> Think about infant mortality, sanitation or historical practices like suttee.
Those are (I presume) referring to instances where the colonised were 'bad', and the colonisers have done 'good' (to put it in simplistic terms). I agree that there are such instances! There are also instances where the colonised were 'good', and the colonisers have done 'bad'. Or, if the presence of any 'bad'ness is enough to lead one to be an appropriate target for colonisation, there are also instances where the colonisers' civilisation was 'bad'. How many of each? Well, obviously my position is that colonisers overall do much more harm than good. Maybe that's not true, but you won't disprove it by mentioning a couple of good things that they've done.
(There are also instances where keepers of slaves have done good, but that doesn't mean we condone slavery.)
Simplistic terms don't advance your point. If you do have a point oversimplification only obscures it. Imperialism is neither good nor bad. Only specific acts and actors can be judged as such.
The British empire could be credited for ending slavery. It is the promulgation of liberal western values allows us the context to condemn the barbarity of the past.
History is a process. It seems nonsensical to presume to judge the pioneers of our civilization (by modern standards) while enjoying the benefits they provided.
The popular view of western guilt smacks of condescending nobelesse oblige. At what point does it become purely selfish? Decolonized regions won't put the past behind them as long as they are incentivized not to.
"...detractors of Western imperialism hijack the ideas of Western civilization and crash them into a ditch."
Those are (I presume) referring to instances where the colonised were 'bad', and the colonisers have done 'good' (to put it in simplistic terms). I agree that there are such instances! There are also instances where the colonised were 'good', and the colonisers have done 'bad'. Or, if the presence of any 'bad'ness is enough to lead one to be an appropriate target for colonisation, there are also instances where the colonisers' civilisation was 'bad'. How many of each? Well, obviously my position is that colonisers overall do much more harm than good. Maybe that's not true, but you won't disprove it by mentioning a couple of good things that they've done.
(There are also instances where keepers of slaves have done good, but that doesn't mean we condone slavery.)