Thread 17907456

Everywhere the English settled and colonized the places became better. Everywhere the French colonized the society became worse. Look at Haiti. Why is this??

>>17907456 (OP)
>Everywhere the English settled and colonized the places became better.
You mean like making bank accounts for the elite and investments go up I guess.

>>17907456 (OP)
everywhere colonized and ruled by whites was improved dramatically, transformed unrecognizably. But once white rule ended, was given back to the non whites, they all collapsed back to embarrassing shitty wrecks.

>>17907456 (OP)
Unironic truthnuke
India under British rule was the best period of its history
Vietnam under French rule was the darkest period of its history

>>17907501

Not true at all, China prospered after British fucked off. British took a decently functioning society and introduced opium.

Chinese are now paying back by introduction fentanyl into west

>>17907456 (OP)
>Everywhere the English settled and colonized the places became better
>India

>>17907501
>they all collapsed back to embarrassing shitty wrecks.
Actually having access to education, rights, freedom of movement and other things they never/barely had innthe colonial era?

>>17907509
>India under British rule was the best period of its history
>Vietnam under French rule was the darkest period of its history
Both were shitty explotive regimes that totally unsustainable.

It only got better because they were Christian. If pagans colonized them, they would be even worse off.

>>17907456 (OP)
Because the English got rid of the natives.

>>17907523
The exception proves the rule.

>>17907540
>Because the English got rid of the natives
For most of them no and all the settler colonies had major issues lol. Many issuea that remain to this day.

>The exception proves the rule
How many exceptions do you need?

>>17907544
The point is that those places improved where they got rid of the natives. Have you been diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder?

>>17907551
That's a pretty profit based point of view. All thay built of destruction, killing, forced land removals and for what? Even the settlers got pretty fucked over and expected in these settler regimes.

>>17907553
And all these settler colonies arent even that special since they are pretty much slowing down and falling behind. Mainly due to all the dysfunction and BS built up during the colony and then state formation of these places.

>>17907553
>>17907555
If I had any clue what you were talking about before, I don't anymore.

Vietnam's doing alright. It gets a lot of tourists during the summer, mostly from Korea and China.

>>17907570
What do you define as improved? These states all engaged in atrocities and abuses to "become" better. Yet in terms of QoL they aren't that exceptional compared to other developed states and carry a ton of baggage from their early years.

>>17907583
>What do you define as improved?
Hospitals, railroads, universities, running water, toilets, stuff like that.

>>17907456 (OP)
>Everywhere the French colonized the society became worse. Look at Haiti.
The French turned Haiti into an extremely valuable colony that exported a shitton of sugarcane. It's not their fault their former slaves made a mess of things immediately after they got their freedom, just like it's not the British's fault all their African colonies are degenerate shitholes now

>>17907604
But other non settler states got those after colonialism as well as non imperial states having those too.

>>17907684
>The French turned Haiti into an extremely valuable colony that exported a shitton of sugarcane
With massive slave death tolls and extreme overexplotion of the soil and monocropping.

>It's not their fault their former slaves made a mess of things immediately after they got their freedom
Since the soil got fucked, reintroducing slavery would be a total shot show and prior campaigns to bruteforce it sans direct slavery all failing. Also having to pay France it's massive debt

>just like it's not the British's fault all their African colonies are degenerate shitholes now
A good chunk of them are improving but having to baaically reso things from scratch or heavily reworking them is a pretty monumental task. Not to mention a lot of the old colonial era policy relics, leases and land grabs making reforms harder and slower to roll out.

>>17907689
>But other non settler states got those after colonialism
wut

>as well as non imperial states having those too.
We're just comparing English colonies to French colonies here, stay on topic.

>>17907522
>As early as 1845, when Shanghai was forcibly opened to foreign trade under the unequal treaties that concluded the Opium Wars, a network of prominent Sephardic Jewish merchant families—the Kadoories, the Hardoons, the Ezras, the Nissims, the Abrahams, the Gubbays, and, most prominently, the Sassoons—took root in the city and eventually joined the ranks of its Western occupying elite.

>>17907734
the whole "killing off of natives" never was a good reason why the settler colonies were good. Several of them had near misses, others had lost opportunities of baked in issuea that are now starting to show their cracks.

>>17907819
Well, now that I think about it the nignogs in Haiti aren't natives either, so I guess you're right but not for whatever reason you think you are.

>>17907456 (OP)
>Look at Haiti. Why is this??
The French explicitly tried to ruin the country because it crushed their dreams on the North American continent.
Many of its West African colonies are used either as footstools, or treated spitefully, as though they had a bad breakup.
France really is a curse on most of its subjects.
Though, English colonies only noticeably improve AFTER decolonization. They get a few seedling institutions for their elites and an economic niche, but most importantly, the UK just doesn't extensively meddle in their day-to-day operations (beyond what's typical for their interactions with 3rd-worlders, at least).

>>17907684
>The French turned Haiti into an extremely valuable colony that exported a shitton of sugarcane.
Most people understand that countries aren't companies. If your people are dying faster than you can replace them, and they overthrow you, you did a shit job of running the place, no matter what the sugar lobby says. If you see the profit as justification, then they weren't part of your nation, and they were right to get rid of you.

>>17907538

THIS.

>>17907501
mostly because the former european rulers taxed the shit out of their independent ex colonies look at the monkeys in africa and their forced dependence to the french currency or how haiti was assfucked by getting independence, or the spaniards that were pretty conservative in their ways of ruling and then the states pretty much ruling with iron fist over the newly indepent american states

>>17907509
India is a shithole since all the different countries are mixed together in a single multicultural state. India last time I checked is like 10 countries in one

>>17907456 (OP)
>Everywhere the English settled and colonized the places became better

India proves otherwise

Also fuck off you settler colonist jew. These invasions were never for the benefit of the locals and you just stole shit.

>>17907551
Under this ape logic, then you agree that the west is falling since the indians,spics and niggers and sandniggers are replacing us?

>>17907884
And this is mostly why we now have a third world invasion, all of these monkeys start yapping that is europes fault

>>17907888
Yes. Why are you even asking? "Ape logic"? Wut?

>>17907456 (OP)
No. It leads to globohomo anyway. Let everyone be isolated

>>17907684
>cramming as many Africans as possible onto less than half of an island
>improved
Come on now.

>>17907895
No, it’s because the rich in your country opened the borders for cheap labor.

>>17907456 (OP)
>Everywhere the French colonized the society became worse.
One could argue that Niger, Guinea, Madagascar, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Chad, and the Congo became better
>but they're all still shitholes
OP said "better" not "good" (Although Gabon actually has a higher HDI than India which is a big L for the British imo)

>>17907896
The west isn't falling though. It's merely shifting around. Now more groups of people are able to participate and contribute to all these markets. Like imperial powers fought to retain their closed and guaranteed markets, so now it's opening up which is a return to the pre-imperial era norm.

>>17907907
>it’s because the rich in your country opened the borders for cheap labor.
To be honest what else did one expect in a system that hinged on coralling as much labour and resources as you can understand one's flag?

>>17907831
Now consider the other parts of that post with a 2nd look.

>>17907941
>the whole "killing off of natives" never was a good reason why the settler colonies were good.
Yes, you missed the point like one-feathered arrow again. I thought I had an easy out from having to explain incredibly simple things that are obvious to everyone but you, fuck me. No one is making a moral argument about any genocides or anything, we're just talking about the cause and the effect. That's what OP was asking about.

>>17907523
Don’t know if you’re joking but India was transformed from dozens of mini kingdoms and clans into an actual unified country because of the English, it is way better than and developed thanks to the English.

>>17908039
>but India was transformed from dozens of mini kingdoms and clans
Those appeared during the collapse of the unifying authority of the Mughal Empire, whose authority the EIC relied on to establish itself as a legitimate alternative.
You're taking a snapshot of a temporary power vacuum and using it to suggest that was the status quo, when anyone even faintly familiar with Indian politics could tell you otherwise.

>>17907456 (OP)
Everywhere white people moved in large numbers became better. Doesnt matter who ruled it. Kenya and India were ruled by the British and they are clearly not better.

>>17907535
Dude, Europeans didn't have that during colonial era

>>17907553
True, before this point they all had equal rights and were singing kumbaya around camp fires and respecting each others boundaries in between poetry readings about love and affirmation. Then the evil white man came and taught them about violence rape, the concept of racism and hierarchy.

>>17907456 (OP)
Vietnam anyone?
Bamako?
Dakar?

>>17907456 (OP)
I think it’s actually the racial quality of a colony that determines its fate in terms of HDI and QoL.
Africans colonized or not are always poor and violent.

>>17908683
Who started two world wars exactly?

>>17908610
>Everywhere white people moved in large numbers became better
South Africa is a wreck because of the fucked up racial policies. Kenya still has to grapple with shitty 99 year leases

>>17908663
Viets were treated like shit, French nonces and degens targetted kids and knocked up young teens, had their Buddhist faith targetted, faced multiple crackdowns and basically were paused into working as plantation serfs.

French West Africa had forced labour and corvee, state crackdown on any sort of dissent against it, assimilated Senegalese in the four conmunes had their rights and status constantly downgraded, removed or tweaked.

>>17908697
And the only time ANY person of black descent had a position of governor was during WW2 when the empire was basically slapping tbe bottom of the barrel because most Ftench people in the admin class were either collaborators, in exile or dead. And the black guy in question was a Carribean guy, not from any of the communes.

>>17907456 (OP)
>Everywhere the French colonized the society became worse.
England for instance