The Anglo-American approach has (almost) always been to try to improve the civilizations which they find themselves controlling, with varying levels of success, while whenever the French colonized, it was because they wanted to run the joint and get the goods. In general, the former French colonies are much worse at running themselves than the former British colonies: places like Jamaica, Kenya, and Nigeria have problems, but Haiti, Ivory Coast, and Mali are all basically basket cases.
A woman I know who is from Africa echoes this point.
Partly this may be because the British mostly ended up with the better bits in the colonial competition game.
Nigeria had more “civilization” to begin with, and much more in the way of exportable resources, for one.
Same for Vietnam vs Malaysia.
The British had colonies that paid for themselves, mostly, the French colonies were all money sinks.
Maybe. But Haiti broke loose very early on. They've been independent almost for as long as we have. Differences between English and French possessions might not have been as great then as they were later on.