least attempted to; Britain and France used most of their colonies to harvest resources and didn't give a shit about them besides what they could get from them economically.
>>220812255I would go as far as saying that Spanish/Iberian colonialism mogged into oblivion what Britain and France accomplished overseas.Lots of historical feats of Anglo nations that they pat themselves on the back for are an imitation of things that Spain already did like 200 years earlier with much inferior technology.>Abolishing slavery>First Europeans reaching the Pacific Ocean>World's first circumnavigation>Conquering actual empires with MILLIONS of people in them (Aztecs, Incas) instead of colonizing mostly empty landBritish and French colonialism is a fucking meme compared to what Spain did.
>>220812314Spanish Netherlands
>>220811870this is so retarded, are you just placing every British occupied place as a colony? lmao most of those places had a British garrison and that's pretty much itAnd then conveniently don't place the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal under Spain, get out of here retard
>>220812314What is Spain's legacy asides from creating violent dysfunction 3rd world shitholes? You're the nigger of this earth that did nothing but loot and destroy. Thank fuck modern Spain (North Morocco) is going extinct.
>most former british colonies>jeet shitholes and african shitholes>successful
>>220812339Ugh... why'd you have to bring it up? This is such a dark stain on our colonial history... Civilizing the Hollandgutans is simply not possible.
>>220809975We are just chill like that
>pakistan>bangladesh>nigeria>sudanyuck, mahometan hellholes
>>220813045>mahometan hellholeironic, thats uks future right there
>Senor we->Ay caramba ACK!
>>220809975You people are so disingenuous you will call Haiti a French colony and compare it with Australia
The ones we sent our people to were successful.
>>220809975>mostYou might want to take a look at Africa and Asia
>>220812255>Most French ex-colonies were filled with African slaves and turned into massive plantations and are living hell on Earth.>The French also conveniently only count Quebec and maybe Louisiana as their ex-colonies, and ignore the dozen Caribbean and African shitholes they also colonized.I don't understand the logic of this. If we're going to talk about colonies, then let's count every single one then? If we're asking the French to also count their slave and African shitholes, let's count the others, no?Let's compare Haiti with Jamaica, let's compare Niger with Nigeria, let's compare Vietnam with the Philippines, let's compare Pondicherry to Goa, let's compare Guyana and Suriname, but PLEASE let's not actually compare the lowest slave plantation shithole to powerful settler colonies. I don't understand how you can all seriously call Haiti a "French colony" despite it being a fucking slave plantation where the slaves have rebelled and ousted the French 200 years ago, and compare it with settler colonies like the USA and Brazil. It's utterly disingenuous. There might not have beeen many actual French colonies, and we lost them all to the English 300 years ago (Acadia) and 250 years ago (Canada) and 200 years ago (Louisiana) but if you're going to be honest then you should compare your colonies with those. And I find it mad to say "most ex-colonies were filled with African slaves" when most of the Caribbean was Spanish and English and had been utterly filled with slaves before France took Haiti and did the same. And that most of our settler colonies had ZERO slaves while you all made sure to fill every single bit of Brazil and New Granada and the Thirteen colonies with every nigger you could find
Frankly I think all of youse obsession and hyperfocus with Haiti is jealousy because we only needed half one nigger island to outcompete everyone else
>>220812255thisviva españa
>>220809975The Brits have a strong tradition of competent and efficient bureaucracy from the Victorian Era. Wherever they go, they will implant that bureaucratic system. To do this, they need competent clerks and managers. To get that, they build schools. Who initially get to enroll? The children on local nobility and rich people. These kids grow up educated in English and learn how to run a country. Later, these same people lead the Independence movements and become the rulers. My country got its independence not by bloodshed, but by sending lawyers to argue our case for Independence at the British Parliament. Lawyers who went to English school in Malaya and later studied Law in Britain. We used their Laws and Bureaucracy to our advantage.
>>220812255>ex-Spanish colonies are doing the best ON AVERAGE.lol, I guess that's one way to cope
>>220811870Where's the USA?
Most immigrants to new france were from north west France, and most immigrants from southern France went to Argentina or Uruguay.Langues d'Oïl bros we can't stop winning
>>220813921Only sensible post thus far.
>>220813318Spain made switzerland, netherlands and luxembourg. Fr*nce made congo and somalia and haiti. Jajajaja you are a shithole who created other shitholes. Even the best parts of your countries were spanish colonies.
>>220810006This
>>220809975settler colonies did better than the native filled ones because the settlers brought with them the culture and technology,like North America and the southern cone(comparatively to the rest of the South America)
>>220809975Because you forget the rest and only think about the white ones.
>>220812255>>220812314cope
>>220809975it has to be with religion.
>>220817309to do*
It means nothing. The USA colonized Liberia (poorest country in West Africa), the Philippines (one of the poorest countries in Southeast Asia) and Cuba which loathes it.
>>220815901>Spain made switzerland, netherlands and luxembourgThe only influence Spain have in the history of the Netherlands is to have raped and destroyed Antwerp so much that millions fled north to Holland and eventually became independent from the crown and wealthier than Spain ever will beBut I'm curious about the Switzerland part here. In what way did Spain "built" Switzerland?
>spain and portugal massacre the native population then enslave them and also import slaves from africa>most iberians stay in iberia or work in seaborne mercantile operations that don't actually settle anywhere>never any real need to invest too much in infrastructure that isn't focused on extracting and transporting wealth back to europe>scattered indigenous peoples and slave populations all over central and south america>meanwhile the british form colonies and through various means send lots of their own population to live there and build them up>everything is a slower process to generate wealth, but also lower cost over time>things get so bad in brazil that the portuguese have to send a constant flow of slaves from africa because the attrition rate is so insanely high>meanwhile, in north america, the standards of living are high enough that slaves are able to successfully reproduce and supply the local slave market internallyThe British are more white, and they're protestant. That's unironically why their former dominions are mostly better now.
>>220809975The biggest angloid former colony is yet to discover the loo, wtf are you yapping about?
>>220815865that's just false
>>220809975India are your bros. You can do worst than that not even france and their n£gr0z.
>>220809975You ignore India and Nigeria which are also British colonies, in fact, once counting the non white colonies of the British Empire, the British Empire has a lower wealth levels than Spain or France.
>>220818113British genocided the Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals. Meanwhile Spain mixed with and uplifted the native but not exterminate the native cultures they ruled.
