In the past the great Imperial powers thrived and enforced colonialism through much of the undeveloped world and onto vast populations of indigenous peoples. Be it Britain France Portugal and Spain to name the largest, from the 15th century on,these major world powers divided up much of the world. In that time some thriving civilisations especially in the new world were wiped out or decimated and disposessed.
Also in saying that there was some positives that some of these nations gained. This is not to justify what happened but one thing that does seem to stand out is the difference in development of these countries. On initial examination it would appear the countries that seemd most successful were countries "acquired" by Britain. As examples I would suggest the USA Canada,Australia, New Zealand. In Asia, Malaysia, Hong Kong And Singapore and in Africa, South Africa and Rhodesia pre independance.
In comparison, "Portugese" Brazil blessed with huge natural resources, Venezuela and its oil plus many other Latin American countries variously colonised by the Portugese and Spanish have long laboured under corruption instability and poverty. One thing that was prevalent in the British model was giving parcels of land to many of the early colonists. The Spanish model tended to keep a more landless serfdom model more reminiscent of the middle ages in Europe. Although fairly acquainted with early Australian history I am not so aquainted with others. Without getting too deeply into the negatives of colonialism. What made the British model the most economically successful? Or do other TDers disagree and why?