If the British Empire was so awful, how come former possessions are doing so well?

[Wolveryeti]

One of my Argentinian students asked me the other day half jokingly why oh why had the English not colonised his country instead of the Spanish, because it would have made his life so much easier (especially the English learning, lol).

Jokes aside, I think he had a point. Every former colony I can think of is doing very well for itself, whereas the same isn't exactly true for the former colonial possessions of Britain's competitors in that era.

 

[Kizmet]

All empires are awful the british one was just a little less awful than the others. And there was tea and scones.

 

[Yossarian]

Sierra Leone? Somalia? Zimbabwe?

 

[Kizmet]

None of them have good football teams either?

 

[JTG]

Sierra Leone? Somalia? Zimbabwe?

Burma

 

[cybertect]

Sierra Leone? Somalia? Zimbabwe?

FWIW, Somalia was mostly an Italian colony. The former British Somaliland formed about 1/4 modern Somalia.

 

[Yossarian]

Yep - I think the former British bit is actually in better shape than the rest of Somalia these days, but I guess about 95% of the world is in better shape than the rest of Somalia.

 

[Yossarian]

Burma

I see your Burma and raise you a Uganda, a Nigeria, and an Iraq.

 

[JTG]

I see your Burma and raise you a Uganda, a Nigeria, and an Iraq.

Kenya!

never saw that one coming did ya? Beat that

I'll chuck in Israel/Palestine as well actually

oh and South Africa for the first few decades of independence

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Every former colony I can think of is doing very well for itself, whereas the same isn't exactly true for the former colonial possessions of Britain's competitors in that era.

The Lebanon
Ceylon
Pakistan

 

[jugularvein]

Burma's doing alright. Shit government but people live alright

 

[Barking_Mad]

USA - a right old mess.

 

[Lock&Light]

Palestine.

 

[ViolentPanda]

USA - a right old mess.

I see your USA and raise you Australia, a land so diseased they kept John Howard in power for a decade!

 

[Fledgling]

One of my Argentinian students asked me the other day half jokingly why oh why had the English not colonised his country instead of the Spanish, because it would have made his life so much easier (especially the English learning, lol).

Jokes aside, I think he had a point. Every former colony I can think of is doing very well for itself, whereas the same isn't exactly true for the former colonial possessions of Britain's competitors in that era.

Well instead of shouting counter examples to try and have the last word (which is a bit too easy) I'll presume you're talking about Australia, USA, Canada and New Zealand in the main and comparing them to former colonies of other empires, Argentina being one example. Argentina has been portrayed as Australia colonised by the Spanish and whilst this is simplistic there are some parallels (resource rich, decimation of native population, enormous European settlement). What unites the successful ex-British colonies and differentiates them from Argentina? One idea: access to capitalist markets. Each of these former colonies had substantial European populations who were part of the British and then American dominated capitalist system, allowing these societies to accumulate wealth and modernise. Argentina was not part of the dominant Anglo-American capitalist system and became marginalised.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Scotland.

 

[eoin_k]

I have heard that the USA is heaven on earth

 

[cybertect]

The Lebanon

Lebanon was mandated to France by the League of Nations WW1, along with modern-day Syria.

Similarly, Palestine was never part of the British Empire, but was a Mandated Territory, as was Iraq (for 12 years between 1920 and 1932). The purpose of the Mandates was (under the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations) to assist them in becoming independent nations.

Before WW1 all of them were parts of the Ottoman Empire, which had fought on the side of Germany.

 

[Detroit City]

I have heard that the USA is heaven on earth

if you have money its a wonderful place

 

[selamlar]

Similarly, Palestine was never part of the British Empire, but was a Mandated Territory, as was Iraq (for 12 years between 1920 and 1932). The purpose of the Mandates was (under the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations) to assist them in becoming independent nations.

Ah, but that isn't actually what happened, was it? Leaving aside the niceties of legal terminology about what did and did not consist part of the empire, Palestine was under British control from 1917ish to 1947. Leaving aside the whole Balfour decleration bit, for the time being.

 

[d.a.s.h]

Didn't Nehru do an economic survey of India, finding that the poorest regions of the country were those that had been occupied by the longest by the British? Another comparison: the Philippines (a colony for nearly 4 centuries) vs Japan (never colonised) - which one designs and makes your telly/camera/car/laptop? Seems best not to get colonised.

 

[Fledgling]

Scotland.

Scotland certainly made an admirable attempt to go it alone in creating an overseas empire but lowland Scotland saw benefits in being attached to the British empire. The spread of industry along the Clyde, roadbuilding to open up the Highlands and the ability to emigrate or work for the Empire undoubtedly changed Scotland and brought some benefits. (I'm not denying the costs at the same time, the clearances and poverty).

 

[Brainaddict]

That's a very bizarre comment from an Argentinian. Despite the horrible crash a few years ago Argentina is still one of the most successful 'developing' economies.

Argentina GDP per capita (2007) - $15,200

India GDP per capita (2007) - $3,800

In other words, unless he was referring just to the language, your student was talking shit.

 

[tarannau]

This thread is shit.

 

[Belushi]

This thread is shit.

Its so shit I dont know where to start, so I aint gonna bother.

 

[Diamond]

Argentina was not part of the dominant Anglo-American capitalist system and became marginalised.

You know next to nothing about Argentine history, do you?

It was an English colony in all but name throughout most of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The level of socio-economic influence and penetration by British elites (particularly the Scots) was remarkable.

Furthermore by the outbreak of World War 1 it was one of the most powerful economies in the world, which was thoroughly integrated into the world economy.

If you want to understand why Argentina is in the situation that it is now you have to look principally to the Great Depression and Peron. It's surprising that someone who bangs on about Anglo-American Capitalism wouldn't take the opportunity to blame things on a fascist, but I suppose even that's too complicated for your worldview.

Anyway, is it really worth drawing conclusions on the current state of ex-British colonies considering the differing forms of colonisation and de-colonisation that took place and the varying post-colonial situations that these new countries emerged into. It just seems to be an exercise to either pat ourselves on the back or castigate ourselves for our brutality. Equally as stupid as the other, IMHO.

 

[Fledgling]

Hmm,

Having looked into this more closely it apears you are right about the Argentine integration pre 1929, I'm not sure where I had my previous pre-conception from, probably from an economics book I was looking at some time ago. But looking at an economy at one particular point is misleading because the dependency of Argentina on agriculture pre 1929 undercuts the idea that this was powerful economy.

As regards the rest of your post, do try and maintain something approaching civility, I initially raised a point about the power of Anglo American capitalism which has had a transformative impact on world economic development. No, I do not know about Peron, why though presume I have some specific worldview? I don't have fixed opinions regarding the development of the world in the 20th century surprisingly enough. I suggested one aspect or possible reason for differences in development, can you really extrapolate from that that I have simplistic view of the world? It's a bit of an exaggertion and what it's driven by I've no idea. Perhaps you lived in Argentina in the 30s, in which case sorry I don't know much about your country. But don't try and pigeon hole me or presume things.

 

[Diamond]

But looking at an economy at one particular point is misleading because the dependency of Argentina on agriculture pre 1929 undercuts the idea that this was powerful economy.

Argentina in the early 20th century was the fifth largest nation in the world going by GDP. Buenos Aires rivalled New York for wealth and opulence. European emigrants from Italy, France, Spain and Germany frequently had to make a seemingly difficult choice between America and Argentina. The economy was export led, although by no means reliant on a single product, and that is why it failed so badly. It has little to do with reliance on agriculture and everything to do with the collapse of world markets. From then on the reason why Argentina has never recovered its pre-eminent position can largely be put down to government mismanagement at best and endemic corruption at worst.

As regards the rest of your post, do try and maintain something approaching civility, I initially raised a point about the power of Anglo American capitalism which has had a transformative impact on world economic development. No, I do not know about Peron, why though presume I have some specific worldview? I don't have fixed opinions regarding the development of the world in the 20th century surprisingly enough. I suggested one aspect or possible reason for differences in development, can you really extrapolate from that that I have simplistic view of the world? It's a bit of an exaggertion and what it's driven by I've no idea. Perhaps you lived in Argentina in the 30s, in which case sorry I don't know much about your country. But don't try and pigeon hole me or presume things.

Try and maintain civility? If you drop your patronising tone, or if you displayed a level of the knowledge that you pretend to, maybe I will; but why should I pay respect to someone who so clearly knows next to nothing about what they are talking about.

Assuming you have a worldview? If you somehow managed to twist a few ignorant and vaguely sweeping statements about Argentina and Australia into a point about 'the transformative power of Anglo-American capital' (whatever the fuck that means!) and other kindergarten history ideas, then forgive me if I don't have you marked as a reductionist wadical bullshitter.

 

[Fledgling]

Try and maintain civility? If you drop your patronising tone, or if you displayed a level of the knowledge that you pretend to, maybe I will; but why should I pay respect to someone who so clearly knows next to nothing about what they are talking about.

Assuming you have a worldview? If you somehow managed to twist a few ignorant and vaguely sweeping statements about Argentina and Australia into a point about 'the transformative power of Anglo-American capital' (whatever the fuck that means!) and other kindergarten history ideas, then forgive me if I don't have you marked as a reductionist wadical bullshitter.

I haven't patronised you or anyone else on this thread, nor have I anywhere else on this site. At no point have I pretended to know more than I do. I decried the simple listing of countries and counter examples becasue I think that is glib, it doesn't try, this is imo not a good way of dealing with the op because it is too simplistic and doesn't really mean anything. I felt the thread wasn't going anywhere so attempted to join the debate by making a point to get the ball rolling. It was an idea, a suggestion, at no point did I claim that my suggestion was all encompassing or necessarily correct. The suggestion I made was broad, it was general, it was perhaps badly worded. It was not and never claimed to be the reason for Argentina's economic woes.

In debates or discussions people inevitably make generalisations and come out with incorrect information. The level of generalisation will depend on the audience, the contributor and the purpose of the debate. You too have reduced the reasons for Argentina's economic woes. I can't put that any differently, it is not intended to sound patronising.

I'm not sure exactly why you appear to be so offended in regard to my ignorance, given the context of this thread. I've tried now to explain why I posted in the first place. I view any discussion that anyone starts as mildly interesting but when a discussion doesn't proceed I try to open it up a bit more. If a topic is put forward, here or anywhere, I'll contribute. If someone interjects and says something that's wrong and I can correct them I'll do so.

I've seen plenty of discussions in the past. Someone will suggest a topic and then someone will come out with something wrong or appear to know what they're talking about when they're generalising. Sometimes I know more than them and realise they're incorrect. How do I deal with that? I disagree, tell them I see things differently. But I don't stop respecting them, regardless of their tone. Why? Because I welcome their interest, they showed enthusiasm and I want them to learn more but feel good about how they do so. And I know that in many discussions we are all igorant relatively. If I jumped down everyone's throat because they came out with something generalised or they claimed to be an expert I'd have no friends, no family (especially my dad) and my formal education would have ended abrubtly. And I do know more about some things than other people. But I want them to know too and disrespecting them will not achieve that.

 

[Diamond]

Maybe I should have substituted pompous for patronising...