High GDP: "With the lone exception of Japan, the darkest places on the map are either next to Britain, or former British colonies."

Yet Italy and Korea both pretty dark on that map. Suddenly Galileo and DaVinci have no influence on the Rennesiance or Industrialization?

GDP Density: "In fact, there are only two prosperous landlocked countries of any size: Austria and Switzerland."

Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania stand out, as does central China, but those are merely "states" and muck with these theories.

"Africa has very few good sites for ports--the best ones are on the north and south of the continent."

Except for the many countries of southwest Africa which were critical to the slave and rum trades.

Growth: "Growth is inversely correlated with wealth, but positively correlated with having rich neighbors."

Growth correlates with development which was delayed by political turmoil in most of the darkly shaded countries on that map.

"It's a pity that geography is so rarely taught in schools above the third grade level--there's an enormous amount to learn about societies just from looking at maps."

This is evidence that not only basic geography, but the interpretation of maps in general should be taught. Sometimes this "with the lone exception of" stuff is the most important information on the map.

What a load of John Bull.

Where all the white women at?

It's actually the old Dutch trading empire, but close enough for teh interwebs.

I'm probably the smartest person on Fark. I hold a PhD in every subject imagineable, and I've been named Master of the Universe by Time Magazine. I'm heading to the gym in about 25 minutes (I'm a little faster than some).

m0llusk: This is evidence that not only basic geography, but the interpretation of maps in general should be taught. Sometimes this "with the lone exception of" stuff is the most important information on the map.

you are partly right, but I think the point of the article has some merit. Britain was the first to industrialize for a reason. It had the laws in place which granted early capitalism the most fertile ground. Britain also was (at least in the later stages) a more benign colonial power, by which I mean they did more than the other nations to actually leave their colonies with infrastructure and some form of civil service.

Gee, ya' think? Britain set up shop all over the world and made way for modern society. DUHRR...

i would say british institutions and common law more than colonialism.

consider how spain had from argentina to san francisco for 300 years and couldnt develop it economically since htey were basically stripping the continents of their material and labor wealth instead of developing them (they left that to the church).

yeah i'd say the english were pretty good at the whole colonialism thing when one considers their track record. how many top economies and countries in the world are former british possessions? a good number.

USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, S Africa... they didnt do so well in africa but find me ONE success story there aside from S. Africa, and even that is debatable at this point

Is anyone at all concerned about an uprising?

m0llusk: High GDP: "With the lone exception of Japan, the darkest places on the map are either next to Britain, or former British colonies."


Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania stand out, as does central China, but those are merely "states" and muck with these theories.



Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio are served by major navigable rivers, and thus are "port" states, and Michigan and Ohio access the sea via the Great Lakes. Theory about the importance of water transportation says you fail.

Ditto Central China.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

I smell bullshiat.

Lots and lots of bullshiat.

This thread needs more Code Geass.



/All Hail Britannia!

hardinparamedic: This thread needs more Code Geass.


it does? really? wow. i didnt know that.

m0llusk: Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania stand out, as does central China, but those are merely "states" and muck with these theories.

The "Great Lakes States" are hardly landlocked, and if you compare the central region of China that is dark red to a map of Chinese rivers, well you get the idea.

I don't know enough to comment on the rest of your thoughts, but I was a state finalist in 7th grade for the Geography Bee, so there.

OK so if any of you wealthy colonials want to thank us Brits for your wealth, my paypal account is .......

Rule Brittania, Brittania Rules The Waves!

The interpretation does conveniently forget to mention the less than robust economies of former British holdings in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. I wonder if the author would blame failed economies on the natives, as she credits successes to the British...

The Dutch West India Company - We used to own you!!!

By economic prosperity you mean manufacturing crap. You don't mean actually being prosperous and living well. The British go around killing people and telling them how to manufacture crap, then of course GDP calculated qua British manufacturing procedures will be higher in places where the British have colonized.

So all the other colony powers don't count and all prosperity is thanks to British influence.

Father_Jack:

USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, S Africa... they didnt do so well in africa but find me ONE success story there aside from S. Africa, and even that is debatable at this point

Botswana.. also British (and landlocked..)

Sirveaux: The interpretation does conveniently forget to mention the less than robust economies of former British holdings in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. I wonder if the author would blame failed economies on the natives, as she credits successes to the Britishiathink that you will find there are far fewer of those among former British colonies as opposed to Spanish, French, Dutch, and Portuguese. It is all relative. I am not saying I agree 100% with the writer, but there is some truth to it.

m0llusk: Yet Italy and Korea both pretty dark on that map. Suddenly Galileo and DaVinci have no influence on the Rennesiance or Industrialization?

At the time the industrial revolution came around, Italy was one of the poorest countries in Europe, especially southern Italy and Sicily, which is why so many southern Italians emigrated to the U.S. It wasn't until after WWII that the region developed. As for South Korea, I don't think it's any coincidence that it's economic growth came as a consequence of colonialism-lite by the U.S. after the Korean War.

Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania stand out, as does central China, but those are merely "states" and muck with these theories.

I would think those are exceptions that prove the rule. First, in both cases, those places are parts of larger nations which do have access to coastline, and second, those places all have indirect coastal access by rivers. (Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania all sit on the Great Lakes, which connect by canals - the St. Lawrence Seaway, and the Erie Canal before that - to the Atlantic Ocean, and central China has the Yellow and Yangtze rivers, both big enough to navigate down to the Yellow Sea.)

Except for the many countries of southwest Africa which were critical to the slave and rum trades.

That's a good point, but note how quickly those areas fell behind after Britain (the naval hegemon of the time) abolished the slave trade. No resources and no strategic location equals no visiting ships. South Africa's ports would remain strategically critical for another century, especially to European ships traveling to India and Southeast Asia before the Suez and Panama Canals were built.

Growth correlates with development which was delayed by political turmoil in most of the darkly shaded countries on that map.

I would argue that development, in turn, correlates with how strong the rule of law is and how much private property is protected. For some reason, if you look at the track record of former European colonial empires, states colonized by Britain seem to do much better economically than their neighbors (South Africa, Kenya, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong.) I would wager that the British Common Law tradition, which all of these nations still rely on to some extent, is a major reason why.

This is evidence that not only basic geography, but the interpretation of maps in general should be taught. Sometimes this "with the lone exception of" stuff is the most important information on the map.

Agreed. :)

"Suck it", Johnny Foreigner.

REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.

LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
REG: Yeah.

LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!

XERXES: The aquaduct?

REG: What?

XERXES: The aquaduct

REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.

COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.

LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?

REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.

MATTHIAS: And the roads.

REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--

COMMANDO: Irrigation.

XERXES: Medicine.

COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...

COMMANDO #2: Education.

COMMANDOS: Ohh...

REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.

COMMANDO #1: And the wine.

COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...

FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.

COMMANDO: Public baths.

LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.

COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

"Seems like a lot of people are trying to get the fark out of Britain."

Ask: So all the other colony powers don't count and all prosperity is thanks to British influence.

Take a look at the shiatheaps that are the former French, Spanish, German, Dutch empires. Prosperity certainly seemed to follow the Brits around. Coincidence? Or not?

Yup, the politically incorrect truth concerning long-term effects of colonialism:

Foreign Assholes >>>> Local Assholes


Sad, but true. Probably true even concerning wars...civil wars are the worst.

/Globalization FTW.

I just like to quote this whenever I get half an opportunity:

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."



Hooo!

Sorry, but the "conventional wisdom" is that the British Empire was the evilest, most despicable thing EVAR. Consequently, British MUST allow itself to be overrun with immigrants and have its native culture totally destroyed. Penance for being such a successful empire that gave birth to so many advanced countries.

So saith the British Intellectual Class, who are all quite bored with freedom and democracy and opportunity, and would like to mix things up a bit, if only to relieve the crushing boredom of their priviledged lives....

Ask: So all the other colony powers don't count and all prosperity is thanks to British influence.

The main conclusions are that the Anglo sphere is evident in economic development and cities on bodies of water still matter. The Anglo sphere started in, but is not exclusive to, Britain.

EliteAnalyst:
The best predictor of GDP is IQ

Thanks for that, I never thought an IQ map could be used in an economics argument. You realise how those tests aren't all that reliable and are biased?

See? I told you America didn't matter.

mollusk

Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania

Have you not heard of the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal? these states are not exactlly landlocked.

-------------
The French colonial governments in particular held a lot of influence over the operations in their colonies. Whereas the British did not control the activities of the colonists to the same degree, which lead to more abuse of our slaves.

But, the point is that the existance of fair property laws that are enforced is what make the U.S., in particular, so successful.

----------------

Gobobo:
EliteAnalyst:
The best predictor of GDP is IQ

Thanks for that, I never thought an IQ map could be used in an economics argument. You realise how those tests aren't all that reliable and are biased?

Yeah, if you look at his wikipedia link, there are tons of arguments against the book.

British colonies:


Richest countries:

When you see the map, it becomes radically apparent just how firmly Britain was the root of the Industrial revolution.

Yes, that's clearly something one would look at a C21st map to determine, rather than a history book or, say:



Arkwright's Mill, Cromford, first powered cotton mill and one of the first recognisable sites of modern industry.

An Arkwright employee was responsible for the first 'manufactory' in the USA.

/history nerd

USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, S Africa... they didnt do so well in africa but find me ONE success story there aside from S. Africa, and even that is debatable at this point

I would say Ghana, Tanzania, and Botswana, Nigeria, and Kenya are fairly successful, at more so than the former French or Portuguese colonies of Africa.

Yes, but apart from public order, rule of law, magna carta, parliamentary democracy, habeas corpus, trial by jury, presumption of innocence, public health, penicillin, countless scientific advances, the industrial revolution and global trade what have the British ever done for us?

It looks to me like it was the Roman Empire. Japanese are quick learners, and Australia, US and Canada are thanks to Britain. But 3 countries does not make a rule.

Impudent Domain: Sirveaux: The interpretation does conveniently forget to mention the less than robust economies of former British holdings in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. I wonder if the author would blame failed economies on the natives, as she credits successes to the Britishiathink that you will find there are far fewer of those among former British colonies as opposed to Spanish, French, Dutch, and Portuguese. It is all relative. I am not saying I agree 100% with the writer, but there is some truth to it.

I agree there is a correlation, but I don't think she gets it entirely right. First of all, the "countries surround Britain" thing is ridiculous. The prosperity of Western Europe + Japan matches quite well with recipients of Marshall Plan funding. Her explanation doesn't take that into account at all. Second of all, the former British colonies that are doing well are the ones where the native population was supplanted almost entirely by European colonists. I think the whole situation is just way more complicated than the author makes it out to be.

Gobobo: Thanks for that, I never thought an IQ map could be used in an economics argument. You realise how those tests aren't all that reliable and are biased?

According to that map, nearly all of Africa suffers from some form of mental retardation. It's pseudo-science at best.

Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan were all French colonies, weren't they?

mark12A: Sorry, but the "conventional wisdom" is that the British Empire was the evilest, most despicable thing EVAR. Consequently, British MUST allow itself to be overrun with immigrants and have its native culture totally destroyed. Penance for being such a successful empire that gave birth to so many advanced countries.

So saith the British Intellectual Class, who are all quite bored with freedom and democracy and opportunity, and would like to mix things up a bit, if only to relieve the crushing boredom of their priviledged lives....

mark12A, that is practically Pythonesque - genius!

Father_Jack: i would say british institutions and common law more than colonialism.

but find me ONE success story there aside from S. Africa, and even that is debatable at this point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Botswana

Trap-Door Spider:
subby: British colonialism is to blame for the world's economic prosperity


Yeah, that's true.

It (i.e. the actual colonies, plus the laws, culture and the nature of capitalism) echoes through the awesome economic might of the United States - and english is the language of business throughout the world.

Compare that to the former colonies of Spain, for example.

I agree, Florida in particular is a big ****hole.

FTFH: British colonialism is to blame for the world's economic prosperity

personally, i blame the jews.

Suede head: Yes, but apart from public order, rule of law, magna carta, parliamentary democracy, habeas corpus, trial by jury, presumption of innocence, public health, penicillin, countless scientific advances, the industrial revolution and global trade what have the British ever done for us?

Spice girls and Nazi skinheads.

/Will never forgive them for that