Nope, the oppressors destroyed the native culture, robbed them off their wealth, social structures, and (however) evolved systems of institutions while leaving no venue for the colonized people to prosper. Few who managed to survive and climb through the inevitable mixing of peoples learnt some of the tricks from their oppressors and fought back for independence.
I am afraid your comment sounds like it is trying to find some silver linings in the oppressors malevolence but please try to sympathize (if you cannot empathize) with those colonized.
Well, in some case it was a culture of slavery and piracy, so in those case it was an improvment. Infrastructure, education and sanitation were improved in some cases too.
> I am afraid your comment sounds like it is trying to find some silver linings in the oppressors malevolence but please try to sympathize (if you cannot empathize) with those colonized.
No, I was pointing that the schools decried by the parent were also where the persons who led some of the conflicts for independence were taught in the same school; I was defending those schools.
> Infrastructure, education and sanitation were improved in some cases too.
And I would like to point out that they would’ve improved otherwise had the natives weren’t oppressed. In other words, the oppressors destroyed the ability of the natives to improve. The so called improvements happened despite being oppressed.
As for defending the schools, the same point applies - the oppressors destroyed the systems of education. Had they not invaded the natives and kept there greed to their homelands their wouldn’t be any need for defending these schools.
I'd agree that some of the colonies would have improved had the colonisation not happened, but not everywhere: in some case it happened because the colonised powers did it. And most of them didn't have systems of education before the colonisation.
> but not everywhere: in some case it happened because the colonised powers did it.
Could you please describe me such a scenario/situation where it would’ve or has had happened? The point of my argument hinges on the natives unability to improve due to the oppressors malevolence.
> And most of them didn't have systems of education before the colonisation.
Sure, most if not all of them didn’t have a Europian styled system of education. I don’t suppose you’re saying that the natives didn’t have any concept of educating their children? And yes, it would’ve improved too had they not been not destroyed …
Finally, I think we’ve digressed too far off the main thread of discussion. I feel like I am in the middle of https://www.xkcd.com/386/
I think you should read a book on the history of the British empire. The point you're responding to is basically correct. The idea of the "noble savage" as it was once called is a fantasy. The countries invaded and conquered by the British were typically brutal empires with medieval or lower levels of development, and had been that way for thousands of years with apparently little or no cultural development. The British were encountering local rulers with spears and they had Gatling guns. These societies had no technology, no science, no education or healthcare, primitive to non existent infrastructure of state and oh, they were mostly slave-oriented societies.
Yes the empire was a dictatorship that conquered them and in the early era, bought slaves from the local rulers. In the late eras the empire built infrastructure, education systems, brought modern medicine, tried to teach civilised values like not beheading your political opponents and having votes instead, and in some cases as the empire faded, left the countries in a vastly better state than they were found.
Colonialism is easily one of the most complex and ethically grey areas I've found when studying history. There is no evidence or reason to believe those societies would have ever advanced were they not conquered.
I am afraid your comment sounds like it is trying to find some silver linings in the oppressors malevolence but please try to sympathize (if you cannot empathize) with those colonized.