I disliked almost everything about the tone and content of that article -- at first. His vitriol at the beginning is juvenile, bombastic, etc. When he starts c

I disliked almost everything about the tone and content of that article -- at first. His vitriol at the beginning is juvenile, bombastic, etc. When he starts citing the case of the Belgian Congo is where the article becomes readable. But when he writes in the imagined voices of Cromer et al -- well, that's good reading. He was making his points there, and not (just) bloviating. (<-- new word) Then, carried away by the religious zeal that unpopular truths to often engenders, he drifts into 'papau new guinea people are neanderthals', and 'all third-world countries are dependent on foreign aid and protection,' etc. Huh. The guy writes like a crank. But, hey, some people call Wolfram a crank, and yet I'd rather have read him than not.