What is it about the original eternal anglo that made its off-shoots so successful in economics, war, etc. Is there an inherent value system? Is it their specific concept of law and order?
Most other empires just spawned off shit-holes. What did they do right? Open discussion.
>Most other empires just spawned off shit-holes.
Because in the countries on your pic Anglos either killed off the natives or settled on an empty land. Other empires didn't have that luxury, if e.g. Senegal was settled exclusively with French people it wouldn't be a shithole. Anyway look at Anglo ex-colonies in Africa, all shitholes to the last one.
Botswana dog.
You're thinking of the French, where literally every single one of their colonies is drenched in AIDS and fail.
this. Genociding the locals works much better than trying to assimilate/domesticate them.
Botswana is a total shithole with probably the highest AIDS rate in the world, and its HDI is lower than Moldova.
Natural Anglo genetic superiority. Honestly, it is really a British genetic superiority as a whole.
Actually colonized them. Most of what are called "colonies" in history really aren't. To colonise something means for people of your culture to move to and displace the previous inhabitants of an area. But most of what we call colonies were just arrangements between European powers and local leaders for profit. If you want to be impractically pedantic, there were no european colonies anywhere in Africa or Asia, because no large european populations moved into those areas. European countries ruled over those areas, often times indirectly, but they didn't colonise them.
The US and Canada are first world countries because the British saw them as part of the British realm, populated by true brits, and thus they spent time, effort and money developing those places and making them nice to live in. Former European colonies in Africa are shit-holes because their overlords never saw them as part of their nation or people, just as nice free real-estate they could extract wealth out of, so pretty much the only investment and development went into the bare minimum to collect resources and garrison the neccesary bureaucrats/soldiers.
In the end, Anglo ex-colonies aren't really better because they were Anglo-ex colonies, but because North America, the only place practical for large scale colonization, was captured by the British and not someone else.
Australia is the only actually good country on that map.
I'll make an addendum too that by just totally replacing/eliminating the previous popularions, you get rid of any cultural/ethnic disturbances. In places like the US, they removed all the Indians, formed a concrete national identity, and then just kept on expanding and spreading their already predominant culture.
In coloneis where the native populations still dominate however, you get conflict and instability. Because you're busy grabbing as much land as you can without regard for anything but profits, you inevitably end up with a ton of different cultural groups that probably hate each other. This makes the resulting countries much weaker, encouraging the ever-constant civil wars we see in Africa.
>tfw no anglo union to go and take over the world with
Christ, I never even thought of this. I thought, maybe language, genetics, but they don't make sense.
Since you've explained it. I'm curious, Argentina and Uruguay would be the closest I can compare, as they are mostly from european descent. Even the liked of colombia and brazil have similar demographics to the likes of usa. Why would those first two spanish colonies be underdeveloped, and why would the second two be on the border of underdeveloped/shithole.
Also, explain singapore. Just how small it is makes it easy maybe?
Debatable, but the larger idea is the highlighted countries are far and away better than most former colonies.
perfidy. they're just better at lying with a straight face
This is exactly something a frenchman would say.
Argentina and Uruguay aren't underdeveloped, they're pretty much on par with the mediocre European countries. While Bolivia, Peru, Honduras etc are Africa tier.
Latin America is sorta halfway between North America and Africa in terms of colonizability. On the one hand, it is fairly fertile and you coukd support a decent population with colonial era farming there, but the problems are it's wealth. In (continental) North America most of the profitable enterprises were in things such as tobacco farming or fur-trapping. Both of those are great for colonization, because the first encourages homesteaders to go and settle the area directly (Anglo Model), and the latter encourages a smaller amount of trappers and traders that have ti work with, and nit be in competition against, the various Native groups, thus not only facilitating, but actually making benevolent rule over the Native populations economically beneficial (French model).
However, the main source of wealth in South America at the time was in mining or Sugar. Both are very lucrative jobs, but the ing is nobody wants to work in them, so the colonizers end up enslaving the Natives to work on their mines and plantations while only a few europeans actually settle there. So you end up with countries that only have some development, which is additionally all concentrated in a white elite while the rest of the country is poor. Argentina and Chile are big outliers due to cattle ranching and industry respectively.
(Didn't see the kast part of your post.)
Singapore's prosperity can be attributed mainly to a Chinese majority culture, and the efforts of one man, Lee Kuan Yew. In his tenure as Prime Minister of Singapore he transformed what was basically Afghanistan into what is now perhaos the most modernized country in the entire world. Now, Singapore being incredibly small is obviously of benefit, but it has no natural resources (LKY once said the only natural resources of Singapore are it's people) AND it had just been kicked out of Malaysia, and was facing possible war with an expansionist Indonesia. The only thing Singapore had going for it was a (mostly) unified culture and it's geography (located on a prime shipping lane), and Lee Kuan Yew made the most of it. I'm (as you probably guessed) a huge admirer of him and would love to visit Singapore sometime. (I live in Burgerland)
Your premise is flawed,Anglos also colonized India (a shithole), Botswana(a shithole), South Africa(a shithole), Nigeria (a shithole), Ghana (a shitehole) etc. I could go on and on. They were just as bad rulers as France, Spain, The Netherlands and Portugal they just happened to also wipe out the populations in Canada, Australia and New Zealand (fuck you America became great on its own,Britannia did fuck all for us) so they decided to actually rule properly in those 3 countries creating the proper non-shithole countries they are today. Also Anglos would of ruined Canada if it wasn't for William Lyon Mckenzie King not being a cuck for Britain and actually being an independent and intelligent Prime Minister
Are you an idiot? S. R. Nathan did far more for Singapore then Lee Kuan Yew
I have a way better understanding now. The only thing I still don't understand is why those anglo countries would succeed in science, war, economics when all this happened 150 years ago.
I supposed it was dumb to mention singapore, I'd imagine Macao is also well developed despite being portuguese colony.
Why is it flawed? I pointed out success stories. My thoughts were, sure, UK had alot of failures, but france, portugal, spain have no success comparable to the 4 anglo offspring. Even if they had one that was close, they are still far away.
I never laughed so much!! Thank you for reminding me humor exists in the world. besdies the fact the Brits were shitting in the woods when Italians had the largest richest Empire on Earth, Americans have done far more to influence and change the world of the better. They buoy British mediocrity with American Supremacy.
Singapore's prosperity can be attributed to the fact it's literally the most important port in Asia. It's like if Rotterdam was a city state ruled by a clique of gook Merchants.
>what was basically Afghanistan
Are you trolling?
>science, war, economics
That's just US you're talking about, not Anglosphere as a whole.
Are you an idiot? S. R. Nathan was appointed President by LKY in an uncontested election in 1999. LKY had been Prime minister since 1959. The President of Singapore also only has custodial powers, the position might as well be a figurehead. The Prime minister is the actual head of government.
>Also, explain singapore. Just how small it is makes it easy maybe?
Singapore is similar to Hong Kong and Macau in that it was a region of relative liberty during the early 20th century, which attracted a lot of the regional talent to it.
Those economies are utterly different. Singapore is a huge port and important trade center while Macau is the Las Vegas of Asia.
>no other peoples had the chance to colonise those areas
>t-the Anglo was just l-lucky
Success breeds jealousy
I mean, he doesn't imply luck, but despite the one actual smart person explaining it had to do with the eradication of the natives and populating with europeans, I still find it strange.
For example the usa is full of catholics, blacks, hispanics, and it still shows the same attributes.
So you're saying e.g. Canada would be a rich and successful country if it was composed by racial mongrels and natives like Mexico instead of Europeans?
>catholics
Religion
>blacks
Race
>hispanics
Language
Apples and oranges and pears.
Brainlet.
Great answer.
Well, in a way its diverse. Its in fact probably more diverse than brazil.
Historically it's been mostly homogenous racially. In 1950 for example the US was 90% white, and it's not coincidence the country is becoming shittier by the day the less white it gets. It's an inverse proportionality. When US will be completely mongrelized/black like Brazil, it will have an economy and stability of Brazil as well.
Shit like religion and language doesn't really matter.
The United States is diverse NOW, but that is only after it had stopped being a colony. The US had a fairly homogenous population of WASP's, and because of this Britain saw it as part of England. Home. So they invested into the US and developed a strong economy that wasn't merely a resource extracting operation.
The US declares independence however and boom, now it's no longer getting help from Britain. It expands west, continues to eradictae local populations, and can easily snowball into economic prosperity thanks to the initial start it received from Britain, and the whole "not-constantly falling into a civil war every two years because this is an artificial country composed of many feuding ethnic groups" thing that African nations have to deal with.
The US had been receiving immigrants who weren't British or Protestants even before it's independence, but these were in small amounts. Only after the US had been established as a stable, successfull country did the immigrants really start coming in, and by that point it had a strong melting-pot tradition going on thanks to early influences in it's development like Rhode Island.
Burger education, everyone.
Both got to where they are by being the easiest places to do their respective kinds of business in.
>They buoy British mediocrity with American Supremacy.
American accomplishments, by and large, are Anglo-Celtic accomplishments.
t. True-blue Yankee.
>homogenous population of WASPs
WASP and Anglo are not synonyms. WASP specifically refers to rich upper caste.
>Anglo-Celtic
That's like saying Italo-Nigger or Slavo-Finnic. The term you're looking for is "mongrel".
And American accomplishments are mostly German-American accomplishments.
>. Is there an inherent value system? Is it their specific concept of law and order?
Phrases such as these are how you spot the brainlet children.
Stop LARPing you Australian retard.
Obviously history has a huge and lasting impact. Can what happened 200 years ago survive in the future? I give it 20 years before its undone. The hispanics I know who came here in the 50s are american as they come. The ones now make no progress. My old school now has spanish trasnlator from k-7
>Singapore
It helps if you are a harbour city-state built on the Singapore Strait.
How could we go about setting a barrier on this board for people who don't know basic history? I'll be lenient and not include the humanities as that may be asking for too much, but really how can we get rid of these stupid threads?
Wasp refers to white anglo-saxon protestant, all classes included
>Nurture doesn't matter at all, we are all the same
If a british baby is adopted at birth by a french family, you're telling me he will grow up and behave, think, and act like a british person?
It's always the 2nd and 3rd generation that's the main problem. You can actually see the difference between various immigrant groups: the Irish, the Poles and the Chinese just assimilated into generic Americans, increasingly with each generation. But with Latinos in America and muslim immigrants in Europe, the 1st generation were the hardworking people wanting a better life, but the 2nd and 3rd generation created a ghettoized ethnic fifth column.
Jesus, just stop it's embarassing.
Even 5 seconds of reading the rudimentary wiki article would refute that.
>White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) is a term for an elite social class of powerful white Americans of British Protestant ancestry. WASPs often trace their ancestry to the colonial period.
>Originally, the W in the acronym probably meant "wealthy" rather than "white," as the term "white Anglo-Saxon" is redundant, and WASP traditionally refers only to an elite group, not to all people of English descent.
Rednecks/crackers (poor whites) are not WASPs.
This is also a good article about WASPs: independent.co.uk
>The US mocks Britain for its obsession with class. In reality, it is riddled with such distinctions of its own, as any examination of Wasp-ness quickly reveals. Take Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Indisputably, both are white, Protestant and of Anglo-Saxon origin. Clinton moreover had those Waspish perquisites of Rhodes scholarship and Yale Law School, while a Carter ancestor arrived in the New World in 1635. But neither could be counted Wasps. They were southern. They were of modest origins. In short, they could not be seen as "one of us".
What are you even implying here? Canada is not a successful country? America's success is due to it's current situation?
America is not a successful country CURRENTLY, because it became a non-white hellhole. When it was successful, it was because it was pretty much a homogenous white nation.
>t. le 56% face
I have no idea. Countries, empires have been on the brink before until one exceptional individual or event saved them, and honestly I don't think the US is really "on the brink" right now. There's a pretty big downhill TREND, but the US just has so much development and power that it'd be a long ways to come down before anything too bad could happen. People just hype it up as some cataclysm because right now everything is getting worse, but all nations have bad periods.
Honestly, if you want some big historical trend to point to as a reason for the current decline, I would say that there is currently a sort of battle between the de jure and de facto ideals going on in the US. Other countries are usually founded on a culture/ethnicity, but the US (in theory) isn't built on such stable foundations. In the modern day we like to think of the founding fathers as having intended for the US to be what it is today right from the start, but the truth is really different. The US was created to be an aristocratic republic for white protestants, but due to some select lines from our foundational documents over the years people began to believe the US was, and was always meant to be, a mass-participation democracy of racial and religious tolerance.
I'm not saying either one of thise is good or bad, but the simple fact is that we have two competing ideas of the American civilization, one being the original and one being the misunderstanding of the former. This has been going on for a long time but now it's especially prevalent, and social cohesion is only going to keep deteriorating until we can really work out what principles are going to guide this country.
Not that user, but their natural resources and the way it was used played a huge part for them, so there's barely any indication where the country is heading in regards to race.
Also they're mostly getting latino'd if you haven't noticed.
>Anglo-America before German immigration
>colonial backwater with nothing of importance, periphery of western civilization, can barely defend itself from fucking pirates, half the economy is based on niggers picking crops
>America after German immigration
>world power, global hegemon
Have you studied history in an university setting or self-taught?
>America isn't successful now
>Race-baiting
>Reactionary romanticism
Can you source your claims?
Successful former British colonies
>Australia
>Canada
>New Zealand
>Singapore
>Hong Kong
>UAE
>Qatar
>Cyrprus
>Malta
>Kuwait
Mid tier former British colonies
>Malaysia
>Bahrain
>Oman
>Maybe Egypt and South Africa
Awful former British colonies
>Sudan
>Yemen
>Iraq
>Zimbabwe
>Sierra Leone
Their former empire is a mixed bag
>Anglo-America before German immigration
>Fought for it's freedom, it's manifest destiny, and it's place in the world stage
>America after German immigration
>56%
I say Anglo-Celtic because I recognize the importance Scotch-Irish and other non-Anglo Brits have had in the making of this great country.
My ancestry goes back to the Mayflower.
That's a load of fucking bullshit. Even now, white America is, by and large, British. I can post the pasta if you want me to.
And this is just pure retardation.
Where is usa?
very true
Do you go to a catholic church?
>56%
Who brought niggers to America? Protip: it wasn't the Germans.
>Do you go to a catholic church?
Not at all. Why?
I took a few AP classes in High School, but other than that I'm self taught. I just have an interest in history and I've been reading anything history-related since I began to read. If you want to get into history, I'd just suggest reading professional biographies of important figures, and then getting into more abstract stuff slowly over time. Also, don't feel the need to know a little bit about every time and every place. If one specific time/setting combo ends up being your favorite, really drill down into that subject. I guarantee you that as long as you read from professional sources, read the opposing side of an argument before making your mind up, and make sure to only read things you find interesting, you'll be able to learn a ton.
>Niggers are 44% of America's population.
>Thinking Anglos or Celts ran the slave trade.
Confirmed for talking out your ass.
@3870666
crosses self, won't give a real reply to those digits, re(you) me and ill ask
Americans don't say Anglo-Celtic. We say WASP, English, Anglo, Old stock Americans, Colonial stock or even Pilgrim stock. Nobody says Anglo-Celtic because of the historical friction between the English elites and the Irish immigrants, counting them as a single group is nonsense and nobody does that. The term only exists in debased peasant nations like Australia where a pack of low caste English criminals immidiately mingled together with the Fenian pigfuckers, creating an unique race of mongrels. You didn't have class warfare because you simply never had any upper class.
"True blue" also means something different in the US than it does in Australia, here it denotes loyalty and not purity, LARP some more you koala nigger.
>Americans don't say Anglo-Celtic.
I know that, Jackass, I know it's an Australian term, it's just a very good term.
Here's my DNA test, it shows the migration patterns.
>t's just a very good term
In America it fucking isn't.
>my dna test
>Eastern Europe, Iberia, Finland, Russia
Wow, pure WASP right there.
But America is the least "noble" of the Anglo countries. You are pleb af.
t. upper-class Brit.
Anglos did run the slave trade. A minority were Jews sure, but most slave traders were Anglos, and the ones buying them were almost universally Anglos.
Fuck off already Bruce you're not fooling anybody.
You're the fucking LARPer.
"Oh, you don't understand the class struggles that make the use of some Australian term taboo!"
I have literally never even seen anyone in modern-day Ohio seriously insult the Irish. And, anyway, I used it to include the Scotch-Irish and other Scottish settlers.
And I'm not even going to respond to your idiocy about my DNA test. I just used it to prove that I'm not Australian.
desu, I absolutely love history and knew so much more when I was in high school. Then goes college and working. All my love of history retained but no time to read more about it. I think I'll start using some time afterwork to read more instead of going out for a drink or two or watching tv/posting on here. What would be your first book suggestion?
>Ignores the Portuguese and Spanish who established the slave trade
>Ignores the Dutch and French who demonstrated the value of cash crops and plantation slavery
>Throws in da jooz for no reason
>Still doesn't understand he's been and continues to be mocked for his Teutonophilia
Keep digging.
>Ignores the Portuguese and Spanish who established the slave trade
Nothing to do with the US. I don't care for niggers in Brazil and Dominican Republic.
No slave trade means no slaves.
They weren't the ones importing niggers to the US, that was the Anglos.
My friend is convinced that the slave trade was started by a certain group. He also believes they are behind all of the central banks and most commercial banks. In addition he thinks they run most western governments from behind the scenes. But it's not who you think while reading this.
Catholics?
>Catholics are behind all the central banks
Anglos wouldn't have participated in the slave trade if it hadn't been shown to be profitable already. Besides, what does this have to do with the correlation between German immigration and the dilution of the white race?
Individualist free market libertarian anglo culture > Collectivist socialist euro hivemind culture
Yes, Jesuits to be specific. He's gone so far down the rabbit hole that he send me links of all the people in positions of power who went to jesuit colleges (which is just a normal college really) and most of them are non catholic. But he's convinced.
Agreed.
It's not that Anglo culture is superior to European culture, it's just that the best European countries never really had colonies.
I wonder if people in the 27th century will look at neo-Nazi and denier bullshit about the Jews the same way we look at Protestant bullshit about the Pope and Jesuits today.
Jesuits are crypto Jews though.
brill.com
I mean in a way I find it funny, because I am catholic and went to a Jesuit university. But when he shows me these crazy lists of people and the universities they went to, he still seems crazy. But it is strange. The sketchiest thing is the Jesuits have all these universities and they like sorta work together, they fund raise together, they associate with each other, they share connections. Idk maybe he's onto something. Plus I spent 4 years at a jesuit college and never bothered to look up what it means. I guess they like want to find Jesus?
Andrew Roberts Napoleon was great and is pretty deep. Bully! The life and times of Theodore Roosevelt is less exhaustive and covers the gioded age of american politics somewhat in addition to being a good biography if TR as well. Truth be told those are the only specific biographical books I can remember. Aside from those almost everything I've read in the past 5 years has been general histories, but they are good. Honestly though you should probably just find someone you wanna read about first, and ask for recommendations of either /lit or here.
Love general history, hate biographies, gonna look up one for spanish civil war or mexican american war
It's just another in-group. Like Jews and Mormons, they're groups with wealthy members who want to promote their in-group, even when it's just plain nepotism.
Most groups that associate, share resources, and collectively succeed like that are going to create jealous, bitter outsiders. Centuries later people will find the petty rumors started about them, take them at face value, and continue to spread them in the name of "truth."
fuck off mongrel cuck.are you Amerimutt by any chance?
>Britain saw it as part of England. Home. So they invested into the US and developed a strong economy that wasn't merely a resource extracting operation.
Lol nope. Navigations act of 1668. America was not allowed to be anything other than an agrarian shithole to sell Brittish goods
You missed the USA.
Malaysia and Bahrain are as successful as half your 'successful' category.
Zimbabwe was successful until they gained independence. One can't blame Britain for what happened afterward.
Anarchism, big.
Powerful institutions, weak executives. Also, a love of liberty and freedom, but not to the insane degree the Dutch take it.
>Most other empires just spawned off shit-holes.
You're right, and the Anglo gave us the shitty current state of Africa and the Middle East.
>Malaysia
Not for long once the Malay-Chinese have left that increasingly Wahhabi influenced country.