Why are non-Anglos so bad at colonisation?

Why are non-Anglos so bad at colonisation?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_Island_Concentration_Camp
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardo_O'Higgins
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Brown_(admiral)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick's_Battalion
youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>be anglo
>don't genocide the Abos
Uhhhh....

Every other race that has tried to colonize either has left to much of the local population alive i.e. the dutch in Indonesia or has bred with the local population far too much i.e. the spanish in south america.

probably because the british stole their colonies

The French are extremely incompetent.
The Portuguese and Spanish were only interested in short term gain, didn't look at the long run.
Dutch are too cheap
Krauts and Wops were too busy being divided at home to get any good colonies
Nordics never tried hard enough
Russia only had to walk east for colonies, no real incentive to go anywhere
Japs were only modernized for a short time

Because only anglos are unhuman enough to genocide the entire native populations. Your countries are built on crimes against humanity

>implying krauts and wops didn't do that exact thing

No need to be mad because you were not good at it.

Because we don't genocide.

>the French conquest of Algeria reduced the original population from 3 million by a figure ranging from 500,000 to 1,000,000.

Don't sell yourself short Pierre

it would have been unfeasible to kill everyone in indonesia lmao
indonesians would probably kill every dutchmen before that happened

same with india

I'm always fascinated by Latin America. What a fucking hot mess the Spanish and Portuguese made.

Mudslimes managed to kill millions of Hindoos in India, it could be done Pajeet.

Yeah.. that's what you think... now...

Do you see any red spanish colony?

and then they popped up again
the eternal hindu can not stop popping out kids, winston knew this

and a lot of muslims ended up dying in those incursions as well, usually the populace was just converted to islam

They fucked it up by creating a race of mestizo/mulatto subhumans. They should have taken the Anglo path and opted for majority genocide, and then they would have had the chance of being successful.

And I'm allways fascinated at your stupidity.
Most of our shitholes became shitholes after becoming independent nations, mine for example, wasn't even a thing before independence.

>be anglo
>create america
>get your ass kicked by america
>create Australia by sending all prisoners here
>they built a country better than uk
>become an indian colony to overcome your shittyness
Yeah, nah m8.

Whose alphabet fo you think you are using ?

>Be American
>Genocide Amerindians instead of niggers

>Be American
>Put the last Amerindians into reserves where they live like shit

>Be American
>Strike because a nigger was beaten up by a policeman because he chimped out

>Be American
>Strike because people from 7 dangerous countries which produce jihadists are rightfully banned to enter in the US

>Be American
>Call it a "Muslim ban" (that is a hoax), while the biggest muslim countries like Indonesia, Pakistan or Egypt are still allowed in the US

>Be American
>Protect niggers and Arabs and massacre the Amerindians

Couldn't have made it. Too little people. We needed population FAST. Remember that Portuguese/Spanish colonisation happened 200 years before Anglo/French, and we had way less access to better crops and a lot weaker technology. Portugal was charting the West coast of Africa in 1420.

By the time Brits rolled into the scene, they could easily make and fill 10-15 ships with men and women and children. We went to India on 4 or 5 gunships each time, same with Brazil.

Portugal had barely 1m people, to England's 6 or what was it, and we were spread very very thin. Heck, there's even some evidence suggesting that we had found Canada and possibly Australia but couldn't colonise it properly because they were empty, so we left the place in secret so nobody would come and steal it.

If you're the first, you'r bound to make mistakes.

>>get your ass kicked by america

nice revisionism

This.
Spanish colonis
Less shitty colonies.

the germans were better

>the germans were better

yeah, they're colonies ar esof ucking good

they unironically were, namibia is one of the best and most stable african nations and doesn't even have strained race relations despite being forced under the apartheid umbrella.
their problem was that they arrived too late to the colonial race and then had everything taken off them after the first world war.

The English got lucky, their successful colonies were in sparsely populated areas. They had plenty of shit in Africa that ended up as bigger failures than the French colonies and Guyana is by far the worst South American colony, which is an achievement in its own right.

I agree, all three groups should be massacred.

>i-it's just luck!!1!

France would have been just as successful if they hung onto their north american colonies or western australia

>Be Russia
>European nations are currently in a race to take as much land around the world as possible
>Colonises some frozen wasteland
>"Cyka blyat dere's noh warm water port here comrade, we must keep searching"
>Goes further east
>colonises Alaska
>Does fuck all with it for nearly 150 years
>Sells it to the US

I guess you can't lose the colonial race if you never even entered lmoa

No

And anyway we had larger colonies in North America than England, but the English took it because they were stronger.

I'm not debating that last part

>he does'nt colonise countries without losing a single person
>he does'nt do it descretely

Also, I should ad that with France, you wouldn't have capitalism and a market economy and an industrialized country. France was still an agricultural country until 1900.
You should be happy for having being colonized by the English. With France at best you would have finish like Reunion.

australia was an agricultural and mining backwater until the 20th century, it wouldn't have made much difference

God's own people and so on

>Namibia
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_Island_Concentration_Camp

>Experiments on live prisoners were made by Dr Bofinger, who injected Herero that were suffering from scurvy with various substances including arsenic and opium; afterwards he researched the effects of these substances via autopsy.
>The captured women were forced to boil heads of their dead inmates (some of whom may have been their relatives or acquaintances) and scrape remains of their skin and eyes with shards of glass, preparing them for examinations by German universities.

wew lad

Guyana is pretty shit but surely it's not the worst

>hung onto their north american colonies
Which they couldn't do, they needed money from an exhausting European war thanks to Napoleon. This is also why the Spanish ceded Florida to the US in 1819, the colonial territories were just too far away from Europe to defend from a nation that has set up shop there. The only country that could have had a chance at taking control of the Mississippi basin from the US was Mexico.

because our countries were good enough to have people fleeing from them

this tbqhwyf
Brits were the best colonizers.

>brits colonise the world
>yanks colonise mars/solar system
the eternal anglo wins again

>Belgium isn't a thing

Nope. The French were the worst colonizers.

With colonies, you can either keep the local population and install a ruling elite, like in India or Africa. Or, you can integrate / override the natives by out-populating them with your people. Like in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.

The french had no such concept of outpopulation of the natives and thus, they ruled by fear, and eventually lost everything bar a few islands.

Irrelevant.
It'd more useful the wealth when they were under colonial control
All countries who has been Spanish colonies have problem with drugs, crime and corruption

>British African colonies
>install a ruling elite
yeah, in South Africa (that's a shitfest all its own)
basically everywhere else that the Brits colonized in Africa, they used as nothing but resource. Once the locals started getting mad and demanding that the colonists left, they made what is probably one of the biggest fuckups in human history:
let all the people with skills (that are useable in a euro-style civilization) just pack up and leave, then tell the natives "here, have a country that you have to share with some people who you may or may not think are demons. Try not to fuck it up, and we'll send some money every once in a while bye".
This unleased disastrous effects upon their former colonies, and only a few managed to become even somewhat stable nations today
Basically, Britain had a chance to make Africa a lot less of a shithole than it is today, but they fucked it up.

Because staying and actually developing a colony to actually be nation is pretty much a huge ass burden on the UK on top of the fact that the criteria for when it's ready and how it's ready can be easily shifted to the UK's whim.

South Africa is a shithole, yet it preserves some elements of Europia, which it is why it is among the most succesful African Nations (which says a lot about Africa). Places like Nigeria or Egypt have just tanked it completely

Also, Cold War politics and Pan-African Nationalism outstripped colonialism. There were many cases in Africa of the US and the USSR funding opposing militas to take over the Colonial government before the other does. Rhodesia is an example.

Lets not mention the Germans raping local women and no punishment especially when local leaders went to the colonial authorities (since "boys will be boys", "it's Africa bitch" and "I'm horny, no white woman wants to give me the time of day an you are a Negress aka nothing"), stealing all the land from the locals and all their cattle, enslaving them, a colonial society organization that was legit honest to God batshit evil such as suggesting many horrific things such as "1 white testimony is equal to 4-7 black ones".

Fucking 30 years and this shit already escalates and they were gonna probably do other shit nearly just as bad because form the looks of it how that colonial society went and the borderline genocidal organization I mentioned alongside settler entitlement complex they probably were gonna put them in reserves

Because Anglos are genetically predisposed to bloodthirstiness and savagery, they are truly a scourge on mankind.

Idk if its the worst but we have to send my uncle non-perishable items in barrels every one or two years.

I don't know why a country in south America needs to import so much food

>which it is why it is among the most succesful African Nations (which says a lot about Africa).

Because South Africa actually got investment for development you idiot (even if it's only for 1 small minority) and they had cheap barely any rights laborers to get rich off of. If you bother to read about the colonial economies it's so blatant that they'd be vastly in most instances basket cases.

>euro sissies killing entire martial race bred for killing
>could be done without resulting in lose-lose situation

...

Where am I disagreeing with you?

Because user Guyana has limited farm land and the current farm land is under strain. Also jungles so much fucking jungles and not much going for the place to be frank.

Italy is excused from this because they colonized you millenias ago.

Latin America was fine for a long time. Modern liberal democratic ideals just don't work in Latin America because we're full of criminal savages. Europe will find out that Liberal democracy doesn't work with Muslims either.

Sorry. I meant human rights (TM) not democracy. Though it still applies. monarch fags are cucks.

Did you know Latin American countries became independent thanks to Irish people.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardo_O'Higgins
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Brown_(admiral)
They even helped Mexico out during the Mexican American war and were responsible for the toughest battles encountered by the United States in its invasion of Mexico, with Ulysses S. Grant remarking that "Churubusco proved to be about the severest battle fought in the valley of Mexico"
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick's_Battalion

>all those red colonies
>but muh superpowers

jesus christ, are anglos the most deluded pieces of shit in this world?

Bullshit it works in many parts of Asia and Africa Latin America is no exception. Saying shit like that guarantees you will fail you little bitch

>monarch fags are cucks
> Brazil
>Cucks
geg

Maybe you're right, I hope you are. But Latin America has been in shit for so long I don't know anymore.


>kissing the monarch's ass when monarch from another country

>Yeah, nah m8.

>typing like a working class Brit
>visiting an English speaking imageboard
>typing in and bothering to learn English

We've already won.

The last time Brazil was stable was under a monarchy.

There is not one stable, successful nation that isn't a constitutional monarchy. Prove me wrong.
>Protip: you can;t

no you didn't, the americans did.

"m8" is literally a way to mock the way you speak.

The Industrial Revolution is the single greatest achievement that mankind has done, and it could have only have happened in the UK at that particular period in time which meant we forged ahead in colonising with superior technology. France and Spain were still scrabbling about trying to pull their knickers back up.

You're right. I can't. touche. But you still have to go fuck yourself.

>continuing to type in English
>sucking off Americans

We've definitely won.

>Stable

Brazil has been an established country for longer than most of Europe.

>Mfw they're buying our blue jeans and listening to our pop music

Is there a sweeter victory than Culture victory?

>continuing to type in English
you spelt "American" wrong, buddy.

>sucking off Americans
we don't, it just so happens that their media and culture contaminates the entire world because their kikes control virtually everything.

He gets it.
He doesn't.

Dilma, the Head of State, was impeached not even a year ago and you call that "stable"?? You ARRRE a dumb nigger aren't you?

You mean american speaking imageboard?
t. bought $140 oil from frozen wastelands because abbos again stole his gas

The UK and America continue to vie for top spot with soft power and cultural dominance. We've already won, both of us.

Let's listen to some great British popular music.

youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

>You mean american speaking imageboard?

We can thank the Americans and British for the internet, and we can thank a Brit for the World Wide Web. You're welcome, m8. Continue to type in English to show your appreciation for us.

Do you understand that you are even more pathetic than "we wuz" niggers because the only thing you have is a language. Do you guys Pentagon to invent internet there?

Brazil is not even close to being a failed state you retarded bogan

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Fragile_States_Index

oh yeah, we mold our lives according to your music's lyrics and whatnot.
you're right.

we speak american, whether you like it or not.

did I say "failed".
Quit doubling down and cop it.
Brazil may not be a failed state, but it certainly isn't stable.

>but it certainly isn't stable.

It is by Latin American standards though, kek

We dont buy frozen wasteland oil, in fact, no ones buying your oil last I checked as your fucking economy is in shambles and the Russian strategic reserve is expected to be depleted this year. Russia will have no money.

Literally, no, money.

But its worth it because frozen wasteland oil right.

Since when prosecution of corrupt politicians is a sign of instability?

read 'Civilization: The West vs The Rest' by Niall Fergusson

Markets, finance, administration, rule of law, laissez faith economics and above all trade

>It is by Latin American standards though, kek

I mean, you can say whatever you want, our countries are quite stable and have been for longer than most of Europe and your country.

>Latin American standards
lmao, not very high standards.
> A head of state being impeached
> Stable

>This negro getting mad

Tell me again Juan, when was the last time your country or it's neighbours had a literal dictator in charge? Kek

>nobody is buying oil
Well we are the second biggest exporter in the world. Maybe it's a hard thing to understand with your abbo mind but you can google statistics and see it yourself.
>economy is in shambles
it was always like this so no surprise
>no money
Well, if we are the second biggest expo in the world we will find something. I'm sure.
>frozen wasteland
Oil industry made them the richest regions in Russia. People here are quite happy about their homeland. It's not very hard to understand if 80% of your country is blazing desert

That's wrong, having a head of State step down peacefully through legal process only proves the strength of national institutions, which is a reflection of stability.

the last time we had a dictator, half of the european countries didn't exist.

I once met a girl from Guyana, I was surprised cause she was pretty pale and not black.

>it's actually true

holy fuck

>his country had a dictator

Spanish colonies, not even once

>head of State
That is the equivalent to the Queen stepping down.

A real test is how it happened in the first place.... Oh yeah, Brazil is a corrupt and unstable nation from the bottom to the very top.

>his country literally never ceased to have a dictator

There is no evidence of German raping the women, they're not anglos they have some standards.

because we have souls and dont abuse other peoples

You're a drooling retard.

I need some pretty Xiaomeimeis for Valentines Day.