DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**JonDopl** · 10-04-2010, 06:18 AM

Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique, Iraq....Pakistan, Malawi...

You hand pick a few good examples, but a few are inapropriate:

Zimbabwe- it did very very well as Rhodesia even after British rule as long as Whites ran the country.

Mozambique- Portugese

Iraq- was only British for 1921-1932. The British did no worse than the Ottomans in ruling those lands.

Tanzania- was German untill WW1, and Zanizibar was ruled by Arabs (untill the Africans slaughtered them all). But its a much better example of your point than the above.

I'm not saying everywhere the British boot trod paradise ushered, what I'm saying is that on average peoples and lands where better off being conquered by the British than by say the Belgians, the Ottomans or the Japanese.

This is why I won't bother talking about British succes stories like Singapur, Hong Kong, Jamaica and South Africa (the last two are great sucess stories compared to nearly all African majority lands). I will bother talking about how on average their colonies are today better of in number of people, quality of life, rule of law and GDP.

I'm very suprised no one has pointed out the most obvious criticism on my position. Britain was a great superpower. It took the best lands for itself, so of course ex-British colonies do better than average.

10-04-2010, 06:18 AM	#16
JonDopl Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 446 Senior Member	Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique, Iraq....Pakistan, Malawi... You hand pick a few good examples, but a few are inapropriate: Zimbabwe- it did very very well as Rhodesia even after British rule as long as Whites ran the country. Mozambique- Portugese Iraq- was only British for 1921-1932. The British did no worse than the Ottomans in ruling those lands. Tanzania- was German untill WW1, and Zanizibar was ruled by Arabs (untill the Africans slaughtered them all). But its a much better example of your point than the above. I'm not saying everywhere the British boot trod paradise ushered, what I'm saying is that on average peoples and lands where better off being conquered by the British than by say the Belgians, the Ottomans or the Japanese. This is why I won't bother talking about British succes stories like Singapur, Hong Kong, Jamaica and South Africa (the last two are great sucess stories compared to nearly all African majority lands). I will bother talking about how on average their colonies are today better of in number of people, quality of life, rule of law and GDP. I'm very suprised no one has pointed out the most obvious criticism on my position. Britain was a great superpower. It took the best lands for itself, so of course ex-British colonies do better than average.
	Quote