2 ms·

Britain had to colonize the Americas or France and Spain would have without them. It would take another 200 years for the empire to fully collapse. It’s hard to

Britain had to colonize the Americas or France and Spain would have without them. It would take another 200 years for the empire to fully collapse. It’s hard to say colonization was a net negative just because of America’s independence. Further it seems much less likely the populace would be so willing to send aide to Britain during WWI if it weren’t for the cultural similarities. If instead Spain had colonized the US it seems very likely the country would have remained neutral as Spain did.

ben_w 7y ago
Spain did colonise much of what is now the USA. That’s why it’s “Los Angeles” and “San Francisco”. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperios_Español_y_Portugués_1790.svg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperios_Español_y...
- krapp 7y ago
  And Louisiana was French.
wongarsu 7y ago
My gut feeling would say colonization was a net positive to Britain, but it's hard to say. It's just too big of a what-if. The US would have likely gone to France, their main rival at the time. On the other hand Britain spend a lot of resources on their US colonies, both building them and fighting France in America. Who knows what else they could have with those resources. It's not just the US either. India was a profitable colony at the time but might turn out to be a major detriment to Britain overall, both as a source of cheap skilled labor and as a powerful nation of their own. Who knows what would have happened without the British. A lot of the borders in the Middle East are drawn by Britain as part of their WWI mandates/colonies, and the problems from how those borders were drawn spill over into Britain (yes, it's not the only problem in the Middle East by a long shot, but it's one of them). I still think overall Britain came out ahead (just look at Hong Kong for what cultural influence can do), but it's not hard to imagine how colonization might be seen as a net negative if a few times things turned out even slightly worse.

ben_w 7y ago

Spain did colonise much of what is now the USA. That’s why it’s “Los Angeles” and “San Francisco”. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperios_Español_y_Portugués_1790.svg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperios_Español_y...

krapp 7y ago
And Louisiana was French.

wongarsu 7y ago

My gut feeling would say colonization was a net positive to Britain, but it's hard to say. It's just too big of a what-if. The US would have likely gone to France, their main rival at the time. On the other hand Britain spend a lot of resources on their US colonies, both building them and fighting France in America. Who knows what else they could have with those resources. It's not just the US either. India was a profitable colony at the time but might turn out to be a major detriment to Britain overall, both as a source of cheap skilled labor and as a powerful nation of their own. Who knows what would have happened without the British. A lot of the borders in the Middle East are drawn by Britain as part of their WWI mandates/colonies, and the problems from how those borders were drawn spill over into Britain (yes, it's not the only problem in the Middle East by a long shot, but it's one of them). I still think overall Britain came out ahead (just look at Hong Kong for what cultural influence can do), but it's not hard to imagine how colonization might be seen as a net negative if a few times things turned out even slightly worse.