Wealth was definitely created in the colonies but the native inhabitants were almost always adversely affected. In the current wealthiest country in the world, it was the European migrants that benefited while the natives were mostly killed or eliminated.
People might debate how much of the killing was intentional but I wouldn't have thought it controversial to say that American natives, by and large, did not reap the benefits of colonization and actually incurred major losses.
> In the current wealthiest country in the world, it was the European migrants that benefited while the natives were mostly killed or eliminated.
The aboriginal peoples of the Americas mostly died from diseases which they hadn't been exposed to. It was tragic but not unique and rarely deliberate.
But what about the smallpox blankets? Well, smallpox isn't spread through bedding, and that single story happened in the late 1800s after centuries of the aboriginal peoples dying of disease.
Sure, they were monsters for _trying_ to kill those people with smallpox, but it didn't work.
There was plenty of war, also, and later displacement and Indian Schools and other atrocities, but we shouldn't promote a "noble savage" myth or misrepresent what killed the aboriginal peoples: it was disease as a natural consequence of contact with foreign peoples.
There is a difference between traditional colonies that were exploited for resources and some of their wealth was stolen and those like the US where the natives were outright exterminated and all the wealth stolen outright.
A world of difference between say the philippines or india and 'settler colonies' of the US, Canada, etc.
When people talk europeans exploiting their colonies, most are talking about traditional colonies, not settler colonies which are ultimately european nations themselves.
> Wealth was definitely created in some colonies, the wealthiest country in the world is made up of former colonies.
Insofar as the mother country was inexperienced at having colonies and lax at imposing its will on them. The British tried hard to prevent America from establishing any industries and reduce it to just importing everything at the cost of raw resources. They got a bit distracted in the 1600s with civil war and religious strife, and in the 1700s with fighting the French; so a bit of wealth accumulated in America anyway. (Much if not most of it belonged to smugglers.)
In the 1800s the British imperialists got their act together and became much more efficient at extracting wealth from their colonies, as evidenced by massive famines ( Ireland, India), opium wars etc.
> The British tried hard to prevent America from establishing any industries and reduce it to just importing everything at the cost of raw resources. They got a bit distracted in the 1600s with civil war and religious strife, and in the 1700s with fighting the French; so a bit of wealth accumulated in America anyway. (Much if not most of it belonged to smugglers.)
Its kind of odd that people miss this (and particularly the first sentence) since that’s the big picture behind essentially each of the specific grievances that led to the rebellion.