there's a difference between killing 99% of the natives and repopulate the areas with white british people. that's what britain did in most of your so called "bright spots".
sure, it turned out great for britain and the straight white male in general but too bad for the brown and black people who got conquered/killed/poisoned/enslaved.
i'd rather take my chances without the queen's help. thank you.
This has nothing to do with my statement. Where are your numbers on killing 99% of the natives. That may apply to the Spanish in parts of Central America.
And I was referring to the relative prosperity today of the countries that were part of the British Empire, versus their neighbouring countries that weren't.
In any case, you seem to have brainwashed yourself into believing that the Americas were populated by gentle peace-loving ''brown'' people, before the Spanish straight white males came and started killing and enslaving them. They weren't. The population was divided into groups that were continually killing and enslaving neghbouring groups. It was happening all over the world in those days. If agriculture had started in South America first, allowing for most of the population to pursue other activities rather than foraging for food, Europeans could well be lamenting the straight brown males that sailed to Europe and conquered/killed/poisoned/enslaved the white people.
BTW, what's with the ''straight'' white males?