QUOTE (YasukeKomiya @ Dec 25 2010, 05:51 PM)
Well from what i have seen most former british colonies have done well cause the colonial govt. worked well and thus a fit model to follow after the colony gained independence. While the Spanish govt. was probably good in Spain their colonial govts. were bastards. Most former Spanish colonies would have corruption and various problems since most wouldn't have a fit role model or the natives had no exp. in govt since they weren't given chance. well once again dam spanairds but that is not important now
I use to think this way also. If we look at the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, they are all first-world nations, and these countries were colonized by the British. But if we look at Latin America, the Philippines, and some of the Pacific Islands, which were colonized by the Spanish, they are generally considered third-world countries. It would be easy for one to conclude that British colonies were developed better as compared to Spanish colonies. However, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are largley majority British or European in population, and it was they that developed the country to become a first-world nation, and not the indigenous population such as the Native Americans of the USA or Canada, the Aborigines of Australia, or the Maori of New Zealand. Most of their indigenous populations were put into reservation lands, and these lands are in the middle of no-where with very little resources or good land to work with. Many of them were also sadly killed, and virtually all of them for centuries were discriminated. South Africa was also colonized by the British, and I believe they are considered a first-world nation. In this case, the British and European population are a minority, something like 10% of the population. But they as a minority were in control of the country, and the majority indigenous African population were under apartheid. So it was the minority that developed South Africa to become a first-world nation with perhaps the cheap labor and talented skills of the majority African population.
If we look at the Indian subcontinent, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka are also considered third-world countries, and yet they were colonized by the British. Singapore and Hong Kong are first-world countries that were colonized by the British, but they are relatively small countries. Singapore became successfully after its independence, and it was largely the Singaporeans themselves that made them successful. I want to see a good size country that was successful, and I only can think of Malaysia, but just like Singapore, it was after Malaysia's independence/formation that this happened, and I can't honestly say how much the British were involved in the development of the economy of today's Malaysia.
Spain's colonies tended to have large indigenous populations that also have an advance civilization. In Mexico you have the Aztec civilization, and remnants of the Mayan civilization, and all the other indigenous groups. In Peru, you have large Inca/Quechan, in Bolivia you have large Aymara populations, and in Chile you have large Mapuche populations.
In fairness to the British, the Spanish probably would not have done as good of a job in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. From what I know, and please feel free to correct me, the Spaniards generally were involved in trade of natural resources or materials, mining, agriculture, and ravaging the treasures of the Incas and the Aztecs. Much of the gold circulating today in the world may come from the melting down of Inca and Aztec treasures. Again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The Spanish did not develop capitalistic economies. It was the British during the 1800s that supposedly started the Industrial Revolution. The British created large trade and industry throughout the world. But again it was not the indigenous populations that played a major role in the development of these British colonies, many of whom as mentioned earlier were reduced to small populations, put in reservation lands, and discriminated. This is also why several African slaves were imported.
I just want to clarify that after the 13 colonies gained independence from England, the Americans (who were largely of British or European ancestary) would go on to take over the other 47 states. Technically, the Americans were no longer part of the British Empire at that point, and so the British technically cannot be blamed for the take over of the remaining 47 states. The Americans bought much of the Mid-West from Napoleon Bonaparte of France, and then fought the Spanish for the Western states. The Native Americans were probably suffering from diseases introduced by Europeans that they had no resistance to, and were losing their populations quickly, but it was also America's foreign policy called "Manifest Destiny" that pushed them to acquire the lands beyond the 13 colonies, and further beyond to Central America, the Carribean, the Pacific, and the Philippines.