Whos the Best Colonizer?

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by TankiesYank, Oct 20, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From Slate.com:

    There's South America, then. At least I can blame Spain!

    An interesting article...it's not real PC, to be sure, but I thought it might engender some discussion.

    For instance, is the comparison of British colonization centuries ago to the much more recent United States' version on geographically closer islands an apples-to-apples comparison?
     
  2. The best colonizer? Belgium.
     
  3. Termites
     
  4. Interesting subject. I'd like to see a comparison between colonized islands and those that maintained their own soveriegnty (sp?), that is if any such exist.

    I do note that in the case of Peurto Rico, they were long a Spanish colony before being taken by the US. Wasn't Guam as well? I wonder how that affects things.
     
  5. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    [align=center][​IMG][/align]

    [align=center]I think this is probably the best one I could find. She was heard to exclaim 'Don't worry Mr Septic, we'll have it all out in a minute'[/align]
     
  6. The Chinese,2nd to none!

    Even though many will give me a kicking for this,the longer I live in Asia
    the more I have come to believe that Europeans never did RULE any Asian country,they allowed us to build big homes , fly our flags and take a piece of the pie.
    And when we became vulnerable it was good bye Tommy/other Europeans.
     
  7. Damn, beaten to the colon joke!
     
  8. Surely the best coloniser is the country that persuades the inhabitants of a particular peace of real estate to be colonised - it ain't about how great the places are now? So I don't agree that the septics were the best colonisers - most of their colonies they nicked from the Spanish in the Spanish American War.
     
  9. Well, first you need to define Colonisation:

    And going by this definition of colonisation, I would say Britain did pretty well at it.
    At the same time, the US didn't do well, as they have, to my knowledge, not actually settled anywhere and established colonies, but rather aggresively taken colonies established by other nations.
     
  10. If the US is such a good colonizer then it must be saying something about British colonisation, as one of the main colonizers of America we must have had a major role in making them so good at it.

    Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and United States were all former colonies and are a few that I can think of as being succesfull. The fact that a former colony of ours became the worlds greatest superpower surely says it all. :)
     
  11. Wow, those would be really awesome points if only someone had made a major case for the US of A being such a great colonizer...

    Isn't there a hole for you to crawl in to somewhere?
     
  12. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs


    Oiii, have some respect, bend over when someone kisses arrse...
     
  13. "The authors also compare the experiences of separate Pacific islands with eight different colonizers: the United States, Britain, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and France. Their verdict is that the islands that are best off, in terms of income growth, are the ones that were colonized by the United States—as in Guam and Puerto Rico. Next best is time spent as a Dutch, British, or French colony. At the bottom are the countries colonized by the Spanish and especially the Portuguese."

    this passage is from the article that is being discussed and is the one I was commenting on.
     
  14. Sustained colonialism - self-evident surely, that the USA wins hands down?!

    One way or another, the whole country was taken from someone else, and is now an economically vibrant, self-sustaining polity, AND a global "hyperpower" to boot! By any standards, not bad going.