Singapore doan suffer. Do not blame the British for stupid ass citizens of ex-british colonies. Dem razz juss doan know how DEVELOP.

And we over here, doan know how the develop either. We living on the white man ingenuinity.

Singapore like Hong Kong were merchants ports in Colonial times. You wouldn't be allowed in unless you were very rich or you were the servant of a very rich colonialist.

Barbados, the most British island in the Caribbean isn't even the poorest in the region.

Where do you get your ideas that British colonies are the poorest?  Furnish data.

Guyana is poor because of Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham.

More rantings.

I know you will tell us that the Portuguese were the best colonists.  Just look at the legacy that they left in Angola and Mozambique, where almost the entire indigenous population were illiterate in the 1970s when they were tossed out.  Ghana and Nigeria were in much better shape in 1957, and 1960, when they got their independence.  The locals were running most things by then, unlike Angola 13 years later, where if a toilet didn't work, some one from Portugal had to be brought in!

I can see you are really grateful your ancestors were enslaved by the British. You even take pride on that.

Lucas, no golden handshake like the Dutch just a bill, a loan and a bucket of racial hate in the form of immigration laws from the "Mother Land".

Right..

But it seems there are some who prefer not to see that.

So you prefer that I claim that the Portuguese, Spanish, French or the Dutch would have been better?

They were all slave owners, so why ony your angst with the British I wonder?

I think it is YOU who have the hots for the Portuguese, so want to manufacture this lie that the poorest countries in the world were those formerly colonized by the British.

Brazil, Mexico and the USA. According to you the USA is the poorest of the three.

Do you really think that blacks in Brazil are better off than those in the USA?

I wonder why you care that the British banned us from migrating when the USA and Canada became available to us.  Even if we still could have migrated to the UK, seriously, how many of us would have gone there with the USA and Canada beckoning?

It is very easy to see that Caribbean immigrants to the USA/Canada are a whole lot better off than those in the UK.

Suriname didn't get most of the money that the Dutch promised, them, and indeed the Dutch used that offer to give them the right to intervene in Suriname affairs.  Take away gold and oil and Suriname would be right down there in the gutter with Guyana, both would rank very low when compared to most other parts of the Caribbean.  With two coups, a bloody civil war, and a KNOWN drug dealer as President, I don't envy Suriname at all.

OK. Down the motherland!

Australia. New Zealand and Canada were once British colonies..

Its your motherland and you are enraged that "mother" doesn't want to have anything to do with you.  So you pretend that Portuguese colonies were left in good shape.

Clearly.  I ask Lucas to tell me what country settled by Spain or Portugal is as well off as these countries.  Even Spain and Portugal would still be poor if Germany, and France didn't bail them out when they joined the EU.

Lucas do you know that in 1970 a higher % of the population was illiterate in Portugal than in GUYANA!!!!!!?

What is the difference between India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa and the White Colonies of Australia, New Zealand and Canada?

Do I need to explain?

I asked you a question whicjh was which countries settled by the Spanish or Portuguese is equivalent to Australia, etc.  You couldnt name ONE.  Why not Argentina, mainly European?  You didnt because the comparison is an embarassment to you.

So you invent a strawman so you throw in Africa.  Now that would have given you an opportunity to compare British colonialism, with that of the French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, given that all of those powers had colonies on that continent.

But you dont.  Why?

You know what I find interesting is that you make a claim the British colonialism makes countries poor.  Yet you dont offer any evidence of this.

Ok Nigeria vs Niger.  Ghana vs Guinea.  Botswana vs Mozambique.

All African nations.

Also explain Argentina vs Australia.  Both mainly European.  Brazil vs the USA, both with a legacy of plantation slavery.

So

Perhaps you are right. All those African and Indian countries are much better off after British colonialism. Thanks to Britain.

Easy thing to compare those African countries which were never colonized (Liberia and Ethiopia) with the others.  Then you can compare the status of the various African nations when they acheived independence.

But you cant, as you pursue your moronic notion that Iberian colonizers are great.  Well Do you think that the Aztecs or the Incas benefitted from being colonized by the Spanish?

And you also refuse to admit the cupability of people in ruining their nations.

In 1950 Guyana was RICHER than Barbados.  Now its much poorer.

Who is to blame?  Definitely NOT the British, as indeed Barbados was a much more thoroughly British colonized colony than Guyana was.  So based on your thesis, ought to be as poor as Haiti, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Bolivia.

Who is to blame? If not the British then the color of the skin is to blame.

So Barbados, thoroughly colonized by the British between 1626 and 1966. is much richer than Guyana, colonized between 1802 and 1966, which has much greater natural resource endowments than that tiny coral reef poking out of the Atlantic Ocean.

How can you come to the conclusion?  Do you blame the British for the destruction of Guyana by Guyanese between 1966 and 2014?  Why, when the two were of equivalent wealth and development in 1966 did Guyana fall so massively behind? 

How come Barbados with 166 square miles and 300k people (including around 15k Guyanese) has a GDP of $4.9 Billion, while Guyana with 750k people and 83,000 square miles packed with gold, diamonds, and acres of unused fertile soils, a scant $2.8 Billion?

Are the British to blame for that?  NO! GUYANESE are!

I still see that you havent been able to prove that former colonies of other powers are better off than those which were British.

Just back off because you are looking very stupid at this point.

You are claiming that dark-skin nations have a problem....

WHY???