Why are ex British colonies less shitty than other areas of the world?

Is Bangladesh hella dangerous?

>French
1/3 of the US

>Spanish
Florida

Quebec managed by Anglos
USA: managed by Anglos

Sao Paulo alone is richer than any of these countries

>Algeria
m8...

>1/3 of the US
wasn't it all virtually empty for the brief time it was ever "french"

You guys have really been hyping Sao Paulo lately.

Uruguai and Chile like this user said

The USA isn’t Anglo. We’re German/Italian/Irish/Polish/Spanish

Yes, except for Louisiana, and I wouldn't call Louisiana a success story.

Name better ran places than Canada/USA/Australia/New Zealand which were all typical British colonies

Macau

Yeah the British were great colonizers, m8. Not denying it. Just pointing out that they didn't exactly bat 1.000 on that shit. Not even close.

They weren't typical British colonies. They were exceptional in that the native population was replaced with a European. Where other European countries did the same (southern SA, quebec) there are good conditions too.

Shit that's a really good point t b h. I'm not OP but that didn't occur to me.

>The USA isn’t Anglo. We’re German/Italian/Irish/Polish/Spanish

Attached: 1527479744004.gif (640x550, 204K)

antofagasta alone is better than any macacozilian city

What about Punta Arenas? That's my favorite Chilean city, as someone who's never visited. I like cool/cold climates better than that equatorial shit Brazil has so much of.

>culturally and ethnically British foundation
>quick population boost from mass-migration from white Euro countries
of course those are both strong positives, but that doesn't particularly count against the fact that they were British colonies.

Ask any non-Anglo if the US is anything like the UK, and they will tell you a resounding no.

Even Mexico has shit in common with Spain

>an English-speaking former British colony where the mixed white population has a measurable and fairly significant British ethnic component is resoundingly nothing like the UK

That's why the most reported ancestry is German, right?

Did you just do a reverse muh heritage?

and wasn't the USA defined by its WASP culture up until very recently?

I didn't say they were no British colonies, I said they were no typical British colonies. Look at British Africa, British middle east, British india

No? Look at how different an Anglo country like Canada is from the USA

Why did Germany have so few colonies? Just a couple in Africa I think?

Canada IS the US though. Like what are you even talking about?

>Look at how different an Anglo country like Canada is from the USA
I don't want this thread to become dull and antagonistic like it easily could, but what the actual fuck are you talking about

Attached: 1506387825601.png (228x228, 60K)

>British Africa, British middle east, British india
bear in mind that those aren't really colonies in the same sense as America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia. We use the term "colony" for both types but there's a clear distinction there.

What was Spain's style of colonization? Closer to what the Brits did to Africa or what they did to the USA/Canada?

they banged and bred with the natives a lot, we didn't. and that's not an insignificant fact at all.

Not really. Look how they spell certain words and their politics are so different its like a different culture up there.

Because Germany only became a unified nation state very late (1871) and we were always a continental and land oriented nation. For the short period we pursued colonies we got quite a few though.
Of course, but it's dishonest to portray it like op as if British colonialism was inherently better than other's (French/Spanish mainly)
It's just that Britain came out as main naval power and therefore had the best position to pursue colonial endeavors
Of course you did. It's simply that in north america and oceania there were far less natives than in mesoamerica where there were advanced societies of millions, they couldn't all be killed off.
In Argentina and chile there were very little too, and today these countriea are 90+ percent white.

Ehh the Brits didn't mix with the Africans nor Indians all that much either. Neither did France though.

I always saw Germany sort of like Russia - more as a land power than sea power and more interested in expanding in their near abroad (Eastern Europe, etc) than world wide

>self-reporting being accurate

Most people who are predominantly British in their ancestry just regard themselves as 'American'. It's just more trendy to think of yourself as German or Irish, since those are at least somewhat distinct from default WASP culture.

>Ehh the Brits didn't mix with the Africans nor Indians all that much either. Neither did France though.
Colonialism in Africa was mostly a thing of the last decades of the 19th and early 20th century. Its a very short period, and was almost entirely oriented towards resource extraction, not settlement. It was different in America.
>I always saw Germany sort of like Russia - more as a land power than sea power and more interested in expanding in their near abroad (Eastern Europe, etc) than world wide
Well depends on the period, but generally speaking I'd agree. Ofc this is mainly due to the geographic circumstances

California
Texas
Arizona
New Mexico
Nevada

They were only successful because they got ANGLO'd

those places improved only because the % hispanic population massively decreased, and now are rapidly becoming shit again because the % hispanic population is starting to return to previous levels. So basically, this

Attached: 1501436798797.png (324x331, 29K)

t. John Smith

Here's a real answer. The British brand of colonialism was a mercantile one. We're talking about colonies that are not Dominions. The brits modus operandi basically was to take sides in any local power struggle and in return get to install British 'advisors' who are the true rulers. At first, the brits will nego a monopoly on trading which then requires a bureaucracy to run which requires trained and educated civil service which requires the setting up of English language local schools which unintentionally create a group of educated local elites who then spearhead the independence movements. My country and many others still benefit from the British civil service model. We even copied the parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. Compare and contrast to other euro colonial powers where the locals were enslaved and countries strip mined of resources. Not to say the Brits were always benovelent masters (see India) but relatively speaking, the Brits were less vicious and more competent masters than others.

We're culturally and systemically Anglo as fuck.

how?

Being on the equator doesn't necessarily mean hot climate. ALL of the southern US is warmer than my region for example

lol what?
India could wipe out humanity any day now with the superbugs theyre breeding there.

Even Bolivia is better than any place in the encircled area

Attached: shithole.png (436x222, 13K)

Pretty much these. The hispanic population is making everything shit again