Why have British ruled colonies prospered while Spanish ones suck?

[ISHGoat]

Examples of British:
Canada
USA
Australia
UK
etc

Examples of Spanish:
All of Central America & most of SA
Spain

The gap is huge, are spanish people just super omega lazy ****s while all the englishmen were alpha hard workers?

[LJJ]

Pakistan, Sudan, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, etc

[Nick Young]

Spain sucks at anything requiring discipline and organization. Football doesn't count because it's a game.

They have a long history of choking when it matters most.

They have a long history of blowing off peak business hours to take siestas, and showing up to work late. Today, many Spanish even get salary bonuses for showing up to work on time. In other countries, that is one of the bare minimum requirements of having a job. Spanish get bonuses for it.

Spain is gonna Spain. It's the Mexico of Europe, except unlike the Spanish, Mexicans work phucking hard.

[StephHamann]

Argentinia was once one of the richest countries in the world, but they ****ed it up.

[Nick Young]

Argentinia was once one of the richest countries in the world, but they ****ed it up.
Argentina is awesome now though. You can live in Buenos Aires like a king for so cheap, and it is actually a good city, not the hell hole you'd typically expect from a South American capitol.

[NumberSix]

There was a huge leap forward in civilization that happened in England that didn't happen in the rest of Europe. Spain was/is basically still living in the Roman era of civilization.

[DCL]

Argentina is awesome now though. You can live in Buenos Aires like a king for so cheap

this is true.

there are two exchange rates in argentina: the official rate (which you get at ATMs) and the black market rate, which is available everywhere.

if you get your pesos at the bank or ATM, they will screw you and only give you the official rate (the weak rate). but if you bring actual dollar bills in and convert currency over there, you get like double. but when you do that, yes, everything is ridiculously cheap.

[JohnnySic]

They sure were efficient at wiping out natives and native civilizations back in the day. The British dont have anything that remotely compares to the swift obliteration of the Aztec and Inca empires.

[ISHGoat]

They sure were efficient at wiping out natives and native civilizations back in the day...

The Spanish? Or the British? Didnt everyone murk eachother back in the day?

[Nick Young]

Spanish are the GOAT genociders, that is true. Not something to be proud of though.

[DCL]

portugal, france, and netherlands all had a grabbing hand in latin america during colonial period. it's not just spain.

official language of brazil is portuguese. in suriname, it's dutch. in french guiana, they obviously speak french.

[senelcoolidge]

But weren't the Spanish more inclusive with the people's they enslaved? Or did they just rape them and make a lot of mulatto's and mestizo's. Spanish culture tends to be more inclusive unlike the cold serious Brits they say.

My parents are Central American, but where they come from was British rather than Spanish. English being the dominant language. Protestant dominate over Catholic. It's more like an extension of the British Caribbean. The Brits, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Portuguese all had their holds in the Americas.

[LJJ]

portugal, france, and netherlands all had a grabbing hand in latin america during colonial period. it's not just spain.

official language of brazil is portuguese. in suriname, it's dutch. in french guiana, they obviously speak french.

Netherlands and France tried. But Surinam is a small patch of rainforest with 500k people on it. So is French Guyana. Let's not overstate the Dutch/French influence in Latin America.

[Nick Young]

But weren't the Spanish more inclusive with the people's they enslaved? Or did they just rape them and make a lot of mulatto's and mestizo's. Spanish culture tends to be more inclusive unlike the cold serious Brits they say.

My parents are Central American, but where they come from was British rather than Spanish. English being the dominant language. Protestant dominate over Catholic. It's more like an extension of the British Caribbean. The Brits, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Portuguese all had their holds in the Americas.
Spain enslaved them and forced their shitty religion on all the natives. The ones they didn't wipe out atleast.

[NumberSix]

Spain enslaved them and forced their shitty religion on all the natives. The ones they didn't wipe out atleast.
Dats racist. :no:


#Christ-O-phobia

[Nick Young]

Dats racist. :no:


#Christ-O-phobia
Spanish Catholicism and Spaniards are the only thing that's racist in this discussion.

[knickballer]

Argentinia was once one of the richest countries in the world, but they ****ed it up.

When? Before the Spanish came when it was largely uninhabited?

[oarabbus]

There was a huge leap forward in civilization that happened in England that didn't happen in the rest of Europe. Spain was/is basically still living in the Roman era of civilization.

Yes... I believe OP is asking why they missed said huge leap forward.

[FKAri]

Spanish are the GOAT genociders, that is true. Not something to be proud of though.

French are the GOAT. Complete cultural atomic bomb wherever they ruled.

[Nick Young]

French are the GOAT. Complete cultural atomic bomb wherever they ruled.
Did France ever wipe out entire empires the size of the Aztecs and Inca?

[FKAri]

Did France ever wipe out entire empires the size of the Aztecs and Inca?

Every imperial power back then would do that. The difference is the French would annihilate your culture even after conquering you. The English and Spanish didn't to such an extreme.

[Nick Young]

Every imperial power back then would do that. The difference is the French would annihilate your culture even after conquering you. The English and Spanish didn't to such an extreme.
Every imperial power didn't do that though. Only Spain. Only Spain went for the full massacre, and they did it the quickest as well.

[NumberSix]

Yes... I believe OP is asking why they missed said huge leap forward.
Because the British empire was different from all the previous European empires. In the past, the place that reached a new stage of civilization would expand their empire throughout Europe, but when the British became the dominant civilization of the world, they didn't do that. They basically left Europe alone and expanded their empire throughout the world. When you look at a map of the British empire, you see the British isles, North America, Australia, Hong Kong, parts of Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, India, etc...

The the British took a new leap in civilization, and that new leap forward didn't make it's way to Spain. Spanish civilization was just the remains of Roman civilization. And that is the civilization that Spain spread through its empire. Britain spread a newer, superior civilization throughout its empire.

That's why countries that were heavily settled by Brits are countries that were heavily settled by the Spanish are different. Because English civilization is better than Roman civilization.

[NumberSix]

Every imperial power back then would do that. The difference is the French would annihilate your culture even after conquering you. The English and Spanish didn't to such an extreme.
No, the Spanish pretty much did that too.

Look at the British. After they left their colonies, in most cases, the natives mostly went back to their own native culture. The only places where that didn't happen is cases like Canada, Australia and the United States where the settlers vastly outnumbered the natives. Look at Mexico though. Something like 90% of people in Mexico have at least partial native ancestry, but their native culture is almost entirely gone. They've completely lost their own identity and adopted Spanish identity. They even call themselves "Hispanics" or "Latinos".

[HeatFanSince88]

Because Britain recolonized the land with their own people.

While Spain "muh dicked" the natives creating a hybrid mongrel race.


/thread.

Note how as even the demographics of the United States start to shift towards hybrid multiracial bullshit, the country is declining.

Now lets say you replace all the mexicans coming in with germans or swedes instead. Surely anyone with a bias can see the picture here.....

[BasedTom]

Spanish Catholicism and Spaniards are the only thing that's racist in this discussion.
You're an idiot. Kill yourself.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

You're an idiot. Kill yourself.

How is he an e-diot?

Itz a well known fact that Cortez and his c0cksukking compadres embezzled da gold outta Mayan Inca hands with all the deception in the world (Quetzalcoatl) spread all KINDZA dizeazez. And that fake azz weak leader sh!thead Moctezuma sold out his people till my nikka Cuahtemoc showed him how to the act. F*ckin using horses and gunpowder real tuff. Even the Barbaric germanic tribes had better principles than these lame heathens. So fitting Guernica was the defining artpiece later on. So fitting Pans Labyrinth depicted the villain so well.

And compared to the Catholics out in the East or the Catholics of Ireland who are generally awesome kind principled pious people as well as dat nikka Pope Leo x, who STOPPED ATTILLA THE HUN in his tracks, they pulled the Inquisition in a rather flourishing Moorish Spain.

How the f*ck you gwan ruin Muslims Jews Christians peacefully coexisting side by side? THe idiot Spaniards could have used their naval forces to attack Pirates or joined to fend off Turks or Mongols but NOOO dey just had to kill innocents.

And let's not gt started on those soccer matches with those heathens booing people with black skin. I saw a video in TWO THOUSAND F*CKING THIRTEEN of these lazy cabrones belittling a person for their skin. Nikka have u heard of roza parkz?

F*ck Spain.

And lol @ the sporting sh!thole known as the UK word to Andrew Wiggumz

#teamMurica #teamHumanBeings #hardwork #endtoracism Bunker Hill Saratoga

[Patrick Chewing]

Spanish Catholicism and Spaniards are the only thing that's racist in this discussion.


How dare thee, brother?? How dare thee???

[senelcoolidge]

Did France ever wipe out entire empires the size of the Aztecs and Inca?

No, in typical French fashion they were kicked out of their own colonies..Haiti, Vietnam, etc. The Brits would not let that happen.

[iamgine]

Examples of British:
Canada
USA
Australia
UK
etc

Examples of Spanish:
All of Central America & most of SA
Spain

The gap is huge, are spanish people just super omega lazy ****s while all the englishmen were alpha hard workers?
Because the Spanish MO was to take take take while the British built infrastructures and bring government system, technology and protection to their colonies.

It's not just the Spanish though, the Dutch, among others, was also bad colonizer.

[BasedTom]

How is he an e-diot?

Itz a well known fact that Cortez and his c0cksukking compadres embezzled da gold outta Mayan Inca hands with all the deception in the world (Quetzalcoatl) spread all KINDZA dizeazez. And that fake azz weak leader sh!thead Moctezuma sold out his people till my nikka Cuahtemoc showed him how to the act. F*ckin using horses and gunpowder real tuff. Even the Barbaric germanic tribes had better principles than these lame heathens. So fitting Guernica was the defining artpiece later on. So fitting Pans Labyrinth depicted the villain so well.

And compared to the Catholics out in the East or the Catholics of Ireland who are generally awesome kind principled pious people as well as dat nikka Pope Leo x, who STOPPED ATTILLA THE HUN in his tracks, they pulled the Inquisition in a rather flourishing Moorish Spain.

How the f*ck you gwan ruin Muslims Jews Christians peacefully coexisting side by side? THe idiot Spaniards could have used their naval forces to attack Pirates or joined to fend off Turks or Mongols but NOOO dey just had to kill innocents.

And let's not gt started on those soccer matches with those heathens booing people with black skin. I saw a video in TWO THOUSAND F*CKING THIRTEEN of these lazy cabrones belittling a person for their skin. Nikka have u heard of roza parkz?

F*ck Spain.

And lol @ the sporting sh!thole known as the UK word to Andrew Wiggumz

#teamMurica #teamHumanBeings #hardwork #endtoracism Bunker Hill Saratoga
lmao you have a 12 year old's understanding of history.

[NumberSix]

lmao you have a 12 year old's understanding of history.
This. His understanding of the history of the moors in Spain is especially hilarious.

[Timmy D for MVP]

There are a multitude of reasons. In my personal opinion the greatest reason was the differing philosophies between the Iberian and English empires as to how to run a colony. I'll use the U.S. as an example. The American Colonies were not a top priority in the British empire, and they were across an ocean. Britain allowed them to basically govern themselves, with loyalties to the crown. This meant when time came to win independence, you had a collection of people who knew what they were doing, which was not an opportunity found in the Iberian structure.

They also all wanted to do pretty much the same thing, or at least the leaders all had a similar idea by the time independence was won. In the Latin colonies there was a heterogeneity of people and ideas. Throw that on to the lack of experience governing and you have a ton of turmoil as dissenting views deposed one another, while places like the U.S. could grow since the majority was on the same page.

Those are very very basic summaries of what I think are the biggest issues, but it's really super complex and there are a bunch of other things. It's a really interesting topic.

[StephHamann]

French are the GOAT. Complete cultural atomic bomb wherever they ruled.

French are GOAT in beeing beta.

[LJJ]

There are a multitude of reasons. In my personal opinion the greatest reason was the differing philosophies between the Iberian and English empires as to how to run a colony. I'll use the U.S. as an example. The American Colonies were not a top priority in the British empire, and they were across an ocean. Britain allowed them to basically govern themselves, with loyalties to the crown. This meant when time came to win independence, you had a collection of people who knew what they were doing, which was not an opportunity found in the Iberian structure.

They also all wanted to do pretty much the same thing, or at least the leaders all had a similar idea by the time independence was won. In the Latin colonies there was a heterogeneity of people and ideas. Throw that on to the lack of experience governing and you have a ton of turmoil as dissenting views deposed one another, while places like the U.S. could grow since the majority was on the same page.

Those are very very basic summaries of what I think are the biggest issues, but it's really super complex and there are a bunch of other things. It's a really interesting topic.


Because the Spanish MO was to take take take while the British built infrastructures and bring government system, technology and protection to their colonies.

It's not just the Spanish though, the Dutch, among others, was also bad colonizer.


Are people really going to ignore the massive elephant in the room? It's not complex at all and it doesn't have anything to do with the British being "benevolent colonizers". Are you really this thick?

The US and Australia thrive because they are almost entirely made up of European immigrants. So their developmental path has been pretty much the same as the countries where they are originally from, these countries have more or less been branched off from the mother nation.

Most former Spanish colonies (or former Dutch for that matter) are compromised of local people native to the land, not of European immigrants. That colonial situation is more comparable to India/Pakistan than to the US.
And for the record Pakistan is an absolute shitstained shithole compared to any place in South America, or compared to Indonesia.

[9erempiree]

Most former Spanish colonies (or former Dutch for that matter) are compromised of local people native to the land, not of European immigrants. That colonial situation is more comparable to India/Pakistan than to the US.
And for the record Pakistan is an absolute shitstained shithole compared to any place in South America, or compared to Indonesia.

The Chinese are pretty much native to their land which then discounts the idea of natives not being able to thrive.

[StephHamann]

When? Before the Spanish came when it was largely uninhabited?

The economic history of Argentina is one of the most studied, owing to the "Argentine paradox", its unique condition as a country that had achieved advanced development in the early 20th century but experienced a reversal, which inspired an enormous wealth of literature and diverse analysis on the causes of this decline.[1]

Argentina possesses definite comparative advantages in agriculture, as the country is endowed with a vast amount of highly fertile land.[2] Between 1860 and 1930, exploitation of the rich land of the pampas strongly pushed economic growth.[3] During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina outgrew Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income.[3] By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest nation per capita

[warriorfan]

The economic history of Argentina is one of the most studied, owing to the "Argentine paradox", its unique condition as a country that had achieved advanced development in the early 20th century but experienced a reversal, which inspired an enormous wealth of literature and diverse analysis on the causes of this decline.[1]

Argentina possesses definite comparative advantages in agriculture, as the country is endowed with a vast amount of highly fertile land.[2] Between 1860 and 1930, exploitation of the rich land of the pampas strongly pushed economic growth.[3] During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina outgrew Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income.[3] By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest nation per capita

Mass corruption bled the country dry

[9erempiree]

Argentina is doing very good as we speak.

I am sure they look down to their surrounding neighbors.

[StephHamann]

Argentina is doing very good as we speak.

I am sure they look down to their surrounding neighbors.

They could be like Canada today, maybe they can turn it around. If these savages keep invading Europe like they do now Argentinia seems like a good place to live.

[9erempiree]

They could be like Canada today, maybe they can turn it around. If these savages keep invading Europe like they do now Argentinia seems like a good place to live.

I actually wouldn't mind moving there too.

Since it was mentioned 'cheap'.

[ISHGoat]

Hey guys, I didn't expect this thread to churn out such good, rational discussion.

Here is my breakdown of some good points made so far:
-Britain was the first country to modernize in terms of technology and social conscience, but that didn't spread into Europe since Britain avoided going into Europe
-Spain was still using outdated methodologies when conquering the new world
-Spanish conquerors mixed with the natives; the inference here is that natives are "worse" than their European enemies, which is not a premise that has been proven so far in this thread
-The governing system of overseas territories enabled countries like US to be more independent

[iamgine]

Are people really going to ignore the massive elephant in the room? It's not complex at all and it doesn't have anything to do with the British being "benevolent colonizers". Are you really this thick?

The US and Australia thrive because they are almost entirely made up of European immigrants. So their developmental path has been pretty much the same as the countries where they are originally from, these countries have more or less been branched off from the mother nation.

Most former Spanish colonies (or former Dutch for that matter) are compromised of local people native to the land, not of European immigrants. That colonial situation is more comparable to India/Pakistan than to the US.
And for the record Pakistan is an absolute shitstained shithole compared to any place in South America, or compared to Indonesia.
Umm...Hongkong, India, Malaysia and Singapore? They wouldn't be thriving like today if not for the British. Yes, even India. In general British was indeed the more...benevolent if you want to put it that way.

One major difference for example, the Dutch would create a bureaucratic system that only serves their interest, especially in economy and politics. Meanwhile the British would try to create a bureaucratic system that's geared more on serving the local people than the local ruler they placed. The effect is still clearly seen even to this day, former British colonies' governments tend to be more independent, professional and geared to serving the people than the Dutch colonies around them.

[I<3NBA]

simple explanation. the Spaniards had a policy of exiling their undesirables to the colonies. if you were sent to the colonies to govern, that is most certainly not a promotion. so what we have is a situation where the dregs of Spain spread their genes all over the colonies and pretty much wrecked the colonies by way of spreading bad beliefs and work habits.

[LJJ]

Umm...Hongkong, India, Malaysia and Singapore? They wouldn't be thriving like today if not for the British. Yes, even India. In general British was indeed the more...benevolent if you want to put it that way.

One major difference for example, the Dutch would create a bureaucratic system that only serves their interest, especially in economy and politics. Meanwhile the British would try to create a bureaucratic system that's geared more on serving the local people than the local ruler they placed. The effect is still clearly seen even to this day, former British colonies' governments tend to be more independent, professional and geared to serving the people than the Dutch colonies around them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


118 South Africa 0.658
135 India 0.586
142 Bangladesh 0.558
146 Pakistan 0.537
147 Kenya 0.535
152 Nigeria 0.504
156 Zimbabwe 0.492
164 Uganda 0.484
166 Sudan 0.473
172 Gambia 0.441

Oh yeah all these lovely places. :rolleyes: "Meanwhile the British would try to create a bureaucratic system that's geared more on serving the local people than the local ruler they placed. The effect is still clearly seen even to this day, former British colonies' governments tend to be more independent, professional and geared to serving the people than the Dutch colonies around them."

You are so full of shit. These places are all much, much worse than former Dutch colonies.

Hong Kong benefits from it's extraordinary position as a bridge for China. Singapore's success had very little to do with the British. So that's two small city states which are successful that were British colonies not populated by the British themselves. Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when you see you how much English colonisation has ****ed up South Asia, the Middle-East and Africa.

[iamgine]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


118 South Africa 0.658
135 India 0.586
142 Bangladesh 0.558
146 Pakistan 0.537
147 Kenya 0.535
152 Nigeria 0.504
156 Zimbabwe 0.492
164 Uganda 0.484
166 Sudan 0.473
172 Gambia 0.441

Oh yeah all these lovely places. :rolleyes: "Meanwhile the British would try to create a bureaucratic system that's geared more on serving the local people than the local ruler they placed. The effect is still clearly seen even to this day, former British colonies' governments tend to be more independent, professional and geared to serving the people than the Dutch colonies around them."

You are so full of shit. These places are all much, much worse than former Dutch colonies.

Hong Kong benefits from it's extraordinary position as a bridge for China. Singapore's success had very little to do with the British. So that's two small city states which are successful that were British colonies not populated by the British themselves. Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when you see you how much English colonisation has ****ed up South Asia, the Middle-East and Africa.
One can argue those places would be the same or likely even worse had they been colonized by the Dutch. No one says all British colonies became lovely, but history has recorded that they're much better colonizer than the others.

[LJJ]

One can argue those places would be the same or likely even worse had they been colonized by the Dutch. No one says all British colonies became lovely, but history has recorded that they're much better colonizer than the others.

I'd say Indonesia, the only Dutch colony of real magnitude is much better off today than the majority of former British colonies. The government is more professional, the standard of living is higher and life is better. I've also backed this up with facts.

Which facts do you have that the British treated the Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Ugandese, Zimbabwans better than the Dutch treated the Indonesians? You have none. You are just talking out of your anus, just like before when you were spouting things that could be directly contradicted with 1 minute of using Google.

[GimmeThat]

even guaranteed return ends up as questionable investment because fundamental values tends to create itself, and not discovered.

if you knew where to place your money, you could be rich. if you can consistently temporarily lift others, you could be wealthy.

[Nick Young]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


118 South Africa 0.658
135 India 0.586
142 Bangladesh 0.558
146 Pakistan 0.537
147 Kenya 0.535
152 Nigeria 0.504
156 Zimbabwe 0.492
164 Uganda 0.484
166 Sudan 0.473
172 Gambia 0.441

Oh yeah all these lovely places. :rolleyes: "Meanwhile the British would try to create a bureaucratic system that's geared more on serving the local people than the local ruler they placed. The effect is still clearly seen even to this day, former British colonies' governments tend to be more independent, professional and geared to serving the people than the Dutch colonies around them."

You are so full of shit. These places are all much, much worse than former Dutch colonies.

Hong Kong benefits from it's extraordinary position as a bridge for China. Singapore's success had very little to do with the British. So that's two small city states which are successful that were British colonies not populated by the British themselves. Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when you see you how much English colonisation has ****ed up South Asia, the Middle-East and Africa.
British Empire was a million times bigger and more influential than the Dutch colonies. It is due to law of averages that of course some former British colonies won't be doing well now. Many, like the USA and India, are dominating proceedings.

[NumberSix]

Hong Kong benefits from it's extraordinary position as a bridge for China. Singapore's success had very little to do with the British. So that's two small city states which are successful that were British colonies not populated by the British themselves. Irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when you see you how much English colonisation has ****ed up South Asia, the Middle-East and Africa.
Not really. Hong Kong is still as successful as it is because British rule of Hong Kong only ended 18 years ago.

The British didn't "fcuk up" South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Those places were dumpster fires to begin with. Compare the African countries that were colonized by the British to the ones that weren't, then get back to us about how Britain "fcuked them up".

And the British never really colonized the Middle East. That was all Ottoman Empire for roughly 500 years until 1917. There was a very brief occupation by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire until new national governments could be put in place.

[LJJ]

Not really. Hong Kong is still as successful as it is because British rule of Hong Kong only ended 18 years ago.

The British didn't "fcuk up" South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Those places were dumpster fires to begin with. Compare the African countries that were colonized by the British to the ones that weren't, then get back to about how Britain "fcuked them up".

I don't even disagree with you. Pakistan, Uganda, Nigeria. Those places would have been shitholes now with or without British colonial rule. OTOH Hong Kong? Would have been fine if it was colonized by another, like Macau.

My point has to do with the premise of OP, where former British colonies are supposedly prospering and former Spanish colonies (and some other moron brought up Dutch) suck. When you look at comparable situations, clearly the English colonies aren't prospering compared to others. And British rule was just as terrible and left these places with equally shitty governments and infrastructure. And if you look at the average situation, you would much rather live in a former Dutch or Spanish colony than a formerly British one.

That's how it is. All colonial powers were pretty terrible. All had very little directly to do with these nations prospering or sucking to this day.





And the British never really colonized the Middle East. That was all Ottoman Empire for roughly 500 years until 1917. There was a very brief occupation by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire until new national governments could be put in place.

Exactly, all the British did in the ME was create all those artificial countries filled with warring tribes who hate each other, and continued to mess with the stability in the region to further their business interest. Not a true colony situation indeed.

[NumberSix]

I don't even disagree with you. Pakistan, Uganda, Nigeria. Those places would have been shitholes now with or without British colonial rule. OTOH Hong Kong? Would have been fine if it was colonized by another, like Macau.

My point has to do with the premise of OP, where former British colonies are supposedly prospering and former Spanish colonies (and some other moron brought up Dutch) suck. When you look at comparable situations, clearly the English colonies aren't prospering compared to others. And British rule was just as terrible and left these places with equally shitty governments and infrastructure. And if you look at the average situation, you would much rather live in a former Dutch or Spanish colony than a formerly British one.
What you need to look at is the countries that maintained the English tradition and countries that maintained the Spanish/Roman tradition.

There are only a few countries in the world that have the English legal system. The UK, Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand. That's it. And they're all pretty decent countries. The former British colonies that reverted back to their own native culture are in the state they are in because, honestly, their cultures aren't good.

Now look at the the Latin American countries that maintained the Spanish/Roman tradition. It's no coincidence that they're all worse off than the countries that maintained the English tradition. One culture is clearly better than the other.

[LJJ]

There are only a few countries in the world that have the English legal system. The UK, Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand. That's it. And they're all pretty decent countries. The former British colonies that reverted back to their own native culture are in the state they are in because, honestly, their cultures aren't good.

Oh. You mean all countries populated by Europeans who are prospering because they all share the same heritage and development? Yeah no shit.

So then it has nothing to do with Britain colonizing a place, ruling the local people and increasing the standard of living. It has to do with British people moving somewhere and starting a nice country. Yeah they were pretty good at that, but there is also nothing to compare it to. The Spanish or the Dutch didn't do that. There is no former Spanish colony that featured pretty much only Spanish and other Europeans as it's population. Maybe Argentina, but then again, Argentina is okay, not exactly a shithole.

[NumberSix]

Oh. You mean all countries populated by Europeans who are prospering because they all share the same heritage and development? Yeah no shit.

So then it has nothing to do with Britain colonizing a place, ruling the local people and increasing the standard of living. It has to do with British people moving somewhere and starting a nice country. Yeah they were pretty good at that, but there is also nothing to compare it to. The Spanish or the Dutch didn't do that.
It's a matter of culture. Some cultures are better than others. But it's not easy to get people to ditch their own culture for somebody else's. In the case of the countries I listed, they didn't have to because they were populated by people from Britain.

In the case of Latin American countries, they natives adopted the culture of the Spaniards. When Mexico gained independence, it maintained the Spanish tradition. Countries like the United States maintained the English tradition.

If India had adopted the English tradition, they would be just like the United States. There's no reason to believe otherwise, unless you believe British people are just racially superior to Indians.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Are people really going to ignore the massive elephant in the room? It's not complex at all and it doesn't have anything to do with the British being "benevolent colonizers". Are you really this thick?

The US and Australia thrive because they are almost entirely made up of European immigrants. So their developmental path has been pretty much the same as the countries where they are originally from, these countries have more or less been branched off from the mother nation.

It's not about being benevolent. It's about them not giving a **** about certain colonies, thus leaving those colonies to themselves. You'd be sorely mistaken if you think that wasn't a massive factor.

But you're right the places that had more homogeneity were far more successful.

As I pointed out.

Also the colonies that prospered right away are the ones that were more hands off. Biggest example being the U.S.

:confusedshrug:

[Nick Young]

Britain was not that hands off with USA. They kept giving the colonists a constant shipment of supplies, and even some soldiers and weapons to help fight the native Americans.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Britain was not that hands off with USA. They kept giving the colonists a constant shipment of supplies, and even some soldiers and weapons to help fight the native Americans.

I mean in a strictly governing sense. No doubt they were still British colonies so of course they were going to supply them.

What I'm saying is the colonists, by the time of Independence, had a bunch of experience running themselves already.

[iamgine]

I'd say Indonesia, the only Dutch colony of real magnitude is much better off today than the majority of former British colonies. The government is more professional, the standard of living is higher and life is better. I've also backed this up with facts.

Which facts do you have that the British treated the Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Ugandese, Zimbabwans better than the Dutch treated the Indonesians? You have none. You are just talking out of your anus, just like before when you were spouting things that could be directly contradicted with 1 minute of using Google.
Indonesian government? :roll:

Dude I lived in Indonesia for years. You're better off not talking about something you know nothing about. In fact, the British shortly colonized Indonesia and it was pretty much agreed that it was much better than the Dutch, Portuguese and Japan. Indonesians wished they were colonized by the Brits than the Dutch, that should tell you something.

If you want to compare, compare them to their neighbor like Malaysia and Singapore.

[LJJ]

Indonesian government? :roll:

Dude I lived in Indonesia for years. You're better off not talking about something you know nothing about. In fact, the British shortly colonized Indonesia and it was pretty much agreed that it was much better than the Dutch, Portuguese and Japan. Indonesians wished they were colonized by the Brits than the Dutch, that should tell you something.

If you want to compare, compare them to their neighbor like Malaysia and Singapore.

Compared to say... Zimbabwe and Pakistan? Yes, Indonesia is doing much better. From a government perspective too. You are the one who said countries like Zimbabwe and Pakistan had better governments who cared more about it's people.

You are obviously clueless. Go live in Uganda for a couple years and tell me about the amazing formerly British government and infrastructure? I'm waiting, moron.

Malaysia? One very small country compared to Indonesia that's doing slightly better? While the majority of countries ruled by the British are doing much worse? That's the best you can come up with?

[DCL]

Malaysia? One very small country compared to Indonesia that's doing slightly better?

malaysia is far wealthier and more modern than indonesia.

it's not only "slightly better." the differences are pretty huge.

[iamgine]

Compared to say... Zimbabwe and Pakistan? Yes, Indonesia is doing much better. From a government perspective too. You are the one who said countries like Zimbabwe and Pakistan had better governments who cared more about it's people.

You are obviously clueless. Go live in Uganda for a couple years and tell me about the amazing formerly British government and infrastructure? I'm waiting, moron.

Malaysia? One very small country compared to Indonesia that's doing slightly better? While the majority of countries ruled by the British are doing much worse? That's the best you can come up with?
:lol Now you're just repeating questions I already answer and implying stuff I didn't say. Here's what I said:

"No one says all British colonies became lovely, but history has recorded that they're much better colonizer than the others. One can argue those places (Uganda, Zimbabwe) would be the same or likely even worse had they been colonized by the Dutch."

"Dude I lived in Indonesia for years. You're better off not talking about something you know nothing about. In fact, the British shortly colonized Indonesia and it was pretty much agreed that it was much better than the Dutch, Portuguese and Japan. Indonesian historians wished they were colonized by the Brits than the Dutch, that should tell you something."

[TonyMontana]

Demographics is everything.

The British Colonies were all homogeneously English/European while the Spaniards mixed with the natives.

[BasedTom]

Demographics is everything.

The British Colonies were all homogeneously English/European while the Spaniards mixed with the natives.
India has designated shitting streets

[DCL]

India has designated shitting streets


right outside the touristy taj mahal, i don't think there's any square centimeter on the streets that hasn't been shat on by animals or (worse, even humans). that area stunk like hell and had a minefield of fresh shit stains. :oldlol:

[LJJ]

:lol Now you're just repeating questions I already answer and implying stuff I didn't say. Here's what I said:

"No one says all British colonies became lovely, but history has recorded that they're much better colonizer than the others. One can argue those places (Uganda, Zimbabwe) would be the same or likely even worse had they been colonized by the Dutch."

"Dude I lived in Indonesia for years. You're better off not talking about something you know nothing about. In fact, the British shortly colonized Indonesia and it was pretty much agreed that it was much better than the Dutch, Portuguese and Japan. Indonesian historians wished they were colonized by the Brits than the Dutch, that should tell you something."

Here is what you said:

"Meanwhile the British would try to create a bureaucratic system that's geared more on serving the local people than the local ruler they placed. The effect is still clearly seen even to this day, former British colonies' governments tend to be more independent, professional and geared to serving the people than the Dutch colonies around them."


Yet when we look at most British colonies, this is clearly not the case. All you do is point at some tiny outlier cases and say "See!", while all the major former colonies run by the British are shitholes.

[TonyMontana]

India has designated shitting streets

Yes and what are Indias demographics?

Answer: Not English/European.

Demographics are everything.

[BasedTom]

Yes and what are Indias demographics?

Answer: Not English/European.

Demographics are everything.
ok but that directly contradicts your claim about British colonisation

[TonyMontana]

ok but that directly contradicts your claim about British colonisation


ok but that directly contradicts your claim about British colonisation

No it doesn't. The OP mentions the countries(Canada, USA, Australia,UK) as "prosperous".

My post that stated the reason these countries were good was solely because of the Demographic factor. the people who lived and contributed in these nations. As the demographic shifts away from what they were at the peaks of these nations so will the nation as a whole.

You are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

[warriorfan]

british have bad genes and small units so it evens out

[iamgine]

Here is what you said:

"Meanwhile the British would try to create a bureaucratic system that's geared more on serving the local people than the local ruler they placed. The effect is still clearly seen even to this day, former British colonies' governments tend to be more independent, professional and geared to serving the people than the Dutch colonies around them."


Yet when we look at most British colonies, this is clearly not the case. All you do is point at some tiny outlier cases and say "See!", while all the major former colonies run by the British are shitholes.
And all you do is point to Africa where the Dutch would likely had been worse if given the chance. What part of "around them" did you not understand?

History has recorded that Brits were much better colonizer than the others. The effect is clearly seen when comparing Indonesia to its neighbors. Even Indonesian historians wished they were colonized by the Brits than the Dutch.

[LJJ]

And all you do is point to Africa where the Dutch would likely had been worse if given the chance. What part of "around them" did you not understand?

History has recorded that Brits were much better colonizer than the others. The effect is clearly seen when comparing Indonesia to its neighbors. Even Indonesian historians wished they were colonized by the Brits than the Dutch.

India, Bangladesh, Pakistan are not Africa. Not by a long shot.

2 billion people in former British colonies living in shitholes with horrible regimes: "Oh that doesn't mean anything. Probably would have been worse if it was colonized by the Dutch.".

50 million people living in places slightly nicer than Indonesia: "See, clearly the British were more benevolent colonizers who really cared about the people.".

Please.

So come on then with the papers of Indonesian historians who are saying Indonesia would have been amazing if it were colonized by the British? You say you have sources? Historians? Come. Can't take more than one Google seeing as you already know of them. (But you and me both know this "historian" is clearly your anus.)

[iamgine]

India, Bangladesh, Pakistan are not Africa. Not by a long shot.

2 billion people in former British colonies living in shitholes with horrible regimes: "Oh that doesn't mean anything. Probably would have been worse if it was colonized by the Dutch.".

50 million people living in places slightly nicer than Indonesia: "See, clearly the British were more benevolent colonizers who really cared about the people.".

Please.

So come on then with the papers of Indonesian historians who are saying Indonesia would have been amazing if it were colonized by the British? You say you have sources? Historians? Come. Can't take more than one Google seeing as you already know of them. (But you and me both know this "historian" is clearly your anus.)
You are looking at the result, not recorded history. It is true that they would very likely have been worse if it was colonized by the Dutch for reasons already stated.

Also as someone already pointed out, it's not a slight difference. It's a huge difference, don't talk about something you know nothing about.

If you want source then go buy the books about colonization written by Indonesian historians then? But it might be in Indonesian language so you probably can't read it. Shall I also translate a whole book for you? Have I not educate you enough?

[LJJ]

You are looking at the result, not recorded history. It is true that they would very likely have been worse if it was colonized by the Dutch for reasons already stated.

Also as someone already pointed out, it's not a slight difference. It's a huge difference, don't talk about something you know nothing about.

If you want source then go buy the books about colonization written by Indonesian historians then? But it might be in Indonesian language so you probably can't read it. Shall I also translate a whole book for you? Have I not educate you enough?

I'd say India would have been a paradise now if it were colonized by the Dutch instead of the British. My basis for this is recorded history and reasons already stated.

:rolleyes:

Such a retarded boring way of discussion. I've already factually countered your previous moronic claims. Now you just stick with baseless, unsourced conjecture that can't realistically be discussed. Saying you have sources, but coming up with nothing. Whatever, stay ignorant bro.

I'll just be content with the fact that most former Dutch, Spanish colonies are relatively nice places compared to most former British colonies. That's the fact. The actual facts show plenty about how benevolent the British empire was. But indeed, that's merely looking at factual results of recorded history rather than baseless conjecture and hearsay.

[NumberSix]

I'd say India would have been a paradise now if it were colonized by the Dutch instead of the British. My basis for this is recorded history and reasons already stated.

:rolleyes:

Such a retarded boring way of discussion. I've already factually countered your previous moronic claims. Now you just stick with baseless, unsourced conjecture that can't realistically be discussed. Saying you have sources, but coming up with nothing. Whatever, stay ignorant bro.

I'll just be content with the fact that most former Dutch, Spanish colonies are relatively nice places compared to most former British colonies. That's the fact. The actual facts show plenty about how benevolent the British empire was. But indeed, that's merely looking at factual results of recorded history rather than baseless conjecture and hearsay.
The problem is you're comparing a massive empire like Britain to the Netherlands. Of the small handful of colonies the Dutch had, Britain took the ones that were of any value. You're basically comparing a quarter of the entire world to just Indonesia.

[LJJ]

The problem is you're comparing a massive empire like Britain to the Netherlands. Of the small handful of colonies the Dutch had, Britain took the ones that were of any value. You're basically comparing a quarter of the entire world to just Indonesia.

Well, Britain itself is a much bigger country than the Netherlands, so it all scales pretty well.

But all I'm doing is denouncing the baseless and ridiculous claim that Britain cared more about the native people within it's colonies than other countries, and set up good governments, laws and infrastructure and that this effect can still be seen today.

When clearly on average the colonies of the Spanish and Dutch are nicer, more stable and more developed than the former colonies of the British. It's just a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.

[NumberSix]

Well, Britain itself is a much bigger country than the Netherlands, so it all scales pretty well.

But all I'm doing is denouncing the baseless and ridiculous claim that Britain cared more about the native people within it's colonies than other countries, and set up good governments, laws and infrastructure and that this effect can still be seen today.

When clearly on average the colonies of the Spanish and Dutch are nicer, more stable and more developed than the former colonies of the British. It's just a nonsense claim with no basis in reality.
Well, that's an incredibly stupid thing to say, and you only keep comparing vastly different areas of the world. If you compare former colonies in the same regions, it's absolutely retarded to make the argument you're making.

Compare former British colonies in the Americas to former Spanish colonies
In the Americas. The former British ones are clearly superior in every measurable way.

Yeah, if you compare Indonesia to some shithole country in Africa, Indonesia will come out on top. But if you compare Indonesia or the Philippines to British colonies in the same region like Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia or Austrlia, the British ones by any measure are superior.

The Spanish and the Dutch didn't really do much colonizing in Africa, so there's really nothing to compare.

[LJJ]

Yeah, if you compare Indonesia to some shithole country in Africa, Indonesia will come out on top. But if you compare Indonesia or the Philippines to British colonies in the same region like Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia or Austrlia, the British ones by any measure are superior.

The Spanish and the Dutch didn't really do much colonizing in Africa, so there's really nothing to compare.

No, we compare it to the British colonies in Asia, not Africa. Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka.

On average, Indonesia is much nicer. But yeah, let's just ignore all the failed states the former British empire has produced and only compare to the nice countries. Indonesia is nicer than the Philippines too, and the Phillipines, which is also nicer than the former British colonies on average.

[iamgine]

I'd say India would have been a paradise now if it were colonized by the Dutch instead of the British. My basis for this is recorded history and reasons already stated.

:rolleyes:

Such a retarded boring way of discussion. I've already factually countered your previous moronic claims. Now you just stick with baseless, unsourced conjecture that can't realistically be discussed. Saying you have sources, but coming up with nothing. Whatever, stay ignorant bro.

I'll just be content with the fact that most former Dutch, Spanish colonies are relatively nice places compared to most former British colonies. That's the fact. The actual facts show plenty about how benevolent the British empire was. But indeed, that's merely looking at factual results of recorded history rather than baseless conjecture and hearsay.
Umm, yeah I said go read colonial history books written by Indonesian historians. There's your source. Ask your Indonesian friend to translate. I'm finding it hard to discuss in detail with someone who has no historical context to begin with and won't believe what I said. Come back when you actually know something.

[LJJ]

Umm, yeah I said go read colonial history books written by Indonesian historians. There's your source. Ask your Indonesian friend to translate. I'm finding it hard to discuss in detail with someone who has no historical context to begin with and won't believe what I said. Come back when you actually know something.

That's not a source. Which history books? Any research that indicates that Indonesia would have been better off as a British colony?

I know these things don't exist, and you haven't read any of these things. That's why use vague terms like "Indonesian history books" rather than state a few specific titles that you read. Titles, Authors.

I know they don't really exist, but whatever. You are the one here who is clueless my friend. That's why you have been directly, factually contradicted and are afraid to go further into the factual details. And I haven't.

[NumberSix]

No, we compare it to the British colonies in Asia, not Africa. Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka.

On average, Indonesia is much nicer. But yeah, let's just ignore all the failed states the former British empire has produced and only compare to the nice countries. Indonesia is nicer than the Philippines too, and the Phillipines, which is also nicer than the former British colonies on average.
GTFO with "on average". There's no average when there's only 1.

And gtfo with the Philippines. Your idea that it's "nicer" (whatever that means) on average is based on nothing.

The AVERAGE GDP of the former British colonies you listed is $733 Billion. The Philippines GDP is $285 Billion.

[LJJ]

GTFO with "on average". There's no average when there's only 1.

And gtfo with the Philippines. Your idea that it's "nicer" (whatever that means) on average is based on nothing.

The AVERAGE GDP of the former British colonies you listed is $733 Billion. The Philippines GDP is $285 Billion.


So, what you are saying is the Philippines GDP per capita is $2700.
Indonesia's GDP per capita (for reference) is $3500.
And the combined GDP per capita of those former British colonies is $2100.


So in other words. The Philippines is a nicer place on average even buy your own measure of choice. Higher GDP per capita. Higher HDI. Shoot any measure at it, Philippines comes ahead. Indonesia comes ahead. Nicer places, not compared to Hong Kong but on average.

[NumberSix]

So, what you are saying is the Philippines GDP per capita is $2700.
Indonesia's GDP per capita (for reference) is $3500.
And the combined GDP per capita of those former British colonies is $2100.


So in other words. The Philippines is a nicer place on average even buy your own measure of choice. Higher GDP per capita. Higher HDI. Shoot any measure at it, Philippines comes ahead. Indonesia comes ahead. Nicer places, not compared to Hong Kong but on average.
Here's the problem though. Australia is the only one of the countries with a British form of government and British culture. Nothing about Pakistan for example is in any way British.

Mexico has a Spanish/Roman form of government and the people have Spanish/Roman culture. It's appropriate to associate its level of success with its Spanish/Roman values. Canada has a British form of government and British culture. It's appropriate to associate that with its British values. Pakistan's government and culture comes from Islamic culture. Why are we associating their level of success to British values? There's nothing remotely British about Pakistan.

[Nick Young]

Philippines is a former American colony. Americans take full responsibility for their current wealth and happiness ratings.

[NumberSix]

Philippines is a former American colony. Americans take full responsibility for their current wealth and happiness ratings.
That was for a very short amount of time.

[LJJ]

Here's the problem though. Australia is the only one of the countries with a British form of government and British culture. Nothing about Pakistan for example is in any way British.

Mexico has a Spanish/Roman form of government and the people have Spanish/Roman culture. It's appropriate to associate its level of success with its Spanish/Roman values. Canada has a British form of government and British culture. It's appropriate to associate that with its British values. Pakistan's government and culture comes from Islamic culture. Why are we associating their level of success to British values? There's nothing remotely British about Pakistan.

That's what we were arguing about. The argument was the British supposedly treated and ruled their colonies better, set up better infrastructure governance etcetera and that former British colonies are better off now due to British rule than former Dutch and Spanish colonies.

This is clearly patently untrue for colonies with a native population. HDI, GDP, whatever measure you make. Some small places do well, but overall former British colonies do pretty damn terrible. But oh yeah, I forgot. When a former British colony is a shithole disgrace to humanity it has nothing to do with Britain, but when a small former colony like Singapore does well that's due to British colonisation. :rolleyes: I have these Indonesian professors backing me on this, but I'm keeping their names and research to myself.

:lol

[RidonKs]

That was for a very short amount of time.
yeah 50 of the last 100 years is nothing :lol

[Nick Young]

That was for a very short amount of time.
Americans gave Filipinos the push and guidance they needed to succeed after my countrymen, Europeans, did their best to drag the island down with them.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-AJ176_MacArt_G_20131112100854.jpg

[NumberSix]

yeah 50 of the last 100 years is nothing :lol
Oh wow, I just noticed he said America. I was thinking of Britain. Epic brain fart.

[Nick Young]

American colonies are nice places like American Samoa, Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii.

When they go to colonize a place, they try to leave it better off than when they found it. Sometimes they even officially adopt the colony in to a state.


I only wish that my countrymen, Europeans, would forsake their Imperialist First Estate misogynistic CIS-gender white male values and follow America's example.

[NumberSix]

American colonies are nice places like American Samoa, Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii.

When they go to colonize a place, they try to leave it better off than when they found it. Sometimes they even officially adopt the colony in to a state.


I only wish that my countrymen, Europeans, would forsake their Imperialist First Estate misogynistic CIS-gender white male values and follow America's example.
:roll:

[Nick Young]

Americans took down the oppressive totalitarian Hawaiian monarchy (aka dictatorship) and installed freedom. It is now one of the greatest islands in the world. USA delivered freedom to Hawaii as well as Puerto Rico through non-violent means.