(Original post by Kallisto)
As colonisation is almost associated with negative terms and thoughts, it is not wrong to name some positive aspects, if they have existed.
The 'positives' are subjective. Depends on which side you're asking. What one side considers a positive, another may say is a negative.
One side can say giving the English language was a positive given its primacy in the modern world. The other side could say the only reason English has primacy today is because many native languages were wiped out or subordinated to English during colonisation, and that English was intentionally and deliberately positioned as the most powerful language at the cost of native languages, in order to maintain control. For example, governance and administration being out of the ability of the majority of the native population, as they could not speak, read or write the language, meaning only the British and those who were educated/influenced by British culture could do so. The English language thus removed the choice and ability of most of the native people to govern themselves and legitimised British rule.
One side can say building railways and ports improved infrastructure in the colonies. The other could say those railways and ports were not for the use of the natives, but were built to transport stolen raw materials and mineral wealth from the colonies to the industrial and manufacturing areas of Britain and Europe.
My problem with this discussion, is that anyone listing a 'positive' is likely looking at the issue from only one side, and with a great deal of ignorance of the other side.
There were no absolute positives to colonisation. There is always another side.
Go to first unread
