Britain should have conquered the world
 

Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique, Iraq....

Germany...

The world would be a hell of a lot better, that's for damn sure!

http://empiretocommonwealth.webs.com/Misc/BE2JPEG.JPG

Pakistan, Malawi...

Sorry, but Mozambique was Portugal. Still, carry on.

Oh, and Nigeria...

Zimbabwe used to be a great country, back when it was Rhodesia. Or at least, it used to be able to feed itself and not die of cholera, which is a relative improvement.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gifhttp://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

I got it confused with Malawi. Carry on.

But Canada had Ben Kenobi....surely that would make Canada the worst.

1) I think there has been some whitewashing of their government by Western media due to the genocide. They may not be the worst actors in the region, but they have been caught playing with fraternal guerrilla groups in neighboring countries, and the government ****s with the opposition fairly regularly in undemocratic ways

2) When we're talking about the state of affairs in various colonies since liberation, it certainly is ignoring history to point at the last 15 years in Rwanda and think that somehow counts for anything near as much as the genocide itself

How does one account for colonies that changed hands? Like Namibia, Cameroon, Togo, or Tanzania, that went from German to British of French? Is the British finishing touch more important than the German foundation?

And should colonies that were made up mostly of actual European colonists (like Australia and NZ) be looked at the same was as Colonies where a foreign political power was imposed on an existing local system of rule? (Like India, Burma, the ME?)

I would posit that the fact Britain was rich and a state like Portugal wasn't would account for a lot of the development gap between the two. Not like the Portuguese state would be busy developing its colonies when it had a hard time developing its own core region.

We keep trying to put him in the post with a note to "return to sender" but they won't take him back. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/smug.gif

Canadian Postal service FTW.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/mad.gif

He'd always have something to piss and moan about.

He doesn't have any supporters in Canuckistan.




(Albertans don't count)

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.

Should have? We basically did.

Left behind all the **** bits.

A case of good governance indeed, if you don't pay attention to the authoritarian repressive regime effectively crushing every form of opposition. If you don't pay attention to the genocidal frenzies Kagame unleashed upon the fleeing hutu's (among which - of course - many génocidaires but a lot of innocent people as well) but most importantly if you don't pay attention to the horrible role he played in the Congolese war of the nineties (and noughties as well - in fact the conflict is still going on, albeit in a more covert way).

Kagame is an opportunist moneygrabbing powermongerer stealing whatever he can from other countries to fuel his economic expansion. While economic development is a commendable goal, it's not a good idea to wage war with your neighbour, overthrow its government and funding rebel groups in order to pillage and extort Congo's riches to boost said economic improvement.

Saying Rwanda is a case of good governance is nothing less than completely insane..

Oh and btw: since he's grafting an English speaking elite (he and his troupe went into exile for a long period of time) onto a French speaking majority in such a volatile context, I'm expecting a good deal of revenge arising sooner than later..

In fact it's held up as an example of how you can get better if you rid your country of a troublesome minority!

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif