5 ms·
"suffered the least from the deprivations of colonialism" Economically speaking, colonialism was in many cases a major advantage to the colony, not universally
by chmod600 4y ago
"suffered the least from the deprivations of colonialism"
Economically speaking, colonialism was in many cases a major advantage to the colony, not universally a deprivation. The US, Canada, Australia, etc., all did quite well during or after a period as a colony.
(This is not intended as a moral statement, merely an economic one, which is the topic of the article.)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- unmole 4y ago> The US, Canada, Australia, etc., all did quite well during or after a period as a colony. Well, that depends on your definition of colony. The settlers did well, the indigenous people that were displaced experienced deprivation and worse.
- chmod600 4y agoI browsed a number of definitions of "colony" and none seem to include displaced indigenous people. Some definitions seem to focus on the emigrants (and descendents), and some definitions are more about the region being colonized. But the displaced (or killed) people are neither. The comment to which I replied was talking about weapon superiority. If by "deprivations of colonialism" it meant the indigenous people being deprived, then it would make a lot more sense to say "deprivations of invasion". But that's not saying much: that better weapons are more effective at invasion.
- banannaise 4y agoThis definition of "colony" refers exclusively to the colonizers, not the colonized. At this point you're just saying that colonialism sometimes works out very well for the colonizers, which is no longer a counterpoint to what you're responding to.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]