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

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.