4 ms·
The interesting thing is that as far as colonists go, I think the Brits were the best there were. Better be colonized by them than by the Portuguese, French, S
by dhbradshaw 8y ago
The interesting thing is that as far as colonists go, I think the Brits were the best there were. Better be colonized by them than by the Portuguese, French, Spanish, etc in terms of your subsequent national success.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> The interesting thing is that as far as colonists go, I think the Brits were the best there were. Better be colonized by them than by the Portuguese, French, Spanish, etc in terms of your subsequent national success. Outside of India and a couple other examples, though, the “subsequent national success” is of the ex-British colonists, not the colonized people, who are destroyed or marginalized inside what was once their land.
- dhbradshaw 8y agoI'm thinking more of Africa, where you had the colonies side by side. On average, the British colonies did better. And, probably because they were already hardened to disease, the natives tended to stick around and keep their land more.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> I'm thinking more of Africa, where you had the colonies side by side. They were side by side in the Americas, too. And while, yeah, disease was a problem for the indigenous people everywhere in the Americas, not all the colonial powers carried out genocidal displacement campaigns starting in the colonial period and lasting well beyond.