Have you noticed every Ex-British colony does better than other European [colonized] ones?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

Former French Colonies: Haiti, Vietnam, Madagascar, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon

GDP per Capita today? Around $3,000 at highest

Former Spanish Colonies: Mexico, Cuba, Philippines, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Honduras,

GDP per capita today? Around $13,000 at highest.

Former Portuguese Colonies: Brazil, Angola, Mozambique,

GDP per capita today? Around $7,000 at highest

Former Italian Colonies: Somalia, Libya, Ethiopia

GDP per capita today? $3,700 at its highest

Former Dutch Colonies: Indonesia, Suriname, (other colonies got conquered or absorbed by someone else)

GDP per Capita today? Around $6,500 at the highest.

Former Belgian Colonies: Congo (lol)

GDP per capita today? $600

Former British Colonies: USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Nigeria, South Africa, India, Israel, Ireland, Hong Kong, Iraq, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jamaica, Pakistan, Bahamas,

GDP per capita today? Around $63,000 at the highest.

Even the poorest British colonies are still technically more advance compared to other European colonies on the same continent. For example, compare South Africa with every other African country and the difference is night in day.

In the Americas, Canada & the U.S completely dwarf Mexico and Haiti in global contributions. In Asia, Hong Kong is arguably better than mainland China, and also explains a lot of resistance towards unifying with them.

Obviously race is still a factor, but on every continent where the British had been in power, only their colonies manage to stay relevant or competitive, instead of becoming completely irrelevant.

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Former British Colonies: USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Nigeria, South Africa, India, Israel, Ireland, Hong Kong,

You clearly don't know much about India and Nigeria.

Singapore is run by cognitively selected for Chinese, Hong Kong is ethnically Chinese and South Africa had 4-4.5 million Afrikaners and Brits.

The US, Anzacs, and Canada are(or where) white countries with a long history of industrialization and development.

The Spanish fucked everything in sight in Latin America and those are mestizo-mulatto countries. In Africa, except SA and Rhodesia none of the countries had a significant white presence and all of them are worse off than SA regardless of whose colonies they were.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You clearly don't know much about India and Nigeria.

Both countries had been absorbed into the British Empire, or else why did they try to declare independence from them?

Singapore is run by cognitively selected for Chinese, Hong Kong is ethnically Chinese and South Africa had 4-4.5 million Afrikaners and Brits.

I already took race into account. British colonies of all ethnic origins generally do better than non-British ones of the same group.

Even other European countries colonized by the British still rank very high, like Ireland.

The US, Anzacs, and Canada are(or where) white countries with a long history of industrialization and development.

See the above sentence. Although one could argue this was British influence at play, because the founding genetic stock had British origins (i.e George Washington, John A Macdonald, George Brown. These men didn't magically appear from nowhere).

The Spanish fucked everything in sight in Latin America and those are mestizo-mulatto countries.

Agreed. Although keep in mind, France or the Dutch didn't exactly have the same race-mixing policies but their colonies are actually worse than the Spanish ones in a lot of ways.

In Africa, except SA and Rhodesia none of the countries had a significant white presence and all of them are worse off than SA regardless of whose colonies they were.

This is true in principal, but look at Middle Eastern states like Israel or the UAE, and they're still not the same as Syria or Lebanon, despite both lacking a significant white population.

[–]Wrangel 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Quebec is doing fairly well.

The UK moved a lot of people to its colonies and the UK colonized fairly empty places such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Spain, France and Holland mainly colonized other people and those colonies were mainly populated by locals.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Quebec has threatened to separate two times, but they've always voted to stay with Canada.

Despite this, they're the only province that takes in more federal aid than what they actually give back in. Alberta basically subsidizes their existence.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-alberta-pays-quebecs-bills-four-charts-that-show-alberta-picks-up-the-tab

I like Quebec culture and its people, but if they were really serious about independence, then they should just leave and prove they can somehow survive on their own. Instead of being allowed to run as a crypto-mafia that exhorts the rest of the country.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Some Ex-British colonies that are doing less well than the mean of the ones you do mention:

Gambia, Ghana, Southern Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania (formerly Tanganyika and Zanzibar), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Nyasaland (Malawi), Lesotho, Botswana, and Swaziland.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I wish I could update the title so it now says "perform better on average".

The British Empire spanned the entire Earth, so it picked up a lot of riff raff with it. But it's indisputable that British colonies had hit higher strides.

I.e, where's the French version of the USA? Even the French Canadian province of Quebec, still lags behind its anglo counterparts like Ontario.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

where's the French version of the USA?

I don't know a shitload about the war of independence, but isn't it the USA?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The original 13 colonies rebelled against Britain. Although France at this time still owned Louisiana, but Napoleon later sold it to America to finance his war in Europe. So yeah, it doesn't count. 🤷‍♂️

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

France is still screwing over its former colonies with the Pacte coloniale. It's really fucked them up.

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

British whitey taught them better than scumbag european whitey. Of course speaking English is a distinct advantage for a shitload of colonies to have going forward.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm surprised people didn't pick up another pattern.

British colonies were better at resisting Communism.

French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies all adopted Socialism really fast and had unstable democracies. This also lead to some of the worst tyrants in history. Pol Pot, Mengistu Mariam, Nicolás Maduro, Che Guevara, Dilma Rousseff etc.