| Keith, I get what you mean about countries having relative standards for what is "good" and "bad," but it's hard to argue against indicators like life expectancy and infant mortality, which have risen for primitive people in the wake of colonization.
Countries where constant warfare was simply a part of life - such as among the Maori, Australian Aboriginals, and peoples from some parts of sub-Saharan Africa (such as South Africa) now enjoy relative security. That certainly is a good thing. I would also note that these places - in contrast to areas such as India/Pakistan, Congo/Uganda, and the Middle East - are places where the white people STAYED (i.e.colonization went on longer), which seems to me to be an argument FOR sustained colonization (as the article in the OP also states.)
Again, you might say it'd be better for these people - whose lives have grown longer, healthier, and more peaceful - to be "free," but I wonder if they would agree?
"What truth endures beneath the flaming stream?"
-- A Volcano, Bartolome de Las Casas, Inferno de Marsaya, 1536 |