I was not asserting any thing. Others here point out major government corruption is the main factor and well others say the US government coup in Brazil and Argentine despite others saying there was no US government coup in Brazil and Argentine.
Some made reference to the colonial period that the Spanish and Portuguese rob and extract the country, unlike the British and French that the middle class and working class moved there and lived there and worked there under British or French law and so the government was less likely to exploit them than say the natives or having black slaves. And where Spanish and Portuguese was base on slave economy and rob and extract.
In the case of the French that may have applied loosely to French Canada but not so much to the rest of their colonies in the Americas (and only one of them, Haiti, became independent).
Though that was because they were based on chattel slavery, with a tiny land-owning elite and an enslaved majority. Haiti not only had to deal with the aftermath of a successful slave uprising, but then a spectularly brutal war to re-impose slavery by the French, followed by centuries of economic sanctions against them by France and the other world powers.
Even the French didn’t send a lot of French people to North America, at least not compared to the British. I’m not going to look up the population figures, but at the time of the French and Indian War, the British colonists outnumbered the French by at least 10 to 1. The French did resource extraction just like the Spanish, but the resource for them was furs rather than precious metals. And they didn’t need slaves to do the work, since the Natives would do it for a relative pittance.
Absolutely. Thus my comment to the OP re: that the theory about settlement colonies under metropolitan law vs. slavery-based extraction colonies would not apply across the board to French (or for that matter British) colonies in the rest of the Americas.
What do you mean the French where different than the British and different out side of Quebec?
dtilque already answered in the March 11 post about what was different in the French North America colonies vs. both British and Spanish colonies (numbers of settlers and pattern of resource extraction). And earlier we and others mentioned that outside North America both the French and British had resource-extraction colonies using slave labor (in the time before that was abolished). So saying that the British and French created colonies where a free “middle class” developed settling, living and working under metropolitan law and values would have to be limited to referring specifically to Canada and the USA (and as dtilque pointed out only in a limited extent for French Canada before they were conquered by the British).
Which is exactly what I was saying. The British North American colonies had a large free middle class (even if there was slavery it was never a plantation society outside the South, so there was never a majority of enslaved people) with a relatively equal distribution of wealth, power, and opportunity (for white males, at least). That is fundamentally the main reason why the US and Canada are stable, well off countries where as the countries in Latin America, and the Francophone and English-speaking Caribbean are not.