Why are the anglos the only race to master colonization? The

>implying they wouldn't be shitholes if it wasn't for the U.S.

Just look at ex african colonies of England, we left them alone, they're shitholes.

File: zimbabwe-white-farmers.jpg (403KB, 1200x835px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1200x835px

>>75191766
The problem with any African colony is that the colony is filled with Africans

>>75191698
Not mixing with the natives tbqh

File: HDI Colonies.png (202KB, 2714x1254px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 2714x1254px

>>75191698

>>75191911
This. They replaced the population.

>tfw this moment you realise that anglos won everything because they have no heart
I hate being french desu

Jamaica, Nigeria, Paquistan and so on seem pretty good lel

>>75191698
Our european colonies (france, england, spain) are doing decently well though

>>75191855
this
also in any african country, theres the paradox taht if they find petrol or something similar the country actually gets worse (see equatorial guinea)
most leeaders of african countries are less responsible than a 16 year old pregnant retard

>>75191956
impressive

England nabbed the sparsely populated countries and flooded them with colonists.
When there was a sizeable local population you ended up with Rhodesia

>>75191766
That's because somebody had the bright idea to let coons rule themselves, that always "works out just nicely".

>>75198886
Aren't you a shared colony of Turkey and Saudi Arabia? Last I checked you had more shitskins then they do. Also don't pretend that France and Spain are anything but cucked, bankrupt, shitholes.

Because the anglos sent settlers to live in the colonies. Other countries just straight up exploited their colonies for its resource wealth.