Does the USA make a good colonial administrator?

Trump has suddenly switched from anti-imperialism to expansionism. How adept have Americans been at imperialism?

Donald Trump has been talking loudly about expanding American territory to include Greenland, the former Panama Canal Zone, Canada, and, today, that jewel in the crown, that heart’s desire of every red-blooded American, Gaza.

Granted, who knows what his strategy is?

Still, who can forget the ending of Huckleberry Finn?

“But I reckon I got to light out for the Gaza Strip ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before.”

What good American hasn’t scanned the headlines and lamented that Americans don’t yet enjoy the full, endless benefits of being even more involved in Gaza than we have been? As the song says,

This land is your land, and this land is my land
From California to the Gaza wasteland

It’s worth looking at America’s track record as a colonial administrator.

What’s the gold standard of colonial administration?

Probably British Hong Kong.

Sure, it helps to rule over Chinese, but across the bay from Hong Kong is Macao, a former Portuguese colony. In the second half of the 20th Century, it was widely accepted that Hong Kong was much better than Macao. But lately I’ve noticed in the PISA test results that Macao and Hong Kong have both done very well, suggesting that Hong Kong’s superiority over Macao was more due to British administration being better than Portuguese administration than Hong Kongers being better than Macouers.

What about the U.S.?

Paywall here: