Thread 513337218

Why are British colonies more successful than French and Spanish colonies?

>British colonies
Ireland (civilized and colonized by the English)
USA
Canada
Australia
NZ

>>513337218 (OP)
ever heard of India and half of Africa?

>>513337218 (OP)
Britain (or Bretagne) was the og french colony.

>>513337218 (OP)
We actually sent Brits there instead of fucking the natives to death like Spain

>>513337218 (OP)
Britain displaced rather than integrate the indigenous populations. It was also at a higher state of civilization than the hunter-gatherer populations that were forced to give way. Also, you absolutely can't count the US's success as being owed or tied to being a former British colony. When the US gained independence, it was in debt, very poor, and worse off than any contemporary Spanish-American colony. And the US allowed unrestricted immigration, while Canada and Austrlia(NZ) practiced a more restrictive and less incentivized form. They also still have the Crown as the head of state.

>>513337218 (OP)
I have to admit Britain did white supremacy pretty well but I'm not sure what happened to them over the last 100 years, they've become the most cucked country on earth

>>513338030
America adopted some of the racial attitudes from Britain though that's one of the few actual contributions Britain did make. Look at how different things ended up in Latin America where intermixing was more common from the start

>>513337218 (OP)
British colonies that are successful are the ones whose population is European.
The British never had to deal with massive numbers of natives in any of those.
Look at the example of what happens when the natives are numerous: India

>>513338713
Two very different routes. Britain by comparison was kind to the indigenous because they were balancing the power of their colonists. The US outright exterminated the natives to put the land into production as quickly as possible. It also brought over every northern-European immigrant it could to quickly consolidate the new land and to better establish itself as truly independent. Very different paths.

>>513339073
Yes but I meant compared to Spanish colonies basically, they kept the concept at least initially that intermixing with natives was not something to be encouraged whereas with Latin America it seems like it was very different

>>513339853
It's not that simple. For starters, the early eastern part of the US didn't even have that many natives relative to other parts of the Americas. Moat were also hunter-gatherers. Only those in the lower Mississippi Valley and the Great Lakes region weren't completely. But even so, they really wouldn't be called civilizations compared to their contemporary meso and South American cousins. There also wasn't that much of an opportunity to mix even if one had wanted to in this region. Many of the natives had already been armed with modern weapons thanks to the previous French-British Indian wars. Added to that, some like 5 tribes were allied were allowed to live separately.

The Spanish on the other hand dealt with natives who had been a part of civilization. This incentivized extraction colonialism rather than settler as those natives would be more receptiveto governance. It's simple really, extraction colonialism was more exploitative than the settler one. You're also dealing with unifying a bunch of different native groups with different customs, religions, traditions, fueds, etc into one colony.

>>513337218 (OP)
Because white people live in bong colonies which were created to get rid of troublesome bongs

>>513337577
You mean the original British colony?
That's in the name... Bretons are Celts who moved from across the channel, from the British isles during German invasions.

>>513337218 (OP)
British whyppl never use to season they cities, French and Spanish did.

We all secret heebs and spices now.

>>513337218 (OP)
The vast majority of kiwi immigrants were just random workers who's boat wrecked or couldn't afford to go home
There was never any pretence on the ground, only the british navy bothered with airs and class notions
Turns out you can have your racially integrated society, it just needs to happen organically.
We were doing just fine until the yellow peril in the late 90s, somehow they forgot their lesson and now we have the poo hordes.
God I hate our owners.

>>513337218 (OP)
>civilized and colonized by the English

Civilised means getting cucked into paying taxes as wage slaves and losing land rights to elitists? Colonisation is about land grabbing. We need to accept reality first Aus bro

>>513338030
>Also, you absolutely can't count the US's success as being owed or tied to being a former British colony.
It is 100% tied to being British. It is set up as a British culture with a British majority until the 1920s officially, yet in reality genetically still is a majority British population in the white demographic. At the end of white migration in the 1920s the entire stock market list of companies were ethnic Anglo Americans except a German sugar merchant and Westinghouse Electric. If you look at pre-war politics there are barely any non Anglos in politics anywhere in America. The entire settlement, management and development of American was dominated by Brits as much as Canada and Australia were.
Or are you under some delusions that your non Anglo wage ancestors built America? Newsflash: they didn't.

>>513337253
Yeah, India is a total mess. Singapore is fine.