>>610330 In the Americas the French for sure, mostly because they didn't even bother to colonize like the Iberians and the British. After them, from my experience on Brazil, the Portuguese did a nice job in assimilating the natives that didn't drop dead from smallpox.
I don't have much idea about natives in colonial Africa, except it sucked.
By indigenous I'm going to assume you just mean the natives of any colonized areas and not specifically the kind of primitive tribes that word tends to link to.
The answer is none, European colonization went on for a long time and the manner in which those states colonized changed over time.
France is the common meme response to this question, but you would really rather live under British rule in the gulf than under French rule in Algeria, but at another time and another place you would rather live under the French.
Britain is a strong contender because of its ordinarily hands-off approach, maintaining local notables in their lands and being happy to leave natives to their business so long as commercial-maritime security was ensured. But the colossal exception to this rule was obviously India and some others and so to say that Britain was the "nicest" to the indigenous people would be nonsense.
It might just be a case of that government which governs least, governs best. So the pointlessly inadequate imperial systems of the late Spanish empire might be said to be the "nicest" simply because they could not impose their authority over indigenous populations in the way that other European states could.
>>610330 depends on the indigenous people and where they lived some tribe of a few hundred out in the middle of of the bush away from the westerners would probably have more cordial relations with the imperial power than the tribe of a few thousand who lived on top of a potential diamond mine and controlled the best farmland that happened to be a stones throw from the fort of the expedition company.
>>610424 >The revolutions in the Philippines & Cuba? Locals pissed off that the last two colonies of Spain weren't granted status as formal Spanish provinces and representation at court for all their loyalty.
Nope, they were considered provinces even though they didn't the legal status - yet
>>610424 >It just suffers from LE BACKWARD CATHOLIC Anglo propaganda.
To be fair, a number of conquistadors were brutal even by contemporary standards But it's important to remember that these were private ventures that only received royal backing after they establishing something of a Spanish presence and finished any firsthand messy business with the natives
>>610613 >But it's important to remember that these were private ventures that only received royal backing after they establishing something of a Spanish presence and finished any firsthand messy business with the natives Precisely.
In fact the Church complained to both the Spanish King and the Pope for conquistadors to stop their shit, especially amongst already converted natives.
>>610330 Of all, I'd say the Portuguese. Literally trying to assimilate all the colonized. The settlers mingled with the locals, and there was no system of racial castes, as was in the case of Spanish colonization.
Second, the Ottomans. Yes, they were quite brutal when people rebelled - no doubt. But in peacetime, they had a very humane and fair system, and which aimed at maximum efficiency, stability and harmony.
>>612748 >Making Algeria official departements of the country. >Massacres left and right along the usual abuse of local and their ressources for the sole (small) profit of the capital. >Encouraging population settlements by Pieds-Noirs, Creoles, Acadiens and Cajuns. >Fighting disastrous and costly wars to keep the few colonies they didn't lost in war (Dien-Bien-Phu or Sabra & Chatila?). >Maintaining neo-colonialist power in Francafrique by supporting dictators and keeping armed forces on the ground. >Still has so much colonies it's the countries with the most timezones. >Still ignoring or treating like shit its current colonies (Guyane, Martinique, Mayotte have become neo-colonies where metropolitan French come in holiday to be served by local servants with the locals still being dirt poor -- refusing to grant French Polynesia the independence it asked for) and their representatives are LITERALLY the recordmen for most corrupt elected officials of the Fifth Republic.
>>610330 In Africa? The Germans. Mostly because all their colonial holdings were pretty much economically useless and they only existed so Germany could say "we have colonies too, we're relevant just like Britain and France", meaning that the Germans pretty much let the natives do their own thing as opposed to exploiting them.
>>613111 >The Algerian War for Independence wasn't long, costly and a disaster. I figure you're not french uh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War It caused the downfall of the IVth Republic, a coup, numerous deaths and wounded, a huge divide in the french society and spending beyound reasonable.
>>610468 >>610477 Ok this is going to sound completely bizzare, but are you studying 'Middle East in the Age of Empire 1830-1970' at Oxford Uni? Because I literally just had a lecture yesterday at St Anthony's college on British/French colonialism in the Gulf/North Africa, and the Tocqueville quote you posted was the exact fucking same one that the lecturer used in explaining French invasion of Algeria, which is the craziest fucking coincidence if you weren't in the same lecture.
>>610424 i mean to be fair, the people who used to run shit rebelling because now theyre the deputy person who runs shit seems like a pretty typical thing, dont know if 'le catholic meme' really applies/even exists.
>>613106 If anything, this has more to do with the UK and Israel's creation. >Israel is created >conflict with Palestinian ensue >palestinians get rekt >Palestinians are displaced to the former predominantly Christian Lebanon >Muslims become a majority and try to start shit >Christian vs Muslim war >Muslims get massacred with direct Israeli support
>>610330 If only Portugal honoured Tordesillas and messed with Africa instead of the Americas...
>>610401 >the Portuguese did a nice job in assimilating the natives that didn't drop dead from smallpox. The approach was mixed. Some Amerindians were simply wiped out, some were allowed to coexist.
>>612748 Frenchmen didn't allow even Frenchmen to keep their native culture - see La Vergonha for example.
>>613134 Not him, but the picture implies Germans didn't even deal with the natives. If it was the last panel, and the Belgian wasn't there to imply the other side, I'd say the genocide would be obvious.
>>614765 But to be honest he just did shit other colonies did in Africa but he was excessive, over the top and he couldn't hide his shit well like the other powers did or make up a more bs narrative to trick people.
>>614842 By Empire I meant the notion of being a colonial empire.
They always lambasted Europeas for being Colonial Empires who are anti-freedom. >Ugh, The Austro-Hungarians wont give their component nations freedom. >What the Brits do to Indians are abominable. And so on.
And here they are, occupying republics such as Cuba and the Philippines.
European states dogpiled on Americans for that. Like KEK YOU DID IT AS WELL. SO MUCH FOR LIBERTY AND ALL THAT
>>614945 >US did a good job saving the Philippines from itself. All I see is a republic dependent on America for everything. America sure left it but it left behind unequal treaties such as free exploitation of its resources plus the US Bases with its niggerous troops molesting local children.
Literally the region's laughingstock. Even the Muslim bits of Southeast Asia are well off.
>>610468 >happy to leave natives to their business so long as commercial-maritime security was ensured. >But the colossal exception to this rule was obviously India you do realise that half of India wasn't even under the direct rule of the British? A lot of the princely states had real autonomy
And before I get yelled at, I am NOT referring to the Congo Free State. Belgium had fuck all to do with that, as it was the personal property of Leopold II and eventually they took it away from him because he was such a shitty landlord.
>>615107 No, it really wasn't. They took the Congo from prehistory to the first world in less than 50 years and everything was going absolutely swimmingly until blacks started whining about "muh democracy" despite the fact that there was no democracy at all - whites didn't get a say in what the government did either, they had to put up or shut up. But all the cool kids were doing it so Belgium decided to try out democracy and in less than two years the Congo was a failed state because all of the tribal and ethnic bullshit that had successfully been suppressed by the government came roaring back when people got the chance to advance their own interests.
Congolese had no say in the politics of the motherland as well as policy back home. Congo had 19-30 university graduates compared to the much more abundant France and the UK pushed at the time of independence. Belgium only really did shit after WW2 when it started improving some things but native education was shit because Secodnary schools were so sparse. They had 50 fucking years and 30 graduates was all they could get.
>>615235 is meant for >>615149 and Congo got into conflict because of the Cold War on top of the Katanga Civil War which was completely supported by Belgian interest. None of the people living their even knew they "split" until Moise Tshombe came out with a
"We is indepentant and Shiet" *pensively caresses bribe money* .
>>615657 >region infested with sandniggers >US bombs sandniggers >how dare you disrespect the sovereignty of my festering sore of a country that actively encourages the murder of civilians around the world >this is an outrage
>>613847 >If only Portugal honoured Tordesillas and messed with Africa instead of the Americas...
But Portugal respected Tordesillas. Until losing its independence in 1581, to Spain. Since then, the treaty has become a venerable memorial to uselessness, considering that not ruled the limits of jurisdiction of the Councils of the Spanish Empire.
>The approach was mixed. >Some Amerindians were simply wiped out,
>>610458 >Italian Okay, I am Italian and I have the proof this is 100% bullshit. Problem is in the 60s there was some Christian Democratic historiography that marketed the idea of "Italian Colonialism" as "the good colonialism".
E.g. "The English were harsh and imperialists. French just assholes. Belgians were genocidal. Germans... don't talk to me about Germans".
The thing became famous because it is the kind of shit Indro Montanelli, who was very conservative, used to broadcast in his books and newspapers.
Guess what. Italians murdered tons of people. Yeah, they got their butt kicked hard by the Abyssinians. But in Eritrea and the like they got e.g. one isolated terrorist attack, so they got trigger happy and slaughtered some 5,000 people.
Just to say the least.
The ridiculous theory Italians were "good" is supported just by the fact they didn't stay long enough to carry on the massacres at a genocidal level. But as long as they were there, they tried hard to match the bloodshed of other superpowers. This bullshit about Italians being good is so widespread there are some fascists in Affile who managed to have the Township pay for a mausoleum dedicated to one of the "monsters" who carried on the massacres: Rodolfo Graziani.
Source is here: http://www.wumingfoundation.com/giap/?p=9360 But it's in Italian. So good luck with that.
There was even a discussion about this on the /mena/ thread on /int/, and they all agreed it was France. The one thing France gets blamed for is trying to assimilate everyone and turn them French, but compared to other colonisers that was an extraordinary generosity.
>>610330 French would have been the nicest but I think in the long run you really have to ask, did it pay off? The British colonies turned out the best in the long run, with Spanish colonies in a distant second
>>617449 I think a fair comparison would be comparing them in two categories: Colonies that a country controlled but did not try to heavily populate with their own people and Colonies in which people migrated to in larges numbers to establish new civilisations
Of course most of the Spanish colonies or the latter category are far better than most of the British colonies of the former but on a category alone basis the UK wins out both
>>617466 That's retarded. So you think you can compare Canada or USA for example, where the native population was all but genocided and replaced with white people, with Mexico where it mixed with a few Spanish settlers, or Haiti where it was replaced with African slaves? Or that you can compare Neolithic societies of Africa with civilisations like the Middle East or India?
Compare countries of the same situation in the same region. Compare British Uganda, French Gabon, Belgian Congo, and Portuguese Angola for example. Compare British Burma with French Cambodia. Compare British Iraq with French Syria. You'll find that there a few differences, although British colonies tend to be more on the poor and unstable side, but other factors come into play as well (for example the main reason French Africa is much more stable and less prone to war and genocide than British Africa is probably mostly that France maintains a hold on it).
>>617513 Leaving local elites in charge wasn't done out of niceness, it was done so the British could easily pit them against each other and divide and conquer, and because it was a much cheaper way or running a colony. And while said chosen rulers profited from it, it sure as fuck wasn't better for the local people.
>Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa lel, yeah the native populations of those countries sure seem happy about colonialism.
>they also built the best infrastructure and massacred the least amount of innocents That's obviously France.
>>612985 >Encouraging population settlements by... >Acadiens and Cajuns
Wot? You mean people who were mostly exiles of France who built their own society, separate from France, that peacefully coexisted with the American Indians and developed a dike system that converted shitty swamp land into fertile land?
Exiles of Acadie that were dispersed amongst the other British colonies of America in an attempt to ethnically cleanse them in Canada, and/or enslaved by the British, or murdered by the British, because they refused to bend the knee to the British Crown and give up their faith?
This is like saying that the Irish who left Ireland for the United States were settlers for the British government, colonizing the US. Most of these people were vastly different from the French settlers who traveled to North America for the fur trade or any other activities for the French Crown.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.