Why were the French colonies less brutal than British ones?

Question

For instance, the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East were very beneficial. They built schools, universities and hospitals and implemented democracy.

Answer 1

because they weren't ruled by the king in britan .

Answer 2

At least in America, both the French and British had colonies for economic reasons. However, while the British were primarily farmers of tobacco, rice, indigo, and other cash crops, the French were traders (furs mostly).

Thus, naturally the colonies developed differently. The British colonies developed in a way that required large amounts of land to farm and a large labor force to farm it. This meant that the British and later Americans continually encroached on Indian lands, and since they needed the land for farming, they basically kicked the Indians off because they were stronger and had larger forces.

On the other hand, the French trappers were more of the loner type. Trade settlements were set up and trading companies, but the furs were acquired by French trappers; mountain men who roamed the countryside alone, setting up traps for beaver and other game. These men were constantly on the move; they didn't want ot be slowed down by a family, and they watned to travel, so they needed to be able to pick up their things and move continually (no homes or developments like that). Also, the French realised that the Indians knew the land better than them, where to find animals and where they roam, so the French befriended the Indians in order to work with them and gain their knowledge.

Answer 3

French Colonialism was not any less violent. Look at the former colonies now.. Haiti,Vietnam,Somalia, Syria, Libya, Cameroon, Cambodia, Laos, Sudan to name a few. Do those countries sound familiar to you?French Colonialism has some legacy...Most of these former colonies have been involved in civil wars that date back to French colonialism..crazy right?

Answer 4

Were they? They kept slavery for longer, and they also tried to hold onto them longer, fighting two vicious, protracted and ultimately unsuccessful wars in Vietnam and Algeria.
If you want an honest outsider's opinion on British colonies, try the Russian Chekhov. He was very impressed by what the British had done and were doing for these colonial peoples.

Answer 5

You'll find better examples in North America, the differences there spawned from different approaches to the land. The Enlgish sought permanent settlemnets where-as the French were more interested in trade, which meant less on the locals.

Answer 6

This is a subjective question but I would answer yes.
The British colonies were driven by economics while the French were also driven by religious motives.
Hopefully, the priests were a good influence.

Answer 7

What are you talking about? All colonialism was brutal. Any differences that would have existed between them would reside in their reasons for establishing colonies and their resources.