*civilizes you*

Compared to the rest of their region, yes. You're proving me right

Hey, you fucking limey bitch, don't you dare take credit for our accomplishments. The UK is shit. We kicked you the fuck out because we had a better idea, and now look who's on top. Must I show you a picture of what the Toblerone bar looks like now?

Attached: 1478452447486.png (473x500, 8K)

please sodomize yourself with baguette.

Look at your country now

Attached: UKisShit.jpg (1200x757, 195K)

*abandons you in your time of need*

90% of British ex-colonies are terrible
The only difference with Brits and French is that Brits have 4 (four) successful ex-colonies, because in four places they genocided the locals and replaced them with superior whites (while frogs never did that)

But as a whole, Spain has the best ex-colonies

Attached: 1504836334215.png (2714x1254, 202K)

>Yeah our colonies are all shitholes and our colonials now come to our country to drive trucks of peace into us but at least our Toblerone bars are bigger!

The absolute state of Frogistan

Attached: Handsome man.jpg (2048x1536, 168K)

Daily reminder that England was conquered and civilized by France.

Before 1066 you were a bunch bix nood ooga booga tribal Anglo-Saxon nignogs

why did you scrunch up Germany's flag

>colonize: send settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.
Countries settled by Brits are amazing.
Countries founded/created by Brits do better than they otherwise would have.
Most, if not all of those countries got worse once the Brits left and were to an extend redefined by anti-british romanticised delusions.
ALL french colonies are shitholes, don't try and claim Canada.
The most prosperous French speaking territories are Switzerland, Monaco and Jersey (a crown dependency).
The only reason all of the aforementioned are obliged to know French is because they've had to deal with the gibby gaul sub-humans, the greatest stain on Europe.
Everything the French touched is literally Haiti tier.

>South America
>successful

>because in four places they genocided the locals and replaced them with superior whites (while frogs never did that)
They couldn't do that
Napoleon lost a war to Haiti.
Britain has the best ex-colonies, the most successful countries in the world were made by Brits, and it's not just those inhabited by ethnic Brits, you haven't thought of Hong Kong or Singapore

sorry boss. have a colonial german flag

Attached: real samoan flag.jpg (480x360, 20K)

The UK is a place where food is absolute shit, yet people are still fat and die of heart disease all the time. At least America has good food

Yankees were pretty sophisticated, too sophisticated for the crown. They had sovereignty in the new world

>grants

>They couldn't do that
France never even tried that

>Napoleon lost a war to Haiti.
There was no attempt to genocide Haitians
Totally irrelevant to the point

>Britain has the best ex-colonies, the most successful countries in the world were made by Brits, and it's not just those inhabited by ethnic Brits
The HDI map posted above proves you wrong

>you haven't thought of Hong Kong or Singapore
These are city-states
By that logic France has Monaco and Portugal has Macao
Not representative in any way

True. The US was still uncivilized when they betrayed their King.

william was a bastard with no just claim and his invasion was literally a successful viking invasion but we don't think of it as such because he was a good boy in the churches eyes, an organization which supported him so they might rape more english boys. He resorted to attacking defenseless villagers while Harold marched down.
The normans invaded because England was really prosperous and being a viking/ bix nood ooga booga tribal nignog he was well aware of this and in true noggy fashion invaded when they were at they're weakest.

>The HDI map posted above proves you wrong
Are you retarded? That map clearly shows that eight of Britain's colonies have very high HDI, while only Spain has any other very high HDI colonies, and all the are cartel-infested homicidal shitholes.

It does actually. The bongs developed their economies in the process of "exploiting them", then when they gained independence all that infrastructure belonged to them.

The French only held their territories to keep them out of the hands of the Anglo.

Hahahaha
The state of frogs that they have to lie to themself to makeup for how pathetic they are
>WE WUZ NORMANZ N SHIT

>That map clearly shows that eight of Britain's colonies have very high HDI

Eight out of over 200
4 "genocided and replaced with whites" colonies, two city-states and two oilnigger caliphates

Nigirea Egypt and South Africa and doing very well
India too but you are an underage frog that only wants to suck Marx’s cock

Brits weren't more genocidal than the French
How is Haiti irrelevant? France's most prosperous colony lost a war to it's slaves and the French on the island were annihilated - a consequence of French brutality coupled with incompetence.

>The HDI map posted above proves you wrong
No it doesn't, Britain DOES have the best ex-colonies as that map shows. TWO continents are first world thanks to the Brits.

>Eight out of over 200
the ABSOLUTE state of this lad

>Brits weren't more genocidal than the French
They were more versed into settlement colony (mostly because tons of people wanted to escape the shithole that was England)

>How is Haiti irrelevant?
It's irrelevant because this war wasn't about genociding the Haitian
You presented it as if France tried to genocide the Haitians and failed, which isn't what the war was about

>a consequence of French brutality coupled with incompetence.
The French weren't any more brutal in Haiti than Brits in Jamaica
What really caused the Haitian chimpout was the French Revolution, and what made France "lose" to them was the massive wars that were retaining its attention in Europe (pic related)

>No it doesn't, Britain DOES have the best ex-colonies as that map shows
Map shows that eight out of over 200 British colonies are good
Spain has a much better percentage of success

Attached: RevolutionaryWars.png (1638x984, 281K)

>Spain has the best ex-colonies

Attached: AD4E3436-BC80-4A52-B226-93AF5D1AD9A5.jpg (269x212, 36K)

Overall, yes
Britain has few good ones and countless terribles ones
Meanwhile Spain has many meh ones

>They were more versed into settlement colony (mostly because tons of people wanted to escape the shithole that was England)
No, it's literally because they were less genocidal. In an era when the French slaughtered Heugonots, Richelieu tried desperately to find his uberfrench to settle Canada and turn it into a prosperous mercantile/farming colony. In forbidding non-Roman Catholics to settle, he damned his nation. The crown on the other hand gave Pennsylvania to an enlightened Quaker.
Also Frances population wasn't growing like Britians because of all the famines.
>1693-94: 1.5 mil dead
>1709-10: .6 mil dead
England was much more sophisticated than France by this point, in terms of government, culture and science, just read Voltaire's Letters on the English. The French didn't believe in inoculation and wouldn't read Newton because he was English - even when Europe conceded his brilliance.

>The French weren't any more brutal in Haiti than Brits in Jamaica
Demonstrably untrue but it's clear you really don't know what you're talking about.

>Map shows that eight out of over 200 British colonies are good
They're aren't even 200 countries you fat tongued cheese eater
>Spain has a much better percentage of success
Spain has a 0% success rate. The GDP p/c is higher in Oman than it is in Argentina yet Oman is yellow and Argentina is Spain's purported success.

There hasn't been a real "civilizing" force since the Romans desu