Is funny to see Jow Forums criticising Spain for their "failed" ex colonies while ignoring the fact that France ex...

surprisingly accurate

to be fair it was mostly niggers
there isn't much that can be done

>The territory France controlled was as large as the Untited States
That doesn't really mean anything if you consider it's just a whole lot of desert and not much else.

Anglo colonies (white)> spanish colonies (mestizo)> french colonies(nigger)
Like everything, is a racial construct

Yeah but in Latin America the Spanish had the possibility to create a bunch of successful white countries like the USA and Canada. Instead they left a bunch of racially mixed shitholes behind.

At least France has Quebec
What first world countries has Spain created?. No one, even in Urugay the average wage is shit compared to North America.

blue soon fagots

what do the differennt colors mean? who's white and not?

The Spanish empire puzzles me. The US took Puerto Rico from Spain and after 100+ years it is a corrupt bilingual shithole. Yet everyone within the empire hates each other. Racemixing the population did more harm than good.

Looks like development.

>the Spanish had the possibility to create a bunch of successful white countries like the USA and Canada. Instead they left a bunch of racially mixed shitholes behind.
To create white countries genocide like that of north American natives is needed. They totally wiped them out

If only the confederates won the war and took over Latin America like they planned.

You did the work for us, you brought smallpox

Why do you have four small maps, when everything could have been done in one big map?

What ?
The native population of Algeria grow up like never under the french administration.
They were ten million at the independence.

Hey could you tell me where the symbol in the middle of your coat of arms comes from hispanon? It seems oddly familliar

Attached: EC1D694B-95F0-46DC-A400-B3B5D4D0C067.jpg (515x515, 12K)

Well at least we had Québec which outclass every Spanish colony and Spain itself.

what would that have accomplished? becoming part of your degenerate kike empire?

fuck you mutt

Attached: 2f7.jpg (601x508, 28K)

But latin america would look no different since the entire point of the confederacy was artificially prolonging the fading slave-based plantation economy

Also

>CSA
>being able to take over mexico on its own

you cant really blame spain tho, how can a shithole country have non-shithole colonies?

same for portugal

same for france when it comes to being muslim and blacked

more threads about your family farms pls

how does it puzzle you exactly

>hurr racemixing was a state policy and not the result of less successful men taking native wives

The confederacy would decisivley against the kike central banking elements of the federal government. Why do you think the shitlib urbanites were so against them?

Attached: 901bbe01b1bbc2c8f950dec620d99df8.jpg (1280x754, 138K)

>would
was

I was told the French wanted to exterminate the Algerian natives and make it into a part of France proper, i.e. a department instead of colony

Attached: sJ3gST[1].png (1359x630, 57K)

that is very Francophobic rhetoric which is backed up by little to no proof.

The union did it prior to the civil war.

it's was more like assimilating* them. It was bluepilled anyway

The fact that they themselves don’t have open borders for nations that share their language, yet if a white leaf, New Zealander, Aussie, Irish or Britt was in the us illegally most wouldn’t care. Most everyone in the English empire hates hearing Spanish.

I'm aware of that, yeah

Attached: turk-15.jpg.jpg (534x803, 32K)

>Mexico
>Cuba
>Colombia
>Venuzuela
>Green

>Argentina
>Chile
>Blue

Algeria was 3 departments. There was no serious attempt at genocide, even the colons population was fairly small.

>Against the kikes
>Lets keep breeding niggers, this pyramid scheme that is slavery will never become irrelevant or inefficient

Spain is more developed than your incest christtard cult redneck swamp cletus

Damn mordichi

The long term economic plan was not to stick to chattel slavery, it was obvious by the outset of the war which economic system would better for modern statecrafting. Most of the thinkers wanted them to go back to Africa

dont be mad jordi, everyone knows spain is a shithole, but among the shitholes is one of the least shitholey, I'll give you that

WUTTT???

Attached: Franka_colony.jpg (1600x4868, 1.19M)

Spain's ex-colonies are 56% Spanish genetically tho. Algeria is like 10% French genetically if that, and the rest are niggers.

hell, even Lincoln had supported the American Colonization Society at one point

kys Cleetus. Sherman did nothing wrong.

Attached: alabama_worst_place_developed_word.png (1032x1048, 160K)

>tfw your empire was so large people forget to include some of your colonies

go look up how many niggers are in Alabama

>Yeah but in Latin America the Spanish had the possibility to create a bunch of successful white countries like the USA and Canada. Instead they left a bunch of racially mixed shitholes behind.
Australia was basically empty by European standards. Mexico was not. It would have been very difficult for the Spanish to outbreed the Mexicans. The tropical climes require genetic adaptation to survive, so mixing, for the Spanish, was necessary for survival in the tropics, just as importation of black was necessary in Venezuela, Colombia, the Caribbean, and the American South for economic reasons. White field workers would have died like flies.

Taiwan should be Brown, we owned that for a while.

more like this

Attached: fixed d.png (1359x630, 37K)

Nothing of what you said is true, now that is remarkable.

Black slaves were brought because it was profitable and enslaving natives was illegal.

Our colonies outside of africa did great.
As usual, it's just niggers and sangniggers ruining everything.

lol

Did you knew the United States Marine Corps was created (re-created) to fight those "algerians" ?

Sandniggers can't think with their 80iq brains and allah brainwashing

Attached: Screenshot_2018-07-06-10-44-41.png (720x1280, 548K)

Then why wasn't Africa colonized until the discovery of quinine? Why was it economically viable for the south to develop as a slaveholding society?

You retarded nigger because black slaves were cheaper than the price of cotton, southern niggers depended on outside trade of cotton to import their wealth, completely shitty 3rd world economy which is why they are subhumans to this day.

>You retarded nigger because black slaves were cheaper than the price of cotton

Attached: IMG_7319.jpg (216x233, 15K)

You didn't need to be smart to buy some slave pick cotton and then import wealth which is why absolutely subhuman southerners without any virtue are so proudful, their grandpappies were as smart as niggers but were rewarded and put in higher classes and they can't cope now that they cant get rich off picking cotton.

French Guiana is technically a part of France (and EU), and isn't doing well, is full of poverty etc.

Attached: _95566580_fdd7bf43-c8eb-4e0e-8858-837dfc7ef0b4.jpg (660x371, 73K)

fixed, now with Italy

Attached: 1531342509135.png (1359x630, 39K)

Only french can go genocide a population of a 2,5 millions individuals and leave them up with 10 millions 80 years later.
France never exterminated anyone, we even were friendly with native americans and they were considered subjects of the crown few years before we lost Canada.

That's was our great colonial failure at the end of the day, being too nice.

all of Africa is shit, end of story

Attached: image.jpg (600x601, 270K)

This.

Qubec and Louisiana purchase not mentioned

It was economically viable for a white man in Virginia to run a tobacco plantation using black labor. Blacks were better suited to the intense heat and sunlight, and whites were better suited to planning, organization, and management.

A tobacco plantation in Connecticut was not profitable using black slaves because blacks were not well-suited to the cold weather, less intense sunlight, and long winters. So while slavery was legal in the northern states for a long time, it never took hold because blacks did not survive well or work well in the climate.

In a rice paddy or indigo plantation in South Carolina, black labor was absolutely essentially to the existence of agriculture. White fieldhands would die of malaria and other tropical diseases.

A well-developed economy and a large society never could have come into being in the deep south without labor that was adapted to the climate.

Every colonie thats wasnt british is joke. You Europeans are a joke.

>Only french can go genocide a population of a 2,5 millions individuals and leave them up with 10 millions 80 years later.

Attached: IMG_7320.gif (725x308, 6K)

A black slave costed $400 a pound of cotton costed 13.5 cents per pound, you would need around 4,000 pounds of cotton per slave to break even, each slave picked around 200 pounds of cotton a day, in 20 days each slave would be worth more than their initial price and make the owner 2x initial investment in 40 days.

this

Attached: 1531102526094.jpg (399x464, 52K)

Instead you replaced natives with someone else
You seem to be obsessed with doing that, to the point when your colonies are gone you do it to the only country left you have control over: yourself

Absolute retard.

Attached: 1531255201315.jpg (640x480, 20K)

You're a nigger aren't you

>all of the US
>belonging to UK
>wasnt even mapped by the time we revolted
Seriously lol

You are one by iq

Most of North America was a French colony in the beginning. They explored most of it and settled key locations where great american cities sit upon today.

>why wasnt africa colonized
How would it or could it?

Also UK is missing Hong kong

I wish we still owned indonesia, it would be a paradise on earth with our logistics, infrastructure etc. Now they've abandoned their traditional clothes in favor of headrags, and live in congested urban shithole conditions. They even have an ISIS faction for gods sake.

The French didn't genocide the natives, they traded and teach them diplomacy which brought peace among many tribes. They also married them but narives were far less numerous in NA than SA.

Slaves dont eat?

...

but the colony was the usa

Attached: northamericaad1789.jpg (500x376, 39K)

You guys really fucked up

It's simply a matter of national unity.
The most successful were the british colonies, because they managed to replace all natives with bongs.

Spanish colonies never had national unity because they mixed with the natives. Even today Spain itself is considered an old state without national unity. In spite of that, we managed to implement some basic cultural elements that we continue to share with those countries nowadays.

The french did the worst . They failed to create anything similar to a national unity across the colonies and failed to implement even a part of his own culture. Now they are paying for it when the africans return to the metropolis.

It is a relatively minor cost to the point where it can be effectively discounted entirely for this purpose.

This. France is Haiti 2.0

Why isn't Canada on the picture

Nice threat theme for Afrance niggers
youtube.com/watch?v=qaDikWotFlg

The French never had a real hold on Canada