> Ah, nothing like selective statistics. Since you included in the Spanish list
> countries that were early colonies, and tended to exterminate the natives, you
> should do the same with the English list, and include the US, Canada, Australia,
> New Zealand, the Falklands, etc to your calculations. Otherwise leave out most of
> the Spanish list.... Please recalculate.
>
Selective my foot. I made it as extensive as my knowledge and time
restricted me to. I included all the countries which i was sure were
spanish colonies, and i included all the countries you mentioned. And in
any case your separation between early and late colonisation
is bogus since Australia, New Zealand, India, Ceylon and South Africa were
all colonised at approximately the same time, you are just dividing them
into countries that did well and countries that didn't. In any case, my
main point was in showing that your statement, and i quote, "If you looked
at a list of countries today that were once British colonies, and compared
them to the former colonies of other former great powers, you would find
that the former British colonies are today much more stable, and developed
economically, politically, and culturally, by and large." Especially,
this last bit "by and large", since only 4 colonies have done well, and
the rest have done extremely poorly, by contrast to the extensive list of
ex-spanish colonies, of which i don't think any of them had a lower
gdp/capita, literacy rate or lifespan than india, which by your reckoning
was one of the bright stars of the third world in industry,... (can't be
bothered to find the quote).
chau
PS: BTW, of the spanish countries, i would say that only a couple of
countries wiped out their native population, in most of them, they are
still a majority (in the diluted mestizo form).