Compared to the colonial practices of Britain and the other Europeans, the French were positively benign. Former French colonies even now are for the most part far better governed than those of other nations, and much less beset by tribalism, because the French did not play 'divide and conquer' games, but instead created a Gallicized elite in each colony out of the members of disparate tribes who were thrown together in the same schools.

Actually, anon, the former British colonies are in far better shape than the former French colonies. The French may have been better than the Belgians, but that's not saying much.

Abandoning one's allies to persecution and death because the will to go on fighting has been lost is shameful, damnable cowardice. You know what I am referring to.

The French colonies all have at least some infrastructure and have avoided the tribal warfare that plagues the British ones. An India/Pakistan war would be inconceivable in a French model.

keep in mind that aus, u.s.a., india, singapore, are former british colonies :)

which of the french colonies in africa is comparable to s. africa or kenya.

bart - Africans regard the French legacy with contempt and fury: see, e.g., http://www.francewatcher.org/2005/03/strongis_france.html ("Is France the Curse of Africa?", by a former Cameroon presidential candidate).

cjm,

The UK got the first draft picks. But Senegal, Gabon and Cameroon are certainly at least the equal of any British sub-Saharan African colony without a large White population.

pj,

Indians have similar hatred of the British. And one must note that the language of every French former colony is French, with the exception of Indochina.

Bart and Anon - You can't just pick the examples you like. If you could, then I could "prove" that women are stronger than men by comparing Grace Jones to Woody Allen. LOL.

You can only compare like with like. Comparing the US and Australia, which have had overwhelmingly 1st world populations since their founding, with Gabon or Senegal is just loony. Similarly, South Africa's economy is largely first world as is it's infrastructure again because of European immigration. British holdings in East and South Asia were also in relatively developed societies before the English showed up, East Asia had widespread literacy and was no less developed than European states of the period and South Asia certainly had organized states. Comparisons of French sub-Saharan Africa with English sub-Saharan Africa, other than South Africa and perhaps Namibia, is a valid comparison.

And North America was populated by the native Americans, who as I recall-correct me if I'm wrong-didn't have Internet connections or 8-lane highways either. Sheesh!

The population of North America and Australia at independence was almost entirely made up of First World immigrants and their descendants. Now, you are merely being deliberately obtuse.

Whites were outnumbered by blacks and Indians, no?

Bart - Let's fight later; I'm enjoying my afternoon coffee now.
Regarding the substantive matter, aside from OJ's point, there's the fact that the Europeans were outnumbered when they arrived. Why is that any worse (or better, I suppose) a time to pick to compare populations? One might also ask about the Euro population growth rates in French vs. UK colonies. That itself is one of the endogenous variables of interest, as I would think anyone who regularly reads this blog would know.