I often see a lot of hate from the left when it comes to colonialism. They argue our presence has been overwhelmingly negative for the natives of the land. I disagree with this for the following reasons:
We have improved the living standards and life expectancy of the natives substantially. If it weren't for western cultures bringing technology and new ideas to these countries, the natives would still be throwing spears and birds in order to eat, a process that could take all day, that doesn't always result in food being given to you. This instability in food supply which can result in death, and the way they prepare food doesn't make them live long lives. I think the introduction of horticulture alone is a substantial gain for the life expectancy and living conditions for the natives. They're now able to enjoy a large quality and quantity of food, thanks to western intervention. This isn't including the extra benefits of industrialisation on these people.
We have allowed these natives to enjoy the benefits of a globalised world. Before the west intervened in Australia, NZ, and Americas they were cut off from the rest of the world entirely. They're allowed to get cheap goods from across the world delivered to their house in a timely manner. With the invention of the internet, the natives have the privilege of talking to anyone around the world. Before the British came, they would have only been able to communicate to people in their local areas. Now they can talk to anyone across the continent and across the world.
We have allowed the natives to enjoy the benefits of a generous welfare state. We allow them to live nice and easy lives, and they get paid for having kids and simply being unemployed. In some cases, they get extra money to live in a nice house, and for extra necessities. This easy life is a huge gain for them in comparison to before where they would have lived in the bush.
We have given them the privilege of free education and free healthcare (unless in USA). Our healthcare systems have greatly benefitted those who need to use them, providing world-class service often for free (unless in USA, once again). This privilege is something I feel is unappreciated by many, but in reality it helps all of us. It would have been impossible to have 1/100th of good healthcare if it weren't for the British arriving. The natives also enjoy the privilege of a kind education system. We have allowed these people to learn the most important language in the world, English, and a bunch of other skills for the real world. The only skills these people would have learned is how to use a spear, like the 30 generations before them. We are absolutely superiour in this regard, as we not only allow them to learn English and maths, but how to cook, carpentry, etc.
We have given them the best legal system and laws in the world. The western legal system offers equal rights to everyone, including women. Before the British interventions in these countries, it would have been impossible to introduce equal rights and privileges for all genders and races. Now thanks to our legal system, these people can enjoy free lifestyles with the same rights and privileges.
I'm not someone who is an absolutist, there has been times where our interventions have done some fucked up things. To be specific, I'll use the example of Australia. For a few decades, there was a programme to make natives more white. They did this by fornicating natives, then again fornicating the whitest kids, until there was complete whiteness. This happened until the 1970's, but I believe this shouldn't mean that all of the western intervention in the area is bad.
Interesting assumptions in this piece. Lots of historical reductionism here, but the overall complaint that I have is the lumping of everyone into simplified groups based on "color". World history is filled with successful empires who were not white in the European/Anglo Saxon sense of the world. The code of Hammurabi of ancient Persia is the foundation for many notions of pluralism and human rights which followed in later centuries. China was the center of the Eastern world and boasted a population many times the size of Europe despite having less resources. And who can forget the golden age of Islam which developed many ideas which were later adopted by Europe after the devastation of the middle ages. Finally the hard working agronomists of pre-Colombian Latin America developed most of the caloric foods that Europe and later America used to develop so rapidly. The advancements were two directional and both sides benefited greatly from this exchange. Perhaps the author missed some of the history of the non-western world and that's why this piece is so one sided. It does make the reader think however. Thank you!