03-08-2018, 05:23 PM
(03-08-2018, 02:53 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Agreed.
Also what I've noticed in these type of arguments is that is heavily skewed in one sided narratives from the perspective of the victors and characterized many times by blatant omission of facts regarding atrocities that led to the destruction of a lot of human capital. While the British colonization served the Brits very well in terms of all the wealth, natural resources looted from their colonies, and helped them advance their own interests and growth, it is debatable that there was much of a NET "advancement" for the colonies. For probably every one good thing that happened, there were an equal if not higher number of negative consequences. One of the "legacies" of British rule is all the conflict zones left behind by either incompetent or intentional misrepresenting of borders. Considering that the primary strategy of British colonization was "divide and conquer", one might wonder if that just fit the pattern to keep the areas left behind in a disunited state both for weakening those areas and to make the British colonization seem like a good thing cause "look what happens after we left."
Edit:
It is also debatable that with the ever more increasing inter-connected nature of the world, that any "advancements" would not have taken place organically without colonization, which brought with it all the loss of lives that gets lost out of the "advancement" argument. I mean who cares if a "few" lives are lost to "advance" civilization, right?
The British precisely had the correct way to colonize. You can’t just integrate with native peoples. You need to go in and set the standard at that point the natives can assimilate or fight back. It’s not easy to bring the civilized world to savages. They will get violent because they are uncivilized.
The world would have evolved much slower without the British and Dutch colonial pursuits.
