Not quite. All we do is toss free shit at their feet. So they never learn shit, they just expect whitey to keep up the donations.
I've seen countries in Asia that were able to pull themselves up. Designing new infrastructure, figuring how to allocate resources, it's just not something that can be done with infinite gibs.
And in places like Africa, there's experts who see how infinite gibs is ruining their own farmers who cannot compete.
Because trying to administer an empire centrally from a single place thousands of miles away, these places often did not have shit tossed at their feet. They operated semi-autonomously in order to extract the most value possible (sometimes to the detriments of the locals, but then again it was usually the locals doing it to other locals) or just left to fend for themselves somewhat with the occasional handout (infrastructure) being provided. India was a large demonstration of this, wherein they refused to move with the times and remained a purely agricultural economy up until well after independence.
The part Britain that
could be blamed for is that the economy was that it was rather fragile to outside forces. It was an efficient machine that operated on A->B->C — you take out B then C & A are fucked. We essentially acted as an semi-autarky (I can post the extract from Mein Kampf where Hitler's economic plan of invading the East for land was to achieve something similar to Britain and America), mostly operating a market purely within ourselves and anyone who wished to sell within it had to pay tariffs, though we eventually adopted free trade.
For reasons you might be able to surmise, none of their independent states (except the old dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) really participated in the global economy after independence since it was all being headed by their former "masters" so in spite of having nationalist governments put in place, their peoples were incredibly susceptive to Soviet/internationalist influences and were locked in a struggle session between the West and East because they couldn't make up their minds. Many of them still can't. They refuse to liberalise their economies and the ones that did are doing best currently.
Infinite gibs can fuck up an economy, true, but when the gibs are conditional then the impact is less egregious. Israel's aid primarily goes to buying weapons and shit (this does indirectly allow them to dedicate their budget to other areas but I digress), and this is much the same for other countries. India received a massive loan from the IMF in the 90s which relied on them not being a quasi-socialist shithole anymore and they complied. A lot of African states get aid predicate on a simple ass requirement: feed niggas. However if you're rewarded for keeping niggas hungry, you're gonna keep a lot of hungry niggas. Don't even look into the financial blackhole that is the
African Development Bank. Imagine if alongside rewarding hungry nigs, you're also rewarded for keeping people aids-ridden.
Did you know India had to cope because their economy was more of less identical to how it was under the British?
Hindu Rate of Growth.
They also attribute Britain's economic growth during the 1800s and 1900s to their presence in the empire, but largely ignore how the UK's GDP continued to climb
after they were lost.
