Why is britain the only country capable of creating a sustainable colony?

why is britain the only country capable of creating a sustainable colony?

Because the French and the Spaniards are a sad joke that's long worn out its welcome

what the fuck did i just say
meet me under the eiffel tower in 20, cunt

Didn't France go to space before UK itself tho

be at calais at 7am sharp and i'm going to fucking rock your jaw from here to timbuktu

>space
Anything to do with what he's talking about

Honestly its a bit unfair to say France and Spain are equally shit, Spain doesnt even come close to France.

...

The anglo juridicial system and social values have always above everything else valued meritocracy, competetion and freedom. As a result people who lived in anglo countries were born and were taught that to get anywhere in life you need to put some effort in, most other countries just had the idea that if they ate food every day and had a hole to fuck they were set

on average british colonies are shit

Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina turned out good

...

...

The clue is in the word colony. The lands Britons colonised themselves and built through hard work and shared values.

strange how the only good new world countries were british?

Also desestabilizing countries, starting coups, making foreign goverments puppets to benefict anglos, magnifying the diferences of every country to the point of making it break (look at catalonia),
Do you actually believe anglos are 100% innocent?

I believe it was mainly due to the different strategies each country employed in their approach to colonization.

The French were chiefly interested in trade, and so they put less effort into establishing permanent colonies, instead intending to create areas that would grant them economic prosperity. Later on they would shift their goal somewhat and more-so intend on making their controlled territories French in culture and character, which was not very successful.

The Spanish were focused on extracting all of the resources possible from their colonies. They did not view them as at all equal to the Spanish mainland, as they were more like great quarries and plantations than proper nations (most of the time). This method, while a huge boon in a brief time, is clearly not sustainable, and even the benefits actually dragged down Spain, as the immense influx of silver into the Spanish economy made inflation skyrocket.

The British system had the goal of making their colonies extensions of Britain in every aspect. They wanted to settle the land, not use it as a trade hub or a cornucopia of resources. They brought their people, and thus their culture, into their colonies, which created the most stability and sustainability.

Whats is the point of making decent colonies if UK is becoming a Pakistan ultra marine territory?

but that is the whole point you dumb monkey
we have backup countries for when we have to evacuate britain

i'll be in new zealand sweetie

>someone made this picture
>people will take this seriously

Why you're talking like UK is already a caliphate?

It's a Germanic thing. Look at the Dutch colonies in West India, they're in the same shape as Britain's. The same goes for the Dano-Norwegian colonies in the Atlantic Sea, the Swedish colonies in Finno-Ugric lands in northeastern Europe and the old German clay in Eastern Europe. Just take a look at East Prussia when it was under German versus when it's under Russian rule.

Why wouldn't you take it seriously? Most former French, Spanish, and continental European colonies are not very nice places nowadays. While the UK does have a lot if former colonies that are also not very nice places, it has a few that are among the nicest places anywhere. 4.03 of the top 10 GDPs on earth are the UK and former British colonies. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand can hold their own against the Nordics, BeNeLux states, and Switzerland in the running for best country on earth by almost any metric. How is it not obvious that Britain was far and away the best at forming successful colonies?

Because the Argentines all ran away to port when the Belgrano was sunk.

yes the picture is exaggerated through silly examples but it''s true
even british african colonies are more successful than their french equivalent

I heard the French have something similar to our Commonwealth Games, though it's a bit shit.

>ireland
>colony
fucking die

From all British colonies, only Hong Kong became rich as a result of being a colony of Britain, and it was a pure coincidence. Britain was involved in other wars and it had no resources to deal with Hong Kong, so they were left completely alone, Hong Kong had more economic and social freedom than even Britain did. The economic freedom is what made Hong Kong rich.

Australia and NZ became rich because of the US late in the 60s and 70s.

India had the misfortune to inherit the English bureaucracy that is choking their economy to this day.

SA has a lot of racial issues, although their geographical location serves them greatly, but they are very poor country.

Chile became rich in early 2000s thanks to implementing American inspired Capitalism and Free market policies.

America became rich because of capitalism and good limited government enshrined in the constitution crafted by revolutionary spirited founding fathers.

Yes it's called the Commonwealth Games. It's between one of our former colony (England) and several of its own colonies.

But we usually don't take part in it.

west brit

Give me one example of a french colony with only french people like the US at the beginning, Canada and NZ
>inb4 Québec
It's anglo since 200+ years

unironically triggered by this image, having a good ponder to myself about the rage that took place in pubs across england that night

just 4 years after the falklands too and get to away with such a despicable act on the big stage

>thinking South Africa is successful
>thinking Mandela is a good leader
You have to go back

That's not an argument though. If the British strategy for colonisation included removal of the native population and replacement by Brits that was a very effective strategy as evidenced by Can, Aus, NZ, and the USA. Nothing (except sometimes the Brits) was keeping France from doing the same.
Reality is that France gave up Québec and Acadia in favour of slave-filled west indie sugar plantations and sold almost one third of the USA to fill Napoleon's war chest. These were really bad ideas, even by the standards of the time. Plenty of French writers had been saying that Québec and Acadia could someday be worth a fortune and Louisiana was obviously worth a lot more than 3 cents per acre.

That's an argument though you piece of shit
You clearly implied that we couldn't make colonies because we're french, but if we actually filled those shithole with french people it would look like something

don't forget about Congo

the fact we can't give you an example only reinforces your failure

But they didn't do that, because they were French and weren't as good at colonisation as the Brits.

>is

So because they were french they were inherently bad at colonizing ? The fuck is this autism
how about the colonization of the dumb island you come from, moron

pierre is RAGING at the shortcomings of his ancestors

The Mexico pic always makes me laugh but what is wrong with that pic? It's the only non-negative non-anglo pic.

you can always tell someone's full of shit when they do the point by point rebutal thing

France colonized England and brought you civilization.

>monkey education
normans =/= french

meet me at calais port and ill dismantle your jaw from the ferry

If England isn't a French colony, then why are there still legal documents and laws written in French from this time that are still valid today?

Look it up. It's true.

bait

You will have to be more specific. I live near the ferry point bridge between St. Stephen, Canada and Calais, USA