I still wonder why people don't get tired of reducing every discussion to "is x good or bad?" Why should everything need to be categorized in such a way, and wh

I still wonder why people don't get tired of reducing every discussion to "is x good or bad?" Why should everything need to be categorized in such a way, and why would this be the most important aspect of any analysis? It seems more likely that referring to a massive and complicated process in such a simple way will never be correct, and so these arguments can never be resolved, only recapitulated. The core argument in this article seems to be that multiple perspectives are necessary to understand colonialism and that many lower class people preferred colonial oppression to the oppression by their local elites. This is not related to whether or not colonialism was a net benefit to people. "But in a country like Nigeria, Britain’s largest African colony, feelings towards colonialism were more complicated. In his 1947 book Path to Nigerian Freedom, Obafemi Awolowo, considered one of Nigeria’s Founding Fathers for his role in the independence struggle, offered a frank assessment of the challenges in mobilising his compatriots against British rule at the time. 'Given a choice from among white officials, [Nigerian] chiefs and educated Nigerians as the principal rulers of the country, the illiterate man today would exercise his preference for the three in the order in which they are named. He is convinced, and has good reasons to be, that he can always get better treatment from the white man than he could hope to get from the chiefs and the educated elements,' Awolowo wrote."