"Sam has shown facts on a correlation showing prosperity and freedom.............."
Its got no "correlation" and most definitely got nothing to do with prosperity or freedom. Its only a clever way to contrive and arrange some figures to make some pathetic point about the benevolence of the Raj.....while skillfully overlooking the Bengal famines, slave trade indentured labour and the regular pillage and rape.
One more important fact your little piece of tripe overlooked was that French colonies were far more poorer to begin with and had far less natural resources then what the British colonies had. British Empire itself was far less richer then the French but at least the French Empire has nothing parallel to the Bengal famines. Not even close.
Finally you addressed the "correlation." Indeed, that's exactly one way to handle it. Either they universally created wealth in their colonies, or the British were choosy and only "stole" the richest places around the world. Fair enough.
Perhaps both.
It depends on whether you believe, for example, that oil drilling is legitimate value-added industry or "exploitation" of natural resources.
Q: Who do you pay for oil deposits? A: He who owns the mineral rights.
Q: Who owns the mineral rights? A: Whoever the most recent government sanctions and assigns.
Indians don't get mineral rights in Oklahoma....it's whoever Teddy Roosevelt said owned it in 1901.
So with the raping of natural resources in colonies. Who owns it is who gets it unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your perspective.