What made British colonies so much more successful than Spanish colonies?

What made British colonies so much more successful than Spanish colonies?

Why aren't there pictures of Africa and India on the British side?

Where I live used to be Spanish and we are pretty successful over here.

They aren't fair comparisons since they weren't settled by the British unlike North America and Australia.

spain is a shithole compared to the uk anyway

Why are you including Spanish colonies with large numbers of natives then?

They are still colonies you cannot exclude them when you didn't do the same for Spain.

It's because of colonial policies boy.

Which colonies would those be?
Shut the fuck up faggot.

bad post

Why should I shut up? Is it because I alongside other posters will poke holes through your weak post?

God's own people, and so on

>British colonies... more successful........
>India
>Anguilla
>Bermuda
>Afganistan
>Canada
>Egypt
>Guyana
>Iraq
>Jordan
>Kenya
>Kuwait
>Lesotho
>Myanmar
>sierra Lione
>sri lanka
>south africa
>Swaziland
>sudan
>tanzania
>Yemen
>Zimbabwe
>Zambia

For the Five Eyes (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), the Brits slaughtered/assimilated the Indians and actually settled there. The others aren't that successful, see India for example.

Look man, let's skip through the bs and just acknowledge your racist a priori conclusion is "white" settled countries did better than all else, because this is the rationale behind your shitposting, that you're unironically a white supremacist unable to comprehend the nuances of history and economics which led to the current state of affairs.

Now, explain to me why your so called "whites" cannot muster the minimal reproductive fitness test of replacing their own numbers, because explanations other than genetic inferiority really don't match up with your own conclusions about other peoples.

I'm not a white supremacist I consider Argentinians and some Mexicans to be white.

You are ignoring the other big factors ffs.

Dunno what that is on the top right, but it ain't HDI

That doesn't make you not a white supremacist. It does make you somewhat gullible for falling for the Argentina is white meme.

Special snowflake detected.

Spanish colonies in latin america had majority natives and are now shit
British colonies in Africa had majority natives and are now shit

Do you see the pattern?

True; the US heavily invested in itself and the UK heavily invested in the others.

I see what you did there

name one (1) former Spanish colony as successful as either the US or Australia.

You forgot in a lot of the areas they kicked out and didn't have the massive population's of say Mexico or Africa. Also, families are better colonists than single men.

cuz british genocide local people, but spanish fuck them and they born half-shithead childs

We didn't kill enough natives

Sorry lads

:^)

They never genocided everyone

The most spanishy and least native one is probably cuba
But they got gommunism

The UK had other colonies besides Canada, the US, Australia, SA and NZ. Take a look at Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, etc. - I'd rather choose to live in one of Spain's former colonies than in those shitholes

It all just proves that it depends on who is living in the designated area.

And when they don't, this is what happens.

The least native one is Cuba but it's filled with nogs that worked the sugar plantations.

Argentina was pretty succesful 100 years ago but for some reason they slided away

basically cherrypicking

they killed most natives and never mixed with the remaining.

Cuban injuns got genocided during the early stages of the colonization. They only have mulattoes and blacks.

says the country that created Haiti

>european
>colonies

First Post Best Post
FPBP

White British colonies are successful, and white Spanish colonies are successful.

The colonizer is irrelevant; all that matters is the white percentage of the colony which directly determines whether or not it's a shithole.

Uruguay is a Spanish colony that's successful because it's white. Australia is a British colony that's successful because it's white.

Nigeria is a British colony that's unsuccessful because it's nonwhite. Honduras is a Spanish colony that's unsuccessful because it's nonwhite.

...

Killed most the natives

Difference is South America is still shitty despite being descended from the Spanish. India and Africa meanwhile have little to no actual English settlement besides South Africa and Rhodesia (RIP)

not an argument

white enclaves in Mexico, like Amish colonies, are significantly less shittier in literally every way than nonwhite parts of Mexico.

To be fair our east asian colonies are doing alright

east asians are an exception to the rule of course. they have high IQs and long-term planning and thinking skills.

the same isn't true for former colonials in places like Africa or the Caribbean

I'm mocking you not making an argument /pole dancer

not an argument

re-investment

No shit sherlock, if you want an argument try

> Despite being descended from the Spanish

Most of Latin American countries natives and mestizos are most of their population. There are few countries which have a pure Spanish heritage. Maybe Cuba, even though is a communist prison.

but africa, india blah blah etc

not an argument

Cuba, prior to communism, had a GDP per capita equivalent to Italy. It's sad what potential was decimated.

It actually is a good argument.
Maybe there are other things to consider and you are being so narrow minded to just see one

Occupied Korea and Japan should be listed as at least under partial influence considering they're essentially US protectorates.

Italy was a shithole back then and Cuba was a poverty shithole owned by mobsters and American plantation businesses

Only in the settler colonies. The others were neglected and pretty much only for resources explosion and nothing more forgoing development policies seen in settler colonies.

Good policy makes good countries.

Argentina was top tier in 1900.

Argentina has pure spanish heritage, and italian of course

*pure amerindian
and that's why we are so shit

The most successful part of the US is California which was spanish

>everyone forgets the dutch build New-York

lol japan was the empire that kicked europoors out of asia pacific in the first place, idiot

>home country gets occupied by germans
>thinks we care about colonies

How aren't you at least in the european sphere of influence when you have cities founded by portugueses and this

>be dutch
>drown

Common Law, and the elevation of the individual over the authority of the state.

>California meme that Hollywood fed to foreigners
Cali is successful due to three things only.
High population
Tech Industry
Movie Industry (Which has gone extremely far down since it's hay day)

The money is controlled by people in New York, and the surrounding areas for the most part.
If you don't believe me then look up where most large American companies HQs are.

Spanish colonies relied on an economic system of total exploitation with the majority of the population (mestizos) slaving at the bottom of the hierarchy

British colonies relied on developing and caring for their colonies through proper governance, they obviously didn't do that for us though because we were worse when we declared independence because of English rule

>Hollywood
Without Hollywood your culture wouldn't be so predominant today.

Hollywood is litteraly what made the US the cultural titan that it is now.
Plus as you said, high techs, Facebook, Apple Microsoft and Google are the most powerful thing there is in the world.

If you want to talk about the HQ being in New York it's only because it's the place where business is made, not where things happen. And even if you want to say that, reminder it is the New Amsterdam.

Spain just wanted to get rich, and Britain wanted to actually colonize.

Besides, the US isnt very British

Where the business is is where the power is.
The people making the decisions are the people who control the money.
California is just a convenient stomping ground due to it already having the existing infrastructure. Now that technology has advanced enough movies are moving away from Cali. Louisiana has surpassed them for movies already.

>tfw people unironically believe this

It's true. The Spanish were only interested in gold, coco and the fruits of the Amazon

In North America exotic resources like this where scarce so in order to make these colonies profitable the British actually had to develop these regions

Its true, Spain only wanted to spread religion and get money back to the mainland.

British colonies only started flourishing when the British GTFO

Spanish colonies went to hell when we left

Spain had to develop theirs too to gather the resources.
A lot of what made the thirteen colonies stand out was ideas of self-determination. That with hard work they could have a better life, and many of them got that better life.

The difference between the thirteen colonies, and various Spanish colonies was that the elite of the thirteen colonies payed tax to the crown, but didn't rely on the crown for much. They had a great deal of independence, and very little in the way of non-business ties to London.

Canada and Australia never BTFOd them fully

The US was literally only succsessful because they adopted common law and were > 90% anglo at the time of independence which meant more advanced tech, economic theory, etc... The US would be mexico if the founding fathers were spaniards.

The Spanish did not care as much for their colonies as the British, making them pay large amounts of taxes to Spain.

And no, the British colonies relied HEAVILY on the crown in order to survive. Otherwise there would not have been a revolution to begin with. The colonists still had a British identity, trying to be as British as possible. There was little self determination besides the ideas of religious freedom. Land had to be offered in large amounts in order to convince people to come over.

yeah, and japan was fighting trillions of chinese at the same time as well.

just because portugueses were allowed to have a trading port in japan by courtesy of some christian daimyo's brotherhood doesn't mean you people exercised influence on japan. it's the same thing as japanese corporations having lots of factories and logistic bases in europe and the US and yet no japanese considers it to be an exercise of influence. as for ww2, it's not european prowess that defeated the japanese empire as the pic shows. japan singlehandedly fought 20+ million of foes consisted of asians, europeans, americans and all that, and the primary opponent wasn't even europeans.

Everytime i see pictures there arent many blacks.
10% ish?

t. Tao Lin

The reason is ourselves, and muh peronism.

Yes Tao Lin, from the successful British colonies of Singapore and Hong Kong :^)

noice

Hollywood is in California so it's not British.

The actually succesful British colonies are the ones which were massively colonized by Europeans and where the native population was massacred.
Any ex-colony from any country were natives are the majority are shit. Same for British ones.

well, things changed

this is the real answer

>British colonies relied on developing and caring for their colonies through proper governance, they obviously didn't do that for us

Then didn't do that for pretty much any colony bro barring the settler ones.

Ever heard of cash crop marketing boards?