Who did colonization better?
Who did colonization better?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Who did colonization better?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
The British and it's not even close
The Dutch were probably in second place, but yes.
This seems reasonable.
The Spanish. They slaughtered savages instead of trying to civilise them. The latter was Britian's terrible mistake.
>They slaughtered savages instead of trying to civilise them
and destroyed their own economy by looting them, causing such horrific inflation that they arguably still haven't recovered completely yet.
By slaughter you mean rape, and what a product of that Empire Latin America is; Canada, the US and Australia should all be taking notes from those utopias.
conquistadores bred with the natives, it was anglos who brought their women, settled land and eventually displaced natives, also they were usually retaliating against native violence and most of the land was empty anyway, you have been misled by modern media
>They slaughtered savages instead of trying to civilise them.
That's exactly what the Brits did and that's the reason why Canada and Australia are first world whereas Sudan and Pakistan are third world.
Maoris seem pretty alive.
The British did that and the Spanish fucked the natives & tried to civilize them.
Name 1 good ex-Spanish colony
Florida. California, Uruguay maybe, the Netherlands.
Blue = Good
Green = Fine
Yellow = Shithole
Red = Hellhole
when it comes to hispanics change argentina to orange or yellow (currently not a good place) and uruguay to blue.
Argentina has very high inflation, but it is still a great place to live, that map also forgets Uruguay, which is like Chile and Argentina but small and without Argentine inflation.
also
>E. Guinea not red
Anon their current leader has been accused of cannibalism several times and is the longest ruling non monarch head of state currently alive. He is also Nguemas relative.
Equatorial Guinea is Morocco tier, look at their HDI, Malabo is among the safest cities of Africa (compsred to Mexico in which aztec pagan blood demons from narcos took power again during 60s), it's also the cleanest one. They also send many exchange stundents to Europe and South America so they are fine, Catholic dictatorship proving again being the right path.
Maybe I visit some day when I go on a tourism joy ride, I'm sure it'll be cheap.
Anyway I also need to sperg out and say that
this is incomplete, where is east timor, where are the islands.
>The Spanish. They slaughtered savages instead of trying to civilise them. The latter was Britian's terrible mistake.
You got them both twisted it's the other away around.
the british spread STDs to every island they went to
Only because they imported naggers everywhere they went
no,angl-s are intrinsically syphilitic
Syphilis came from the Americas, my dear retard.
This was a theory at one point, but is by no means proven nor is it the majority consensus anymore.
Spain.
>Conquest of Canary Islands during XV century
>Leaded exploration era
>Conquered several kingdoms and two empires (Incans, Aztecs, Chibchas, etc etc etc)
>The Sword of Christendom spreading the gospel worldwide
>Kino aesthetic
>Founded circa 700 settlements just at 16th century
>Maintained biggest empire of modern era withoit trains, phones, telegraph, etc.
>Created new races, cultures and ethnicities
>Highly developed, even Humboldt knelt
>Left a massive cultural and artistic legacy in the New World
>The Spanish navy controlled the oceans
>Tried to create fair legislation for his subjects
I root for Spain, by far the first, longer lasting, more kino and quintessential Colonial empire.
>by far the first, longer lasting, more kino and quintessential Colonial empire.
lmao, the Portuguese were the first and longer lasting and its not close
also left brazil much better than the rest of the ever balkanizing sudacas
and were a far bigger naval power, even till the 1800, when they were 2nd in the world only behind the british during the napoleonic wars
cope
>Portuguese
A province from Spanish empire after Philipp II conquered it.
>brazil
The poorest spanish province after Florida, the fags still needed like 3 million africans to actually being a thing during XIX century
>longer lasting
Macau was leased as a trading outpost and the Portuguese paid hundreds of silver taels annually to China from the 16th-19th centuries. It was not taken in a war. The Ming dynasty earlier defeated Portuguese ships in battle at Tunmen and Shancaowan.
Portugal only converted it to a colony after the opium war in the 19th century.
I hate you chinkspammer.
Regardless
It still counts, might've been started in Ceuta but it ended inmacau.
Don't you start with your trigger happy ethniccelry.
>make some favela shitholes in a jungle, devastate and take adventadge of infighting within empires then groom the widows and establish some oligarchic third world administration on some fancy buildings
>LE HECKING BASED
Spain is easily the most incompetent and revilting colonist, it only created self-hating mutts that despise their native heritage
Nothing of value was lost these days, Moloch worshipperd got what thet deserved.
Rapebaby cope. You will never be Iberian.
Loser mexcrement
>self-hating mutts that despise their native heritage
I don't think that's true, it's just that Jesus Christ is Lord.
What language are we typing and or speaking?
The Spanish flag is pretty good. The British one is too loud, too busy.
Certainly not Spain, all their colonies went to shit and one storm basically kneecapped it for the rest of its existence despite being supremely rich for many many decades.
Spain probably extracted more wealth out of their colonies than any other nation but what does it have to show for it?
Because only Spain had the means to actually economically develop their colonies and exploit natural resources. Spanish decline started with Rocroi but their empire lasted 150 years more as the absolute dominant power at the oversea reaching expansion peak circa 1780. Trafalgar and Napoleon were truly the end for them.
All of them.
But i'd say
Tier 1: UK, Spain, Portugal (only because they technically were the first and the last which bumps them up)
Tier 2: France, the netherlands, (debatably also russia if you don't think colonialism has to necessarily involve boats), England
Honorable mentions (they tried hard even if they didn't/couldn't really pull it off): Belgium, Couronia, Knights of malta.
Tier 3: Denmark, Sweden, Italy (huts me to say this), Germany, (the U.S depending on definition)
Lmao tier: Scotland, (suggestions greatly aprecciated)
I may have missed some, if so tell me.
Oh and also
Non-euro debatable colonials: ottoman turks, morocco.
Kino game OP. I dislike the hard deadline but its overall one of the greats.
Also Britain did it better.
What are the best pre-Revolutionary fortresses in the Americas?
San Juan de Ulua.
Campeche.
Cartagena de Indias in Colombia, it used to be the most walled city on the continent because ships of gold, silver, slaves and other agricultural products left from there to Spain. Although in the 19th century the authorities tore down almost all the walls and castles around the city due to new urban projects, Which is funny because it still has a very extensive network of walls that is nowhere near what it used to be.
God damn cartagena de indias is a cool name.
The spanish used to put such cool names upon cities they founded. (Whenever it wasn't just San Juan de X)
China has been historically too OP plus they at the other side of the planet, today it's like fighting an enemy located in Mars or Jupiter.
The Dutch of course , quality over quantity
Explain to me what inherent quality the dutch empire has over other empires.
I don't see much quality in indonesia, random caribbean islands, suriname and the cape of good hope.
unless you also want to add all the short lived colonies of the dutch.
They all did very differently and in different contexts. It's hard to compare really
But some people here will claim the USA being so successful is 100% because of the brits, 250 years ago