Which colonial power "improved" their colonies the most?

[Navigator]

You're very welcome to AH. Things can sometimes get  robust in certain discussions but, provided your intentions are honourable not malicious, differences are usually resolved amicably. Just remember the 'no current politics' rule. Depending on the exact circumstances, political decisions of 100 years ago can fall under NCP because their ramifications are still being debated in parliament and press.

PS Pennsylvania was predominantly German/Dutch. Other states were similarly non-British.

 

[Insane Ranter]

The Omani Empire - The Swahili Coast, Oman Peninsula, etc.
Ecuador - Galápagos Islands (They were protected and preserved!

Egypt? - Were Canaan and Nubia better off under Egyptian rule?
Denmark their former colonies seem to be doing well and happy.

 

[ArtosStark]

I am not sure there is a firm consensus on what “better” means. To some the period prior to colonization in North America was a utopia with perfect harmony with nature and between people, disrupted by the inevitably corrupting arrival of Europeans. To others a dark and barbarous time of savagery and war elevated by enlightened teachings from more advanced peoples. Both are basically unjustifiable historically, but even more nuanced views will value different attributes that existed to greater or lesser degrees prior to or after colonization. “One man’s cure is another man’s disease”

Even if there was a consensus, both the benefits and the costs of such changes are not going to be shared equally. So what was “good” for certain groups (being saved from slavery or annihilation from their neighbours or just having a better source of income than previously), can be disastrous for their neighbours or even their descendants (being put into slavery, genocided, loss of social or economic status or opportunity etc.) or vis versa.

We have a hard enough time determining the relative rights and wrongs in much more homogeneous nations. I don’t think we have the ethical and philosophical common ground to do so in empires that ruled over hundreds or thousands of cultures, locations, and classes over a prolonged period of time.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

The Omani Empire - The Swahili Coast, Oman Peninsula, etc.

They certainly did a lot for Oman, but uh... the only things they left behind in the Swahili Coast were the ports they built to act as bases for slaving expeditions into the interior. If that's an improvement, it's a very mixed one.

 

[Raferty]

I suppose the British, there are more success stories than with other powers

Singapore, Hong Kong, the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and to some extent, India, are all from an HDI perspective likely better off than otherwise in terms of the legal, political, and social legacies of British Imperialism on their territory. This is of course very debatable, but I think the case is stronger than for other colonial empires

The Belgian and Japanese empires probably score the lowest. The Italians and Germans not far behind. The French somewhere ahead.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Well given that Algeria was a home to a bunch of pirates before the French came, it's hard to not get "better." I mean as long as you don't do what happened in the Congo. I don't think the French did a good job and I bet the British could have done better if we look at places like Kenya.

 

[TRH]

Well given that Algeria was a home to a bunch of pirates before the French came, it's hard to not get "better." I mean as long as you don't do what happened in the Congo. I don't think the French did a good job and I bet the British could have done better if we look at places like Kenya.

French officer involved in the occupation wrote this to a friend in 1843:

All populations who do not accept our conditions must be despoiled. Everything must be seized, devastated, without age or sex distinction: grass must not grow any more where the French army has set foot. Who wants the end wants the means, whatever may say our philanthropists. I personally warn all good soldiers whom I have the honour to lead that if they happen to bring me a living Arab, they will receive a beating with the flat of the saber.... This is how, my dear friend, we must make war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, load them onto naval vessels, send them to the Marquesas Islands or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate everything that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs.

...yeah no, French Algeria was always especially brutal even by the standards of European colonialism.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

French officer involved in the occupation wrote this to a friend in 1843:



...yeah no, French Algeria was always especially brutal even by the standards of European colonialism.

It started as a home to pirates. "baseline" is very easy to improve and still be terrible. I could be wrong, but IIRC the local government didn't even try to clamp down on them (as opposed to just being unable to contain it).

 

[TRH]

It started as a home to pirates. "baseline" is very easy to improve and still be terrible. I could be wrong, but IIRC the local government didn't even try to clamp down on them (as opposed to just being unable to contain it).

And in what universe is piracy worse than settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing? You could make a stronger case for the Congo Free State being an improvement for getting rid of slavery in the area like Leopold said he was doing.

 

[Aghasverov]

Perhaps the opinions and personal experiences of the islanders of Pulo Run may provide some enlightenment concerning the treatment of natives by colonial powers. They voluntarily invited the British in to protect them from others.

This was a fascinating story, that I had never heard before. What was interesting to me, considering the VOC treatment of the locals early on, the Northern Maluku islands became noted for their loyalty to the Dutch in later years, so much so that at the time of Indonesian independence, several of the islands (including the capital, Ambon) attempted to break away and form their own republic, maintaining close ties with the Dutch.
Of course, 300 years of history had transpired in between....

 

[Kerney]

It started as a home to pirates. "baseline" is very easy to improve and still be terrible. I could be wrong, but IIRC the local government didn't even try to clamp down on them (as opposed to just being unable to contain it).

There have been places run by pirates that are not too bad, often in reaction to oppressive official governments.

 

[Ajobek]

I wonder if you could make a case for Russia in Central Asia, oddly enough. At least in terms of literacy and economic development there were some big strides as I understand it. But you need to balance that against subsequent famines, environmental mismanagement and the usual settler colonialism displacing local populations.

The case is probably more comfortable if you specifically just look at Central Asia under the Russian Empire and discount the USSR.

Opposite, Russian Empire view Central Asia as settler colony in nomad north and resources exploitation colony in south. Most of Central Asian goodwill towards Russia comes from Soviet time. World Wars can be illustration of difference between Emperial and Soviet Central Asia, during WW1 in 1916 Empire attempted to recurt some Central Asians to rearguard work and it caused rebellion and forced Russian to send Army to suppress it, while during WW2, Soviet were able mobilize several million Central Asians without problems.

 

[sarapen]

I think that Denmark was/is the best of the colonial powers. They treated Iceland pretty well and are currently treating Greenland well. But, like all long-time colonial powers, there was slavery in the Danish Caribbean possessions of Saint Thomas, Saint John and Saint Croix until 1848.

I mean they inserted IUDs into Inuit girls without their knowledge or consent. I suppose it's better than the forced sterilizations that Canada did but that still can't be described as being treated well. In fact, this list of human rights violations makes the Danish treatment of native Greenlanders sounds very much like what Canada and the US did to native peoples as well.

 

[Risenemperor7]

The only places I can think of is probably Hong Kong or Singapore. Every other case of "improvement" involves some widespread human horror.

 

[ComradeHuxley]

One interesting example that came up occasionally in this discussions was the North Borneo Chartered Company as an starting point for "postive" imperialism that might lift up a colony in the long term. ( Consequences of surviving Aceh Sultanate /this way/ on *Indonesia & Positive imperialism )

 

[GunterW]

I'm not sure if "well managed" is the term I'd use to describe the nightmarish genocides that took place in Namibia.

Colonies are not charity, they are run for the benefit of the settlers not the natives. Administratively German colonies were well run, in constrast with the Spanish and Portuguese african colonies that were for a long time, only lines on a map. The French were also pretty neglectful in the West African interior. They barely left anything of worth when they left.

It is no debatable whether being some country´s colony was good, it was certainly not, but that was not the focus on my response.

 

[Gwyndolin]

None of them really. “improvement“ is mostly in the context of I suppose whether to not said colony experienced political economic or cultural success is rather vague as countries often have ups and downs in their histories. The USA I suppose is by all metrics the most “successful“ colony given that it has remained THE superpower of the 20th & 21st centuries, but the US‘ global dominance was contingent on a variety of factors including the most noticeable being that the American war for independence wasn’t much of a revolution and not much upheaval in the social system was actually created from it. and even then there were multiple contingent factors that could’ve gone south even after that. The USA’s expansion demographically and in resources was predicated on the obliteration of native sovereignties, what is good for the spider is chaos for the fly and such. And history even post revolution didn’t even need to necessarily go in that direction either.

I’ve also never really liked the narrative in armchair history forums that British colonies magically end up developed because they were British, it dips too much into the black legend and American exceptionalism for my tastes.

 

[Historywatcher0]

I’ve also never really liked the narrative in armchair history forums that British colonies magically end up developed because they were British, it dips too much into the black legend and American exceptionalism for my tastes.

It's not magical. But the British combined both sending enough people as needed (something that certain powers like France and the Netherlands didn't do) along with good legal structures and at least basic levels of investment. Like the British tried to hold back the Americans from industry and certain things. But they built a good basic schooling system and didn't go over the top with shit that kills economic activity like internal trade barriers or forcing all trade to happen from one port.

The Spanish in the 1700 and 1800s were still ruling feudal holdings in the Americas, little different from their holdings in the 1500s and 1600s. Their reforms mainly focused on trying to squeeze harder, not invest in productive capacity.

The British of course made missteps. But their model has worked successfully in multiple places.

 

[Navigator]

It's not magical. But the British combined both sending enough people as needed (something that certain powers like France and the Netherlands didn't do) along with good legal structures and at least basic levels of investment. Like the British tried to hold back the Americans from industry and certain things. But they built a good basic schooling system and didn't go over the top with shit that kills economic activity like internal trade barriers or forcing all trade to happen from one port.

The Spanish in the 1700 and 1800s were still ruling feudal holdings in the Americas, little different from their holdings in the 1500s and 1600s. Their reforms mainly focused on trying to squeeze harder, not invest in productive capacity.

The British of course made missteps. But their model has worked successfully in multiple places.

As many have mentioned, all the colonial powers took actions that we now recognise as deplorable. There is no 'shining light in the darkness' when it comes to the rule of one nation or tribe over others. Romans viciously put down any hint of rebellion and based their economy on slavery. The Atlantic triangle relied on the Africans who were in conflict with their neighbouring villages providing a steady stream of captured prisoners. The conduct of the various European nations (~1400 to ~1900) has already been discussed. The US was involved in physical colonialism before 1918 and cultural colonialism ever since (if I explain that further I'll hit the NCP barrier).

What can be counted as positive are the undeniable uplifts that took place in the better examples. They may have been patchy, or badly implemented, but I think most of us could agree that some things were definitely of benefit to the locals - even if the colonists' initiating motive was to produce a healthier, more productive workforce.

New medicines and a general increase in lifespan.
Education and the introduction of technology.
Better administration and the twin concepts of no-one is above the law and innocent until proved guilty.

 

[Viriato]

Looking at the African colonies there seemed to be a push to develop the territories for independence in the 1950s at least on the part of the British, Belgians and French, but these efforts were very delayed, and independence was often granted hastily with little preparation (in the case of French Guinea). Countries with larger European settler populations tended to boast better urban infrastructure along with transportation. Overall, there were some differences, but by world standards the continent remained woefully underdeveloped whether in independent countries such Ethiopia and Liberia or in European colonies.

The Belgian Congo, Kenya, Angola, Mozambique, Northern and Southern Rhodesia all boasted far more modern cities and towns than places like Chad or Nigeria. In Portuguese Africa the contrast between the cities and rural areas was perhaps the most stark as rural areas of those territories remained until the 1960s amongst the most underdeveloped, with the cities and towns boasting amenities comparable to those found in South Africa.

When looking at human development in 1960, the Belgian Congo stands out with around 75% of all school age children in the territory enrolled in primary schooling by 1957 and the colony boasted a literacy rate of around 35% to 40% at the time of independence. Whereas in the UN Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi it stood at around 5% when the Belgians pulled out in 1962. It is interesting to note that the Belgians seemed to almost entirely ignore university education, with very few Congolese being university educated.

In independent Africa in 1960, South Africa's "Bantu" population had a literacy rate of 35% in 1958, which was higher that Egypt's overall rate of 30%, Tunisia's 25%, Ghana's estimated 20% to 25%, Morocco's 15%, Libya's 10%, Liberia's 5% and Ethiopia's 4%.

After the Belgian Congo and Madagascar, British Africa seemed to have the highest overall literacy rate around 1960 with around 35% of Uganda's population being literate. Kenya, Nigeria, Northern and Southern Rhodesia all having 20 to 25% of their population literate. In Sierra Leone and Tanganyika Territory, however only around 10% the the adult population was literate. In Southern Rhodesia, around 80% of the children were enrolled in primary education around 1960, and by the time the country became Zimbabwe in 1980, over 70% of the African population was literate.

French Africa was more uneven with around 30 to 35% of Madagascar's population literate in 1960, while Senegal and Gabon boasting rates of 15% to 20% of adult literacy. It stood at 5 to 10% in Chad, French Congo, Ivory Coast, Togo and Ubangi-Shari, while in French Soudan, Mauritania, Niger, Upper Volta those rates ranged from 2 to 5%. Even in French Algeria, only around 15% of the Arab population was literate at the time of independence.

Italy still held onto the Trust Territory of Italian Somaliland until 1960, and the literacy rate there stood at around 5% in 1960.

In Portuguese Africa, African education was a low priority for the Portuguese government and in 1960 the African literacy rate in Angola was probably around 2% and in Mozambique 1%. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was an effort to increase African education, but at the time of independence in Cape Verde, 37% of the adult population was literate, whereas in Angola that number stood at 15%, In Guinea-Bissau it was 9% in 1974 and around 7% in Mozambique in 1975.

Regarding infant mortality, in 1960 the independent countries of North Africa such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya all had infant amongst the highest infant mortality rates on the continent, with over 200 out of 1,000 children dying before the age of 5 in those countries. By contrast, in French Algeria the number was 149, Morocco 139, Kenya 129, South Africa 121 and Southern Rhodesia 99.

Industry too seemed to be dominated by the countries where there were larger settler populations. By 1974, the largest industrial output in Subsaharan Africa was in South Africa, Angola, Rhodesia and Mozambique in that order. But even these transformative industries were often dependent a European settler consumer market.