|
|
|
|
|
|
by csee
1671 days ago
|
|
|
"Slaves in the colonial days were also kept alive, housed, and fed."
You misunderstand. I'm talking about net benefit, not gross benefits. "it’s mostly the developing manufacturing for the developed, to this day!"
You sarcastically told me to educate myself, but maybe you should go and read about comparative advantage. "which the West adopted innumerable ideas from."
I didn't say otherwise. "is the false dichotomy you present between colonial oppression and no-contact outcomes."
Again, this is not a dichotomy in the sense of a false dichotomy. A hypothetical is categorically and definitionally different. |
|
|
What is the net benefit? How are you measuring the relative +/- to the colonised? You can imagine that the colonised would disagree with your colonising assessment.
> you should go and read about comparative advantage.
How is the ability to provide poverty wage manufacturing to the developed countries, a comparative advantage for the colonised people? I’m dumbfounded. You can feel happy that they’re being paid something more than enslavement, but they don’t feel the same way. They are forced to participate in a global extractive economy designed to ensure they are never richer than the developed countries.
> I didn't say otherwise.
But, you keep claiming that the oppression has led to a net benefit, and I fail to see any measured examples in your replies that prove this upliftment that the West has so generously provided as a “benefit”.
> hypothetical is categorically and definitionally different.
What is your hypothetical, exactly? “Imagine the (guaranteed) horrific future for the colonies, had they not been colonised and uplifted by the West”? That’s your opinion, not a hypothesis.