Seems to me the independent nations once ruled by Britain have done better, overall, than anyone else’s: the United States, India, most of the Caribbean nations, most of the African countries the British ruled. Countries formerly colonized by the French, Belgians, Spanish, Germans, etc., tend (there are always exceptions. of course) not to have as stable democracies, as healthy economies, or to enjoy the rule of law as much.
Do you agree? If so, would you attribute this to British rule as such, or to different national characteristics?
Funny, I’ve often thought it was the opposite – namely, that the British screwed up everything they touched. All right, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but it would be hard to claim that Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malawi, Jamaica, etc. are doing well. Just because the other European nations’ ex-colonies are also doing badly is more an indictment of colonialism than it is of each nation’s colonial practices. And for the purposes of this discussion, I don’t think the U.S. counts, because it was never a colony the way Ghana was, for example.
I woudn’t exactly sing the praises of the british empire (an I’d certainly agree the general poor state of ex-colonies is certainly an indicment of the institution if colonisation), but some the examples you quote do show that the British colonies are ‘generally’ better of than their neighbours which were colonies of other European Countries… Jamaica compared to Haiti, Nigeria compared to the Congo… You could cite more Malaysia vs French Indo-China etc… Of course a big difference is that the other European nations generally fought wars to keep their colonies in the 50s and 60s whereas Britain did not.
Though it has to be said, the handling the partition of India by Britian was a apaling disgrace, which (as well resulting in several wars and hundreds of thousand of deaths) still haunts world in the form of the on-going nuclear stand-off between Pakistan and India,
The ex-British islands are invariably the ones with busted up roads, run-down housing, and lousy infrastructure. The Dutch islands (still colonies) have well-maintained roads, good schools, etc. Of course, the one that was independent (Haiti) is the absolute worst-corrupt, poor, and going nowhere.
The picture might be skewed by the fact that Britain was more successful than other colonial powers in grabbing sparsely-settled territory that could be turned into “settler states” – Canada, Australia, etc. – where colonization mostly meant reproducing British society with British colonists, rather than imposing British rule on vast masses of natives to whom British ways were entirely alien. South Africa illustrates the difference: In the proportion of Europeans to others in its population, it was kind of midway between a “settler state” and a colonized “native” society; and that has made its post-colonial history very turbulent – but more hopeful than most African countries’.
To some extent, the lack of a local population is an artifact of the colonization, though, I’d think. Huge numbers of aboriginals died in both Australia and North America, and their populations today are much lower than before the colonials showed up.
Maybe the didn’t just find sparsely-settled countries. To some degree, maybe they made them. (Not addressing the issue of whether to blame this on introduction of old-world diseases, or intentional genocide, or something else.)
As someone who will sing the praises of Colonialism, Imperialism, and the British Empire at great length, I’ve often thought that the former British colonies generally seemed to be doing pretty well for themselves, and if they aren’t, it’s because of Tribal Factors or other differences.
I mean the list of parts of the former British Empire that are doing pretty well for themselves is quite long, although there are always places that are struggling.
The French, Belgians, and Portugeuse also fought a series of very bloody and protracted wars in their former colonies, whereas the British generally just cut them loose (with some exceptions, cf Kenya and Malaya).
That’s about all I’m saying now, lest I find myself becoming the target of uncountable Pit threads…
You forgot the Sudan, which is considered one of the most oppressive countries on earth. And Uganda, which was taken over by Amin not long after the British left. Plus Iraq.
However alot of their colonies did turn out ok. Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand. Arguably Britian made it possible for the developed world to exist.
Speaking as a resident of an ex-colony, I’d say it is better now to be an ex-British colony than anyone else, although some ex-Spanish/Portuguese colonies are doing OK in South America. I’d much rather live in SA than anywhere, and if I did live anywhere else, it’d be NZ, Oz or Canada.
As others have already pointed out, aside from India, the British transplanted their cultures and values along with their settlers to countries where they could easily become the majority. Countries full of people with darker skin were not given the opportunity for self-rule and autonomy that the British dominions enjoyed through much of the latter 19th and early 20th centuries.
As my namesake Prime Minister William Gladstone said in 1879, referring to a spate of previous wars including in Afghanistan: “… what did the two words ‘Liberty’ and ‘Empire’ mean in a Roman mouth? They meant simply this - ‘Liberty for ourselves, Empire over the rest of mankind.’”
To me this exercise still reeks of cherry-picking. To say ex-British colonies are doing well because the U.S., Australia, Canada and New Zealand are okay completely misses the point, as many posters above have pointed out. South Africa obviously is doing better, no thanks to the British. India is doing so-so – good in some measures, not so good in others. But it left the British empire longer ago than any of the African countries, and it’s only recently that it’s been regarded as anything other than a basket case.
In Africa, it would be crazy to say the British ex-colonies have done better than the others. I’ll grant you Botswana , but Sudan? Somalia? Zimbabwe? Uganda, as pointed out, went through a horrendous ex-colonial period, as did Nigeria. Kenya is one of the most corrupt nations on earth, and Tanzania one of the poorest. Malawi is in dreadful shape, and Zambia not much better.
In Asia, how’s Burma doing these days? How about Bangladesh and Pakistan? Hey, how about Afghanistan?
In fact, if we leave out the phony examples of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, what do you have left? Well, Barbados is doing okay, I guess. They’re certainly not causing me any grief.
Just to point out a difference (neither good nor bad); the British treated their holdings differently than other countries. As long as that holding (colony or other) was ‘behaving’ they were more or less self governing (though normally with a british ‘governer’ AND paying British taxes). Other European Empires were not quite as independant.
SINCE the British left there have been a TON of issues; America is a bad example of a British Colony, the ‘good’ resulting countries (Aust., Canada, NZ) were the only ones ‘let go’ (and still consider the ‘queen’ as their Monarch) that have done well. The biggest issue isn’t how the British treated the country (though that WAS an issue) but rather how they allowed them to rule themselves (and who the picked to be ‘in charge’), and pent up agression over it.
This is too broad a statement. All European colonial powers used a combination of direct and indirect rule, depending on circumstances. I think you’d be hard pressed to say that countries that experienced more direct rule have done better than countries with more indirect rule, or vice versa.
Aldiboronti, you’re right about Afghanistan – not a colony. At the same time, the British exercised their influence over Afghanistan in various malign ways, such that you can blame the British to some extent for the plight in which Afghanistan finds itself today.
