Why were french so shit a colonization while the Spaniards were so good at it?

They were both shit compared to the English

It's easier when you kill off the natives and replace them with high IQ white people.

I wonder why they aren't planting trees.
Its stupidly cheap when you consider the long term benefit, the immediate boost in voters trust, hiring lowlife incompetent morons to do a low salary job to please the mob, looking good on news, etc.

Like, if I was el presidente of whatever this banana republic is, first thing I do is hire many bodyguards, and second thing is reforesting that shit.

Agriculture in general doesn't seem to be the strong suit of sub saharans.

But thats Hispanola, its part of the Caribbean archipelago near USA.
And the island was specifically known for plantations and agriculture.

>But thats Hispanola, its part of the Caribbean archipelago near USA.
Yes, now guess the demographic makeup of the left part of the island.

>And the island was specifically known for plantations and agriculture.
Back when the farm equipment hadn't revolted.

niggers

>first thing I do is hire many bodyguards

Would someone please provide this man a list of statesmen killed by their own bodyguards?

>inherit a few lands from the Habsburgs
>WE WUZ COLONIZERS N SHIEEET

Funny how you didn't mention the real Spanish/Catalan colony in Europe, southern Italy which is a shithole.

>sample size of two countries
nice

But you see, comrade, if I have 20 bodyguards, they either have to all come to the same conclusion without infighting, or the loyal ones will stop the disloyal ones.

Canada here. You give to much credit to the French. This place was literally a turd until the English conquest.

Fun fact: Haiti has a population of 10 million people, and half of them are teenagers.

Fun fact 2: Haiti has a t-shirt based economy, with over 80% of its exports being cheap non-knitted clothing.

>compared to the English
>Belice
>Guayana
>India
>Half of Africa
>Iraq
The Brits were shit. Canada and Australia were huge piles of land with the most resources in the world and with almost no native population

The county of Flandes was a lower title than the kingdom of the indies so the Netherlands and Belgium were in fact lower than colonies

>>Belize
Far better than it's neighbors
>>Guayana
Far better than it's neighbors
>>India
Also far better than it's neighbors
>>Half of Africa
Ruined by communism, also the most developed African countries were formerly British
>>Iraq
Ruined by Am*ricans

>what are barbary pirates

>Far better than it's neighbors
Nope.It is as bad as its neighbors
>Guayana
Literally the poorer than Bolivia.The worst country in South America
>India
>Also far better than it's neighbors
All its neighbors are ex brittish colonies.All are shit.In fact the only neighbors that are better than India were none brittish colonies like China or Indonesia
>Ruined by communism, also the most developed African countries were formerly British
The most developed countries in Africa are Morocco and Algeria
>Ruined by Am*ricans
It was always shit

>Also far better than it's neighbors

All its neighbors are parts of India that she lost.
India is a country that only has its own rightful clay as neighbors, pretty hilarious.
Also all are former british colonies as well.

>Iraq
>It was always shit

What did he mean by this?

That's cherrypicking

French colonies on Africa are shit tier when compared to British ones.

>Ruined by communism, also the most developed African countries were formerly British

Lol wut? Really

It not as easy as that user.

haiti was basically cash crop plantations. when the slaves revolted. they didn't develop the country at all. just kept using what the french left behind.

they have cut down nearly every tree in the country to make charcoal to cook with. evidently electricity and electric stoves/ovens is too hard for them to figure out.

>high IQ white people.

They weren't high Iq at all though back then.

The only non-British colony I can think of that isn't shit is Macau.

you're statement is vague. what period are we talking; before or after french administration? haiti under french colonial rule, for example, was literally the richest colony in the world and provided employment to 1/8 of france in some form or another.

Arboriculture isn't that simple.

Macau actually surpassed it's colonist by a metric ton, since Poortugal is a shithole today.

to be fair, britain industrialized in the early 19th century by mass producing cheap textiles for the international market. not saying that haiti can do something similar but it's not something to be scoffed at

>haiti under french colonial rule, for example, was literally the richest colony in the world
No it was the most profitable which is not the fucking same thing. The island was miserable. Only the French lacked the morals to do what they did in Haiti. No other country was ever as cruel as France was there. Even in the DR slaves had some right and had to recieved a small pay. And they could buy their own freedom. In Haiti slaves worked to death and were systematically replaced by new slaves.

>Former colonies where the majority are White or Chinese
Thriving.
>The rest
Shitholes.

Their slave system was horrendous, I'm not denying that. What I'm arguing is that Haiti was not "shit" in the economic sense. That's why I said OP's question was vague. Does he mean "quality of life and long-term development" when he says "shit," or "the most efficiently run and profitable"?

And in France's defense, freed slaves and their descendants in Saint Domingue were allowed to move up the social hierarchy unlike the anglo-american (and to lesser extent the spanish) slave systems. Touissant Louverture and Dessaline were both slave owners, for example. Also, sugar plantation economies were always extremely cruel, whether in France or in Brazil and other Caribbean colony. The nature of sugar harvesting and processing made the process extremely labor intensive. Granted, I do think France had one of the harshest slave regimes, but French planters worked slaves so harshly out of pure economic calculation rather than out of some psychological flaw. In return, this is what made the colony so rich (rich, in the sense of its productivity and the bountifulness of the land that french planters extracted from it)

Actually it pretty much is. Just make sure the trees are a native species and you're good.

>It was always shit
Literally home to one of the original seven wonders of the world you troglodyte.

I take back the comment on Dessalines. He worked his way up from field slave to plantation manager (or foreman, I'm not quite sure)

>Haiti was not "shit" in the economic sense
It was the equivalent of Bangladeshi textile factories for sugar but 1000 times worse in terms of laboral conditions

Yes, outside the walls of Bagdad and a few other cities, it was shit.

>And in France's defense, freed slaves and their descendants in Saint Domingue were allowed to move up the social hierarchy unlike the anglo-american.

Which is isn't common just like how it was in America with Blacks gaining in social hierachy. one common thing to both is that said place in the hierachy is prone to easily crashing down by other people if you are black or mixed.

Haiti has a ton of foreign tree species in it's land and many of them copice so you just them to the stump then they grow back to full cuttable size 4-5 years later. It's actualyl better if Haiti develops it's charcoal industry even further and the gov stop being contradictory about it about supporting it and then working against it (most likely to fit NGO demands/requests and local demands that pleases neither).

You also have to grow them in a way that isn't monocultre which most lumber companies often fail to do. So new forests don't match old growths and are prone to "lel 1 pest/ disease btfo forest".

It only exists as a tax haven and casino tourism solely so it's success is limed since the other Chinese former colonies and Singapore which basically is one are better.

>evidently electricity and electric stoves/ovens is too hard for them to figure out.

Those actually remove one problem an add several more.

Nice bait thread.

>Life was shit for people living in rural areas, outside the state

By this metric no civilization has ever been not shit

> I wonder why they aren't planting trees.

Because they’re Haitians, literally the shittiest and most retarded country on the planet.

> kill Frenchies and Polacks
> Haiti instantly goes to shit
> America takes over
> everything gets better
> America leaves
> Haiti instantly goes to shit
> America takes over again
> everything gets better
> America leaves
> Haiti instantly goes to shit

Despite bazillions of dollars of foreign aid being dumped into the county, Haiti remains a complete shithole.

> t-shirt based economy

lel

who would your 20 good men be?

Quebecker here. This guy gets it.
We are taught in school to hate (justifiably) the brits but truth be told, shit got done with them. The french did basically nothing to us in any shape or form while the briths actually tried to develop the colonies (even tough they did it to the expense of the french canadians). Nobody is gonna admit that tough.

>Quebec is the worst part of Canada
Wrong.

Not to mention the German ones went from relatively humane resource machines into French shitholes as soon as they took over.

This is complete hogwash to a crazy degree.

>Not to mention the German ones went from relatively humane resource machines

Nigga what?

>Canada
an english colony, nothing to do with the french
>Africa
absolute shitholes with uncivilized ppl, daily genocide

>south america
maybe shit but not africa

Countering hyperbole with hyperbole.

Baby Doc, please.

“Despite having a viable tourist industry, Haiti is one of the world's poorest countries and the poorest in the Americas region, with poverty, corruption, poor infrastructure, lack of health care and lack of education cited as the main sources. The economy receded due to the 2010 earthquake and subsequent outbreak of Cholera. Haiti ranked 145 of 182 countries in the 2010 United Nations Human Development Index, with 57.3% of the population being deprived in at least three of the HDI's poverty measures.

The largest donor is the US, followed by Canada and the European Union. In January 2010, following the earthquake, US President Barack Obama promised US$1.15 billion in assistance. European Union nations pledged more than €400 million (US$616 million).

Neighboring Dominican Republic has also provided extensive humanitarian aid to Haiti, including the funding and construction of a public university, human capital, free healthcare services in the border region, and logistical support after the 2010 earthquake.

A country by country Excel report can be seen here, where the EU countries are presented separately, and the US contribution is diminished to about 460 million dollars. (*Represents aid tied to 2010 earthquake relief)

WORLD TOTAL $2,422,202,996”

yeah, rank colonizers based on how much they benefited the people they conquered

>the average english citizen had high IQ

>They weren't high Iq at all though back then.
What did he mean by this?

Two standards of deviation higher than the average nigger.

Heck, even a convict dumping ground became one of the richest countries in the world.

>literally the birthplace of civilization
>birthplace of some of the most powerful empires in history
>it was always shit

ya ok bud

>Which is isn't common just like how it was in America with Blacks gaining in social hierachy.
It was almost nonexistent in the Anglo-American slaveholding tradition. In Saint Domingue you had a significant black planter class, which was very strong in the southern part of the island that was still "frontierland" for new plantations. You also has a significant number of black planters around the Port au Prince region.

Free blacks equaled the white population at 5%, but it was the blacks that were actually entrusted with the duty of protecting the colony with militia service (the marechausse), which also had the vital role of capturing runaway slaves in the rugged hinterland. Such duties and increasingly stringent racial laws passed in the late 18th century paved the way for the tension that broke out in 1791. We have to remember that the first Haitian revolt in early 1791 was a revolt of free black elites, let by Vincent Oge (who was like 1/4 african btw) and how significant it is that around Port au Prince you had rival white planter led and black planter led militias (both using slaves as soldiers). Only in August 1791 do you have the huge black slave revolt in the Cap Francais, the northern plain of the island totally separated by mountains from Port au Prince (indeed, in saint domingue one travelled by boats to get to the islands, passing from one region to another was nearly impossible until the first preliminary postroads were built by the french in the late 1780s before the revolution).

tldr, the black elite planters were crucial to haiti, its economy and society. they were also crucial to starting the revolution and providing its leaders to the more radical slave revolt when it began.

Again, I'm not talking about the inhabitants themselves, which were basically treated as expendable robots. I'm talking about it's value to the metropole. Haiti was undeniably the most advanced and productive colony in the world. Despite its cruel labor system it was at the forefront of agricultural innovation. French planters sunk an unbelievable amount of money constructing infrastructure, damming rivers and irrigating. One engineer even attempted to use a combustion engine to pump water upward. And to put it in perspective; Saint Domingue is the size of MARYLAND, yet it produced the most coffee and sugar in the world and produced more wealth than the ENTIRE Spanish Americas. All this less than a century. An island that was nearly covered in rainforest in the early 18th century and harbored escaped cattle and pirates was transformed into a proto-capitalist economy.

>to the islands
to go from province to province*

>Quebec is the worst part of Canada
If anyones answer is anything other than manitoba or saskatchewan, they have no place speaking on Canadian affairs. Even manitobans and saskatchewanites will admit such.

The Spaniards had Catholicism

also let me add that almost all the black planter class lived in Saint Domingue, while white planters were more often than not absentee landowners. In other words, the white to black planter ratio would have been small.

I'm southern Italian and generally feel we wuz greekz n sheeit over any connection to the Spanish.

All colonies in Africa were shitholes only to gain resources

The Spanish raped the natives to create a half-white servant race, while the French imported angry Negro slaves from Africa.

You forgot to mention the Coloured elite too user.

No Natives only constitute a small part of Saint Dominque DNA.

People really jack off over the convict part.

If you're going to talk about Australian history at least read up a little first. You're clueless.

...

Yea I conflated the free blacks with "le gens de couleur". They often mixed, though, even if they coloreds thought themselves superior.

yeah, thanks to good old Christopher Columbus. the only reason african slaves were brought to the Caribbean was because Columbus tried to enslave the native Taino people which led to their extinction through disease, exhaustion, and suicide.

Columbus wasn't all responsible for the enslavement. A lot of the first colonists were a group of like 1000 males. No women. A lot of them were from the dregs of society hoping to make something for themselves. Meanwhile, other people aspired to remove Columbus from power and take control for themselves, which is eventually what happened. The problem though is that Columbus was not an effective ruler, probably because he wasn't experienced in that type of thing having been a mariner his whole life. As for the Tainos, disease was inevitable and is especially destructive on islands where the disease spreads faster.

>The problem though is that Columbus was not an effective ruler, probably because he wasn't experienced in that type of thing having been a mariner his whole life

Also Italian so that's a big factor.

Because they were colonizing Mexicans instead of Niggers.

Brits of course were even better at colonizing because they simply killed the natives and replaced them with whites.

>The DR is Mexican
This is the dumbest post I have ever read. Congratulations pal

Because french people are careless and mostly don't care about the well-being of non-french people.

So why did they import 5 million niggers and 10 million sand niggers into France?

The governments of those countries make their own decisions.

Dominican Republic is a slightly better version of Haiti. Hell, even back then, haitians regularly raided Dominican Republic and even plundered the capital, Santo Domingo.

Imbecile Quotient you're high on that

English fags go suck a cock tu puto

Native civilizations are superior to your dying world empire

You wuz also Analbanians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapian_language

>Messapian may have been related to the Illyrian language

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbëreshë_people

>The Arbëreshë or Italo-Albanians are an ethnic and linguistic Albanian minority community living in southern Italy

>why didn't they abolish charcoal to make use of the FREE electricity

high IQ white people everyone:

>Tenochtitlan was founded on an islet in the western part of the lake in the year 1325. Around it, the Aztecs created a large artificial island using a system similar to the creation of chinampas. To overcome the problems of drinking water, the Aztecs built a system of dams to separate the salty waters of the lake from the rain water of the effluents. It also permitted them to control the level of the lake. The city also had an inner system of channels that helped to control the water.

>During Cortés' siege of Tenochtitlan in 1521, the dams were destroyed, and never rebuilt, so flooding became a big problem for the new Mexico City built over Tenochtitlan.

>Mexico City suffered from periodic floods; in 1604 the lake flooded the city, with an even more severe flood following in 1607. Under the direction of Enrico Martínez, a drain was built to control the level of the lake, but in 1629 another flood kept most of the city covered for five years.

>Eventually the lake was drained by the channels and a tunnel to the Pánuco River, but even that could not stop floods, since by then most of the city was under the water table. The flooding could not be completely controlled until 1967, with the construction of a Deep Drainage System.

>The ecological consequences of the draining were enormous. Parts of the valleys were turned semi-arid, and even today Mexico City suffers for lack of water. Due to overdrafting that is depleting the aquifer beneath the city, Mexico City is estimated to have dropped 10 meters in the last century. Furthermore, because soft lake sediments underlie most of Mexico City, the city has proven vulnerable to soil liquefaction during earthquakes, most notably in the 1985 earthquake when hundreds of buildings collapsed and thousands of lives were lost.