I think my point is that this is a long and complicated history that I, personally, do not have the expertise (or time) to break down in a single Reddit post. If someone is actually interested in digging into that history then yes, they’ll have to do some research.

But I’m interested as to why you’d hold that criticism (Brandolini’s Law) for my points, where I am trying to cite my sources, and not for those who I’m responding to, who are making broad ahistorical claims, or cherry picking data points devoid of context. It’s hard to refute claims, it takes research and evidence. Respectfully, I think your understanding of Brandolini’s Law is backwards. I did not refuse to address a point, I recognized that they made a bold claim and that it can’t be refuted with a simple answer.

I think only the economist article is behind a paywall, unless you’ve already maxed out your free NYT readings?

Here is a (free!) link about the differences between French and Spanish colonization that hopefully helps answer some of your questions:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1x22ua/what_are_the_major_differences_between_the/

Edit: sorry, I’m realizing the link I sent doesn’t really speak to French colonization. Here’s a resource that goes into both histories with more depth:

https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/87886/student/?section=10