- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Name a former English colony not better off than before it was colonized.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:39 pm to Mike da Tigah
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:39 pm to Mike da Tigah
Rock & Roll?
I don't agree, but couldn't resist...
I don't agree, but couldn't resist...
0
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:39 pm to vilma4prez
isnt myanmar basically a failed state
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:41 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Name a former English colony where people of English decent don’t have it good.
Fixed the title for you.
What area is better off having been colonized? Kinda hard to include the America’s and Australia considering the original inhabitants don’t control much anymore. Hong Kong had it good for awhile but that’s over. Mesopotamia got carved up and fricked over hard after WW1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Actions England took in what’s now Iraq directly led to the rise of Saddam and left the Kurds with no right to self govern.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:43 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:If your peasants
isnt myanmar basically a failed state
Wallow in mire
Let them join
Our Empire
Burma-Shave
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:43 pm to Mike da Tigah
New York, Virginia, Maryland, etc. were nice enough for the folks living there for centuries until the Brits colonized them and wiped out all the residents by disease or murder.
The areas are “better off” for the colonists who took over, but not for the folks who were there first.
The areas are “better off” for the colonists who took over, but not for the folks who were there first.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:45 pm to Mike da Tigah
Many African countries were exploding in a positive manner until the British relinquished rule...then they turned to shite again
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:47 pm to Twenty 49
quote:
New York, Virginia, Maryland, etc. were nice enough for the folks living there for centuries until the Brits colonized them and wiped out all the residents by disease or murder. The areas are “better off” for the colonists who took over, but not for the folks who were there first.
There were like 12 people in North America before they came over.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:51 pm to LSUneaux
Kipling was right about the White Man’s burden.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:52 pm to LSUneaux
There were less than 1MM natives occupying the lands north of the Rio Grande including present day Canada.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:52 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
India? Weren’t they a thriving empire in the sub continent prior to complete British exploitation and resource thievery?
Friend of mine in college was from India. He told me that they talk badly of when the English ruled but admitted that everything they have in regard to infrastructure was due to the English and that they were better off. Heck, most of the countries in that region still use the same trains that the English brought there.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:53 pm to Mike da Tigah
How did the British manage to take over so many people spread over so much of the world? More modern weapons and battle tactics?
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:54 pm to Mike da Tigah
Maybe India.
The partition fricked things up there pretty badly...and it is still just a maybe.
Ditto Sudan. Ironically, a partition would have probably been better there.
The vast majority of their former colonies saw better times due to their influence though.
The partition fricked things up there pretty badly...and it is still just a maybe.
Ditto Sudan. Ironically, a partition would have probably been better there.
The vast majority of their former colonies saw better times due to their influence though.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:55 pm to Eightballjacket
quote:
How did the British manage to take over so many people spread over so much of the world? More modern weapons and battle tactics?
Yes, although the Zulu and Boers gave them fits.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:57 pm to Eightballjacket
quote:being the first country in human history to industrialize is a pretty big advantage
How did the British manage to take over so many people spread over so much of the world
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:57 pm to Mike da Tigah
Great. Another circle jerk.
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:58 pm to Twenty 49
quote:
wiped out all the residents by disease or murder.
Was this guy your professor?
Posted on 9/12/22 at 7:59 pm to Mike da Tigah
Hard to say because most of those in the colonies at least the islands wer brought there on boats
Posted on 9/12/22 at 8:06 pm to hubreb
quote:
Many African countries were exploding in a positive manner until the British relinquished rule...then they turned to shite again
They left a power vacuum in countries with boundaries that were drawn to include multiple tribes / religions / ethnicities. It typically set off conflicts / civil wars for control. Where the dust up settled down quickly, or there weren’t any due to the population being fairly homogeneous, they typically found success.
Others (Sudan) are still shitholes (even though they are two separate nations now).
Posted on 9/12/22 at 8:37 pm to OMLandshark
And many of them are southerners that are scots Irish but claim to be Irish
Posted on 9/12/22 at 8:44 pm to Eightballjacket
quote:
How did the British manage to take over so many people spread over so much of the world
The Royal Navy
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News