Why was France so terrible at managing its colonies?

Why didn't the French breed more and sent their criminals to Africa?

Every country settled its colonies you retard, it's just that Jews pushed for colonization and the genocide of African whites so there are few of them still left.

Why would you go to meme continents like africa or america when you can live in glorious France?

France had the best standard of living in the world so families didn't need to breed 10 children just to have enough labor to survive. This is why modern countries need immigration.

Ressources.
European greed knew no bounds in the past.

Yeah, they were pretty white.

...

European colonialism didn't play out like a video game. Colonialism had a tradeoff between reducing your native population and settling colonies. The Dutch, English, and the Spanish all had surplus population that was unneeded at home. In contrast France was bountiful and could maintain a high population, which is why it dominated Europe until colonialism.

...

How do I summon a succ

>cringeball

>Why was France so terrible at managing its colonies?
It's not just France
Any colony in which locals werent replaced with whites is a shithole (especially British ones like Zimbabwe, Burma, Nigeria, India, Iraq...and basically all the others that arent the 4 successful white ones or a city-state)

>Why have they never actually settled a colony with ethnic Frenchmen considering they owned so much territory?
Now that's the real question
It probably comes down to how less shitty than England mainland France was (thus giving less incentive to flee the country for overseas)

Gosh Hong Kong, Singapore and Macau have strange looking white people

>Spanish all had surplus population that was unneeded
Spain has been underpopulated for centuries. Fucking Charles V had to bring Flemish people to Andalucia to settle it

>ones or a city-state
You are pretty dumb user

>These colonies arent colonies because they contradict my argument

>no difference between city states and large swathes of jungle

Morocco turned out fine I guess...

>inb4 kanker marokkaan

I didnt say there wasnt only that they are both equally colonies.

Why not just admit you used the wrong word instead of trying to move the goalposts and redefine what colony means?

uh, yes?
Do you even know what a Pied Noir is?

Coty-states arent your average country nor your average colony
There are like 4 city-states out of 200+ British colonies

Not even him but fuck off man; you're being pretentious.

No one ever said city-states arent colonies, tard

This guy 's point was that every British colony that wasnt one of the four white colonies or one of the five city-states, is an utter shithole
In other words, 95% of British colonies are utter shitholes (given that there were over 200 British colonies and that something like 9 are successful)

They gave the world Quebec as revenge

t. Toronto street shitter

Actually the french managed pretty well the "decolonization" process with the PanAfrique.

Indeed
Blackey BTFO, forever a slave

The biggest disadvantage of Spain compared to other european posees were their lack of population. In fact, nowadays they are around 43 millions and decreasing...

European countries

No.

English migration wasn't due to overpopulation but to political, religious and social unrest mostly stemming from the policy of enforcing enclosures fucking up the peasants in the benefit of capitalist landowners.

Dutch didn't really migrate in numbers, except for South Africa and that was in the XIX.

Spain was underpopulated. There really wasn't any significant migration until the late XVII and that was mostly due to famines and general economic depression during Charlie II the Retarded times, not to excess population.

France also experienced times of severe social/religious unrest, but not much of economic fuck up. To the former the huguenot response was migration but not to overseas but to protestant countries, mostly Brandenburg-Prussia, to the latter people just waited out until economic recovery since the average rural frenchman was not fucked in the ass like the average english peasant, or revolted like in 1789.

>no inclusion of:
>pakistan
>south africa
>india
>nearly the entirety of the middle east
>various african shitholes

Anglos had more successful colonies, but them and the rest of europe had numerically similar shitty colonies that were the result of ruthless selfish colonial policies

Africa was one of the last place colonized. They were already sending all their convicts to Canada, Louisiana, and the West Indies but that still wasn't enough to keep those colonies afloat. By the 19th century, Napoleonic wars and then the German wars did a good job at population control. By the late 1800s / early-to-mid 1900s they were claiming half of Africa but did have any people left to send there.

wrong, populations grew to fit resources in France and elsewhere, all of Europe was overpopulated to a degree along with barren wastelands and Chinese rice paddies

What time period are you talking about?
17th century France was wealthy
18th century France lost most of that wealth and foreign land, and led to a food shortage and the French Revolution.
19th century had a lot of political instability and lost some major wars and provinces.
20th century was pretty nice but they also got BTFO in both world wars.

>given that there were over 200 British colonies and that something like 9 are successful
A lot more than nine were successful. There were twelve American colonies, six Canadian ones, six Australian, and one New Zealand. That's just counting those four countries.

French aren't puppies that can just birth kids every few months and second not all settlers were criminals idiot.

Simbly epic buddy xD
You know very well that by "colonies" people mean current countries that are ex-colonies

Over 200 current countries are ex British colonies, and like nine are doing good

That's because Hong Kong, Singapore and Macau had modern institutions built up and developed and the natives actually had investment in growing the pool of skilled laborers.

Britain needed Chinese to run the shipping and trade at the ports but didn't need to educate Africans because Africans were just a pool of cheap labour and nothing more in the eyes of the state (education breeds rebellion).

and a lot of them are getting good.

There are not over 200 countries that were formerly British. There's barely 200 countries total.

In that regard you could say that Britain had 12 colonies in Africa.

Not really
Many are getting worse (Iraq, Nigeria, Burma, Egypt, Bengladesh...)
And the rest are mostly stagnating

12 of which are shitholes

>This is why modern countries need immigration
Do you believe automation isn't/won't happen?

kek nice cartoon

>Why didn't the French breed more and sent their criminals to Africa?
We sent them to South America instead. Good old times, it ended because muh human rights...

>Many are getting worse (Iraq, Nigeria, Burma, Egypt, Bengladesh...)

A few yeah but most are developing like Nigeria, and Bangladesh. You criteria for getting worse and stagnating are very vague

Not him but that shits been spouted for years and it still isn't really blazing along like it's proponents say. Also automation is expensive as fuck.

Nigeria is worse than ever
Now they have added the "muslim terrorism" issue to the "nigger chimpout" issue every subsahran country has

I agree it isn't blazing along, but what is the deal with the media proclaiming that manufacturing jobs are gone because of automation, but then say immigration for the economy is a good thing?