Anti-French violence in Ivory Coast.

[Lunar]

Note I'm mostly talking about the colonization period.  So North America, South America, and Australia don't count, heh.

In terms of stability countries like Cote D'Ivoire, Benin, Gabon, Cameroun, Niger and Madagascar had been doing pretty well.

If you read the first post of the thread, I think that already covers the Ivory Coast (same thing as Cote d'Ivoire).
Gabon and Cameroon are loaded with natural resources (Gabon is in OPEC).
Niger and Madgascar pk, but there aren't great.  Stability is ok, but the countries are among some of the poorest in Africa.

My point was that the most successful colonies have been British while some of the worst have been French (and Belgian).  Hell, look at the Caribbean.  The Bahamas - British.  Jamaica - British.  Haiti - French.  If you compare former colonies in similar regions and situations, you'll see the British ones doing universally better with some British ones, like Singapore, challenging the US in per capita income.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They screwed up Indonesia pretty big (Japan helped during WW2).  Then they wouldn't give it up.  However, Indonesia is doing alright.

[Jens]

Note I'm mostly talking about the colonization period.  So North America, South America, and Australia don't count, heh.

I suppose you mean the age of imperialism. The problem is that the stable former British colonies (I don't deny that these exsist) all were founded/conquered/stolen/bought for a pearl necklace before 1830 when France restarts her colonial adventures

My point was that the most successful colonies have been British while some of the worst have been French (and Belgian).  Hell, look at the Caribbean.  The Bahamas - British.  Jamaica - British.  Haiti - French.  If you compare former colonies in similar regions and situations, you'll see the British ones doing universally better with some British ones, like Singapore, challening the US in per capita income.

Those former colonies are bad comperations. Haiti gained her independence in 1804 as the only island colony (the only other island to gain independence in the same century was Dominican Republic in 1821/1844) a long time before the French state became democratic and would have the capacity to implement fair juridical and govermental structures. Those French colonies that would have been compareable, Guadaloupe and Martinique are now a part of France, thus unable a comperation.

Singapore and Malaysia has be succes stories in the later years as has Vietnam. On the other hand Burma hosts one of the most oppressive governments in Asia and Laos and Cambodia are dirth poor countries.

In Africa I have already mentioned relatively stable former French colonies. Countries like Uganda fostered rulers like Idi Amin and Kenya Daniel arab Moi. Nigeria has been nothing but trouble since independence, waisting the countrys enormous wealth on nothing. Sudan has been in civil war the last 25 years, Zimbabwe is ruled by a madman who took over after a bunch of delirious men who though that they could create their own little haven called Rhodesia. The solutions inplemented by the British in South Africa gave birth to the sick apartheid regime, the only dominion that did not became democratic.
Both the Briths and the French did bad things. Non was above the other.

[freek]

They screwed up Indonesia pretty big (Japan helped during WW2).  Then they wouldn't give it up.  However, Indonesia is doing alright.

Suriname is also a nice example. They got complete self-government after WWII, in the 1970s the pro-independence governments got a small majority in the Surinamese parliament. Since the Netherlands at that time were ruled by the most leftist government in Dutch history, they were very eager to give Suriname its independence. As a result more than half of the Surinamese population decided to move to the Netherlands, since they all had a Dutch passport. Even now there are more Surinams here than in Suriname. And they were absolutely right to come here. Suriname is a mess.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm intentionally excluding some countries, like Australia, from the comparison since it would be unfair.

Singapore and Malaysia has be succes stories in the later years as has Vietnam. On the other hand Burma hosts one of the most oppressive governments in Asia and Laos and Cambodia are dirth poor countries.

Vietnam still isn't a success story.  Its government is still oppressive

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both sides have seriously messed up ex-colonies, I've never denied this.  But if you look at the success stories, you can see which country set the better framework:

(up until 1983), every single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all of the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.

I think you're taking too much offense.  All I'm saying is that the British were a bit better at being imperalistic dehumanizing bastards, heh.

[Jens]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm intentionally excluding some countries, like Australia, from the comparison since it would be unfair.

My point wasn't to exclude countries like Australia and Canada. My point is that most of the former British colonies that enjoys stability today was colonised before 1830. Malaysia was colonised from 1786 (Penang)and united in 1896, Singapore in 1819, Cape Province in 1795, Jamaica in 1655, India from 1619. Britain had the time to establish government structures in these colonies and a local intelligentia appeared. British colonies establised after 1830 hasn't showed any better performance that the French colonies, with the exception of Botswana (where BDP has won every election ever helt).

Singapore and Malaysia has be succes stories in the later years as has Vietnam. On the other hand Burma hosts one of the most oppressive governments in Asia and Laos and Cambodia are dirth poor countries.

Vietnam still isn't a success story.  Its government is still oppressive

The governments of Malaysia and Singapore are only slightly better. Democratic they ain't

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both sides have seriously messed up ex-colonies, I've never denied this.  But if you look at the success stories, you can see which country set the better framework:

(up until 1983), every single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all of the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.

I disagree with this. Senegal being the prime example. South Korea another. What the British acomplised where especially the Dutch failed were to establish structure, people with knowledge and a regulated tranfer of power

I think you're taking too much offense.  All I'm saying is that the British were a bit better at being imperalistic dehumanizing bastards, heh.

Not taking offence. I just don't like conclutions from history being drawn with the intent of portraing somebody as the better and I'm sick and tired of the anti-french sentiment some people have (not you, Lunar ;-) )

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm intentionally excluding some countries, like Australia, from the comparison since it would be unfair.

My point wasn't to exclude countries like Australia and Canada. My point is that most of the former British colonies that enjoys stability today was colonised before 1830. Malaysia was colonised from 1786 (Penang)and united in 1896, Singapore in 1819, Cape Province in 1795, Jamaica in 1655, India from 1619. Britain had the time to establish government structures in these colonies and a local intelligentia appeared. British colonies establised after 1830 hasn't showed any better performance that the French colonies, with the exception of Botswana (where BDP has won every election ever helt).[

So...the reason why Singapore is doing so well is because it was founded 11 years earlier?

Singapore and Malaysia has be succes stories in the later years as has Vietnam. On the other hand Burma hosts one of the most oppressive governments in Asia and Laos and Cambodia are dirth poor countries.

Vietnam still isn't a success story.  Its government is still oppressive

You must be logged in to read this quote.

0% of Singapore's population is below the international poverty line.
This is compared to 37% of Vietnam's

Slight difference.

Singapore is an ok democracy, with an elected Prime Minister and President.  Its power is a bit consolidated, but comparing it to Vietnam is a bit absurd.

Both sides have seriously messed up ex-colonies, I've never denied this.  But if you look at the success stories, you can see which country set the better framework:

(up until 1983), every single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all of the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't remember if South Korea was democratic by 1983.  Nevertheless, it didn't emerge with a "continuous democratic experience" as my book was referring to.

I don't know about Senegal.

I still stand by my statement that Britain didn't screw up their colonies as badly and the old French colonial policy is the reason for much strife in the world today.

[Jens]

So...the reason why Singapore is doing so well is because it was founded 11 years earlier?

You miss my point. 1830 was the year France conquered the first city in Algeria. Most of the countrys colonies wasn't founded until after 1884 (look at the list I provided in a earlier reply)

0% of Singapore's population is below the international poverty line.
This is compared to 37% of Vietnam's

Slight difference.

Singapore is an ok democracy, with an elected Prime Minister and President.  Its power is a bit consolidated, but comparing it to Vietnam is a bit absurd.

Singapore has been ruled by the same family since independence. Opposition parties has no fair change in elections and in many instances the government is oppresive, but yes economically they are during fine
Vietnam is not a free country but neither is Singapore, it's partly free

I can't remember if South Korea was democratic by 1983.  Nevertheless, it didn't emerge with a "continuous democratic experience" as my book was referring to.

If you insist on the term "continuous democratic experience" only Botswana, Jamaica, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and US) fulfills that definition. Not even India has had a continuous democracy (Indira Gandhi's regime 1975-1977)