[coldtea]

Actually they tend to highlight the meaningful details - and remove the unimportant ones.

That, like in the analogy mentioned, it's not the place of an author to cricially see both the abused and the perpetrator, and that colonization was an abuse.

More "subtlely" excuses this abuse, and there's no excuse, even if the subjects of colonization where "bad people", "uncultivated", "underdeveloped" or whatever, there's no excuse to invade their sovereignity, and it's not up to the colonizer to judge them or fix them.

[411111111111111]

> More "subtlely" excuses this abuse, and there's no excuse, even if the subjects of colonization where "bad people", "uncultivated", "underdeveloped" or whatever, there's no excuse to invade their sovereignity, and it's not up to the colonizer to judge them or fix them.

I don't disagree, but it's kinda hard to talk like that on historical contexts. Might-makes-right has always been the truth until pretty recently, though you could make a case that it's true even now. I don't think judging the people living that way when everyone else around them did that too (albeit less successfully) is useful.

Do remember that most of misery in the colonies came from collaborators. Yes, they were paid by the colonial oppressors, but they just wanted to profit too, damning their fellow people.

[coldtea]

>Might-makes-right has always been the truth until pretty recently,

Sure, it is the truth even now and will be forever. It's just that it's popular for might, after Christianity and Englightenment changed the public perception, to want to dress its actions in a moral disguise (from the Crusades to "bringing democracy to Iraq").

But the case being "might makes right" doesn't preclude people telling it for what it is - and even less so it should preclude historians and pundits. People knew what it is in Thucilides time, and they know it now.

So I don't take particularly well to historians etc being "equally critical" of the opressed too.