Anti-French violence in Ivory Coast.

[Mr. Fresh]

OK, I'm not disputing that the Brits were better than the French, I was just pointing out two colonies that were...well not in a good position.    I guess I did it just to annoy you...I dunno. 

[Lunar]

OK, I'm not disputing that the Brits were better than the French, I was just pointing out two colonies that were...well not in a good position.    I guess I did it just to annoy you...I dunno. 

I also don't dispute that the Brits screwed some places up, heh.  My original point was just expressing my annoyance with the French for screwing up most of Africa, Indochina, Haiti, etc. in the first place.

I'm not a fan of French-bashing in current political discourse, but history is fair game.

[??????????]

The greatest example of a british colonial sucess is right here. Good old USA. Except the British has terrible policies towards the Irish and Scots.

[Jens]

Former French colonies:

Africa:
Marocco (1912-1954)
Algeria (1830-1962)
Tunesia (1880-1956)
Mauritania (1904-1960)
Mali (1880-1960)
Niger (1900-1960)
Chad (1900-1960)
Senegal (1638(1758), 1779(1809) 1816-1960)
Guinea (1849-1958)
Cote D'Ivoire (1843-1960)
Burkina Faso (1890-1960)
Togo (1920-1960)
Benin (1671-1960)
Central African Republic (1887-1960)
Cameroun (1920-1960)
Gabon (1839-1960)
Congo (Brazzaville) (1880-1960)
Madagascar (1886-1960)
Djibouti (1862-1977)

Rest of the world:

Vietnam (1862, 1883-1954)
Laos (1893-1954)
Cambodia (1863-1654)
Haiti (1697-1804)
Canada (1603-1763)
Louisiana (1682-1763, 1800-1803)
Syria (1920-1944)
Lebanon (1920-1944)

In terms of democracy, only Canada, Senegal and Louisiana has a long term history, but Senegal is along with Botswana the countries with the longest democratic governments in Africa. In terms of stability countries like Cote D'Ivoire, Benin, Gabon, Cameroun, Niger and Madagascar had been doing pretty well.
Unlike the British the French colonies where establised during a relativly short periode of time. France lost most of her colonies in North America and India after the Pressian 7-years war and during the Napoleonic wars. The colonial empire of 1939 was aquired from 1830 (Algir) to 1920 (Syria) and cannot be described as the most valuable parts of the world (most of the African possesions where dessert or jungle). Unlike the British France kept a serious commitment (with US blessings) in most of her former African colonies. The most important effort was the CFA-franc, a currency attached to the Franc (and today to the Euro) and used by most former colonies south of the Sahara.
Those former colonies that kept the strong coorporation with France (including visits from La Legion Etrangere if there was trouble) has enjoyed a fairly stable ride since independence, with fewer coups, fewer civil wars and no communist or socialist regimes (countries like Mali, Guinea and Congo-Brazzaville detached themselves from French influence before becomming "socialist")

[Maastricht]

The french colonies ... I think there's problems nearly everywhere. But the worse is Belgian ones : Congo (it was Zaire something about four years ago), Rwanda and Brundi (remember 1994) ...

Now please don't forget UN have already troops there.

But french presidents, well no, gaullist ones, do things like if France has still its colonies, here's the result ...

Note that the ex-British colonies are much more democratic and less screwed up.

Yes, bust most of them have oil ... There's nearly nothing in Centrafrica (is it the name in english btw ?), Niger, etc. Except Iraq, there's also problems in Sudan isnt'it ?

In terms of democracy, only Canada, Senegal and Louisiana has a long term history, but Senegal is along with Botswana the countries with the longest democratic governments in Africa. In terms of stability countries like Cote D'Ivoire, Benin, Gabon, Cameroun, Niger and Madagascar had been doing pretty well.
Unlike the British the French colonies where establised during a relativly short periode of time. France lost most of her colonies in North America and India after the Pressian 7-years war and during the Napoleonic wars. The colonial empire of 1939 was aquired from 1830 (Algir) to 1920 (Syria) and cannot be described as the most valuable parts of the world (most of the African possesions where dessert or jungle). Unlike the British France kept a serious commitment (with US blessings) in most of her former African colonies. The most important effort was the CFA-franc, a currency attached to the Franc (and today to the Euro) and used by most former colonies south of the Sahara.
Those former colonies that kept the strong coorporation with France (including visits from La Legion Etrangere if there was trouble) has enjoyed a fairly stable ride since independence, with fewer coups, fewer civil wars and no communist or socialist regimes (countries like Mali, Guinea and Congo-Brazzaville detached themselves from French influence before becomming "socialist")

Madagascar isn't that good : I rememebr there were hundreds of murdrs just two or three years ago. About the CFA-Franc now ... It's ... well... pityful ... If you're a tourist in one of those countries, you'd better pay in euro, nearly nobody would accept CFA-Franc.

About the countries which detached themselves from France, ther's also Chad, Mauritania and Niger.

Btw excuse me for my poor level of english

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Paris will be speaking African before this is over no doubt.

So the French are going to be inventing a new language?

(I get what you're saying though)

[True Federalist]

The french colonies ... I think there's problems nearly everywhere. But the worse is Belgian ones : Congo (it was Zaire something about four years ago), Rwanda and Brundi (remember 1994) ...

The problems with the former Belgian and Portugese colonies are largely due to the fact that not only did the colonial powers make no provision for decolonization, they didn't even envisage local autonomy as the British and French generally did to one degree or another.  The locals had no recent practical experience in self-givernance at any level and it caused problems.  Africa has been ill-served also by the general insistence that the illogical colonial borders remain the international borders in the region.  Africa would be a better place today if the Katangan and Biafran secessions had succeeded.  The history of Africa in the '60's and 70's would be bloodier than it was, but as a whole Africa would be more stable and represenstative today than it is.

[??????????]

The Dutch also screwed up their fair share of colonies as well. Look at what they brought North America. Slavery.

[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.

The Dutch also screwed up their fair share of colonies as well. Look at what they brought North America. Slavery.

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]

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

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

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.

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]

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

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

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.

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]

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

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

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

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.

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 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)