> They weren't all treated horrifically. Slavery is wrong in principle, but that doesn't mean it was all horrific in practice. It wasn't all as depicted in 12 Y

> They weren't all treated horrifically. Slavery is wrong in principle, but that doesn't mean it was all horrific in practice. It wasn't all as depicted in 12 Years a Slave. What does this have to do with anything? Sure, there were slaves that were treated kindly, but even if you proved that that was a majority of slaves, it really does not subtract from my point in any way, like, at all. The fact that remains that some slaves that were treated horribly still stayed in the south. > Colonialism wasn't slavery, plain and simple. Ok then. I guess we'll need to agree to disagree on this point. It seems like even if it's not "slavery" in your narrow definition, there's a pretty big bit of overlap between British colonization and slavery. > As it happens the British colonies tended to maintain local customs and laws instead of steam rolling everything as some other colonial powers did. In some places, yes, but in other places they would go around murdering a large percentage of the native populations and forcing them into labor. > If you go and visit any of the colonies you'll find that they gained a lot from British rule and many of them are quite grateful for it. Except for the ones that aren't, like, you know, the United States, or India. Did the US "gain a lot from British rule"? I mean, maybe, that's basically impossible to quantify, but I seriously don't know a single person in the US that is "grateful" for British rule...US schools basically teach that England was pretty evil and that's why we had to separate. While that's almost certainly propaganda and a gross oversimplification of history, the fact remains that the people of the US aren't "grateful" for the British rule, whatever that means.