JDB, one thing yuh need tuh know before we continue any further. this was just an observation, an opinion or theory for that matter, and not a fact, although my opinion was based on certain facts, yet still, it's just an opinion.
i've also noticed in your post ah few observations of your own that may not necessarily be so, for instance the comparison you made with countries the like of pakistan, egypt and iraq to the british slave colonies.
while these counties were colonized by the british along with countries like china and india, these places were not plantocracies.
the caibbean on the other hand were geared towards one thing only, plantation revenues. when the colonizers went into the caribbean region 500 yrs ago, they all but obliterated the native population, they then brought in african captives to work the fields and create revenue for the crown.
these africans were stripped of every thing that made them who they were! their language, culture, education and freedom was thrown in the garbage for ah whole new life style, one of ignorance and servitude.
the later colonies of which you speak were not as unfortunate, they were independent nations for centuries governing themselves way before their colonizers came calling, and even though they were conquered and colonized, they were allowed to keep every aspect of their existence. as a matter of reason, they gained from their occupation, bc they were exposed to a different way of life, while keeping and having the freedom to practice their ancient ways.
a lot of the ppl in the later colonies were well educated in the way of the crown, hek, there was even an aristocracy amongst them, who lived side by side and robbed shoulders with their colonizers.
the later colonies were not occupied for too long, maybe 150 yrs tops, unlike their fellow caribbean colonials who were not only occupied, but was own by the crown, lock stock and barrel for many centuries.
it's only in the late 1800s the emancipated slaves were given and opportunity to be properly educated academically, and not until the later half of their colonization they were learned in the ways of governance.
both emancipated slaves and the indentured worker population were kept ignorant and uncouth. it's only after the turn of the century the colonizers saw it fit to offer ample education and ethical rehabilitation opportunities to learn the ways of their colonizers.
the negro and the coolie was too raw uncouth and backward for their taste, and britsh wanted to out do their counterpart french colonizers in civilizing their population, so they embarked upon this venture.
the both population of african freemen and indentured workers were never verse in the ways of governance, it's only until the late thirties that state workers the like of police officers and fire men were given to former slaves, from barbados, grenada and some trinidadians in all the colonies, but before that , they were exclusively given to british and white settlers.
while in places like china and egypt, those ppl were given the opportunity to run their own show, with the colonizers @ the helm.
as for the africans, well you were spot on with your assessment, but you forgot one major detail. the african colonization posed ah huge problem to the british. the africans fought the british tooth and nail for close to a century, they also fought the french and the portugues with little pockets of resistance here and there.
the british viewed the africans as hostile subjects and kept them as disenfranchised and backward as possible, just like the slaves on the plantation in the colonies of the caribbean.
back then, some tribes warred the occupation, while others were all for it, bc of the perks given to them by the colonizers in return for capturing and subduing resisting tribes.
i believe the africans you speak of are of the french and portugues africans nations, but the ones who were under british rule "for the most part" observed the democratic process with the odd exception of Edi amin and robert mugabe, even though most english african nations were just as corrupt as the others.
africans had little in terms of education and opportunity, they were also given less responsibility in areas such as governance, unlike the chinese, indians and egyptians. fellas like jumo kenyata and kwame enkruma never forgave the british for the lack of care and infrastructure to their respective countries despite the riches their country yield to the crown, and even fought to get them out pre independence with little success.
BTW, the only reason i mention "black ppl" and them not being ready for independence in preachers post, is bc of the deplorable state that jamaica was in only less than 15 yrs of being on their own, and i simply implied that caribbean and africans were ill prepared to rule their own destiny just yet, and they needed serious rehabilitation. positive.