Anti-French violence in Ivory Coast.

[Lunar]

Note that the ex-British colonies are much more democratic and less screwed up.

The French colonial policy was horrible and is responsible for many of the problems in the world today.

[Lunar]

Note that the ex-British colonies are much more democratic and less screwed up.

Iraq?

To be fair, the British put in a puppet state rather than actually colonizing it.

Compare actual colonies in the Middle-East:
Kuwait - British
Syria - French
UAE - British

Sure, India and Pakistan have their problems, but they are centuries ahead of French Indochina.  There are isolated incidents of former French colonies doing average, but the former British colonies are light years ahead overall (Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, India, etc.)

[Lunar]

India really isn't that bad off.  Like most/all established democracies, it hasn't had a famine since it became one.   Some of the corruption, the increasing Hindu nationalism, and the conflict over Kashmir are all worrying, but the country is still making enormous progress.

Fine, fine.  I'll find some evidence:

This is from Fareed Zakaria.  He's out and about, a writer for Newsweek..appeared on the Daily Show recently, and so on.  Smart fellow:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lunar]

OK, I'm not disputing that the Brits were better than the French, I was just pointing out two colonies that were...well not in a good position.    I guess I did it just to annoy you...I dunno. 

I also don't dispute that the Brits screwed some places up, heh.  My original point was just expressing my annoyance with the French for screwing up most of Africa, Indochina, Haiti, etc. in the first place.

I'm not a fan of French-bashing in current political discourse, but history is fair game.

[Lunar]

Note I'm mostly talking about the colonization period.  So North America, South America, and Australia don't count, heh.

In terms of stability countries like Cote D'Ivoire, Benin, Gabon, Cameroun, Niger and Madagascar had been doing pretty well.

If you read the first post of the thread, I think that already covers the Ivory Coast (same thing as Cote d'Ivoire).
Gabon and Cameroon are loaded with natural resources (Gabon is in OPEC).
Niger and Madgascar pk, but there aren't great.  Stability is ok, but the countries are among some of the poorest in Africa.

My point was that the most successful colonies have been British while some of the worst have been French (and Belgian).  Hell, look at the Caribbean.  The Bahamas - British.  Jamaica - British.  Haiti - French.  If you compare former colonies in similar regions and situations, you'll see the British ones doing universally better with some British ones, like Singapore, challenging the US in per capita income.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They screwed up Indonesia pretty big (Japan helped during WW2).  Then they wouldn't give it up.  However, Indonesia is doing alright.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm intentionally excluding some countries, like Australia, from the comparison since it would be unfair.

Singapore and Malaysia has be succes stories in the later years as has Vietnam. On the other hand Burma hosts one of the most oppressive governments in Asia and Laos and Cambodia are dirth poor countries.

Vietnam still isn't a success story.  Its government is still oppressive

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both sides have seriously messed up ex-colonies, I've never denied this.  But if you look at the success stories, you can see which country set the better framework:

(up until 1983), every single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all of the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.

I think you're taking too much offense.  All I'm saying is that the British were a bit better at being imperalistic dehumanizing bastards, heh.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm intentionally excluding some countries, like Australia, from the comparison since it would be unfair.

My point wasn't to exclude countries like Australia and Canada. My point is that most of the former British colonies that enjoys stability today was colonised before 1830. Malaysia was colonised from 1786 (Penang)and united in 1896, Singapore in 1819, Cape Province in 1795, Jamaica in 1655, India from 1619. Britain had the time to establish government structures in these colonies and a local intelligentia appeared. British colonies establised after 1830 hasn't showed any better performance that the French colonies, with the exception of Botswana (where BDP has won every election ever helt).[

So...the reason why Singapore is doing so well is because it was founded 11 years earlier?

Singapore and Malaysia has be succes stories in the later years as has Vietnam. On the other hand Burma hosts one of the most oppressive governments in Asia and Laos and Cambodia are dirth poor countries.

Vietnam still isn't a success story.  Its government is still oppressive

You must be logged in to read this quote.

0% of Singapore's population is below the international poverty line.
This is compared to 37% of Vietnam's

Slight difference.

Singapore is an ok democracy, with an elected Prime Minister and President.  Its power is a bit consolidated, but comparing it to Vietnam is a bit absurd.

Both sides have seriously messed up ex-colonies, I've never denied this.  But if you look at the success stories, you can see which country set the better framework:

(up until 1983), every single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all of the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't remember if South Korea was democratic by 1983.  Nevertheless, it didn't emerge with a "continuous democratic experience" as my book was referring to.

I don't know about Senegal.

I still stand by my statement that Britain didn't screw up their colonies as badly and the old French colonial policy is the reason for much strife in the world today.