Can anyone name one (1) former Spanish colony that isn't poverty stricken, and 1 British one that is? (Exclude Africa) (England, general)

[BillyC64]

Originally Posted by island atoll

Any country that has perfected the "riot vehicle" as well as Argentina certainly has a questionable status at the table of developed nations.

Not only perfected but well used. look at the damage on that thing

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by island atoll

You are citing genetics as a possible explanation for something (ie where you come from). Latin America's problems are cultural/institutional. Any country that has perfected the "riot vehicle" as well as Argentina certainly has a questionable status at the table of developed nations.

Not necessarily. Virtually the entire population of Argentina came from the same European countries as Americans came from. Heavier weighted from Spain, but nevertheless, a mix of immigrants who brought skills, talents and education from Europe. Remember that the USA has a very large catholic population, from Ireland, Italy, Austria, Bavaria and Poland. They would have brought the same cultural/instutional attributed.

[mommytotwo]

British Colony: Dominica.....Streets not paved with gold.

[azoria]

"Exclude Africa"

Pray tell, why?

Because Africa is such a godawful mess any Anglo vs Latin theory would blow conventional cultural world catigorised thinking to smithereens? Because Africa doesn't fit into the other convenient success/failure modes?

I think Africa deserves to be included in the discussion just to throw a curve into the Anglos win, Latins lose theory. All of them have lost in Africa. But wait, how did that happen......?

[island atoll]

Originally Posted by azoria

"Exclude Africa"

Pray tell, why?

Because Africa is such a godawful mess any Anglo vs Latin theory would blow conventional cultural world catigorised thinking to smithereens? Because Africa doesn't fit into the other convenient success/failure modes?

I think Africa deserves to be included in the discussion just to throw a curve into the Anglos win, Latins lose theory. All of them have lost in Africa. But wait, how did that happen......?

Yes, yes, and yes. We don't need Stephen Hawking to tell us that Africa is a black hole.

[Yorkie Bar]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Don't think I can agree with you. The US was settled at first by British people, but we endured a lot less Brithsh influence than our neighbor to the north did, and that contrast is itself a rebuttal to your argument. I'll give you India. I think the British had a very tiny influence on what China was to become.

The perception you have misses the point that the British had such a huge power monopoly in Colonial times, that they influenced nearly EVERY country, which makes your statement a tautology. If you want to award the credit to Britain for things that finally worked, a half-century after they left, you need to blame them for Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iraq, Persia, Sudan and Burma. And even for Nazi Germany, because of all that intermarriage between the monarchies of Britain and Germany, which surely had as much influence as anything the British did in China.

You can't blame Zimbabwe on us I'm afraid. When it took its independence it was probably the most advanced country in Africa. Good schools, hospitals, legal system and infrastructure. It was more than self sufficient in food, exporting the surplus. We can't be blamed for the actions of a syphilis crazed dictator. Similarly Sierra Leone & Uganda.

Pakistan, Iraq, Iran & Bangladesh are more problematic. Effectively they are artificial countries created to try and please disparate populations when the Empire was dismantled. They are also ruled by a third world religion that has hampered any progress they might otherwise have made.

I agree with you about China though - we have had no affect there.

[Yorkie Bar]

Originally Posted by mommytotwo

British Colony: Dominica.....Streets not paved with gold.

An interesting point. Anybody have any theories on why some Caribbean countries (Barbados, Bermuda (ok, it's not Caribbean but same sort of thing)) did well and others such as Dominica & Jamaica did relatively poorly?

[island atoll]

Originally Posted by Yorkie Bar

An interesting point. Anybody have any theories on why some Caribbean countries (Barbados, Bermuda (ok, it's not Caribbean but same sort of thing)) did well and others such as Dominica & Jamaica did relatively poorly?

The countries/islands with the most violent slave uprisings (ie Haiti) had the most white, educated people leave, and were therefore left with a gutted system with nobody smart enough to create and oversee a new system. Haiti scared away 100% of its white population, while Jamaica only lost half of its white population. Hence, Jamaica is light years ahead of Haiti on the economic, social, and governmental scale. Haiti, like Jamaica, had a large mulatto population, and most of these people stayed in Haiti. They had many more advantages than traditional 'black' Haitians.

Basically, the islands that did not have bloody slave uprisings are today the tourist hot spots and international banking meccas. There is a reason we've never heard of a Haitian bank...

[Hasdrubal]

...

[jtur88]

Over the past few decades, the old Portuguese colony of Goa was by far the most advanced place in India, ecomically and sociologically. It was, in a sense, the Hong Kong of India, albeint much smaller and unimposing.