What do you think?
Colonialism: net positive or negative?
-
-
Negative
-
Major positive. All countries benefited from the expanding of Christendom.
-
Considering negatives, net positive.
Infrastructure and institutions.
-
Ambiguous. One needs to do a quantitative exercise to assess its welfare consequences under a heterogeneous agent incomplete markets framework where individuals are uninsured against health and income risk.
-
ending it was a net negative for the globe.
-
Positive and it is not even close. Think of all the extra suffering that would have accrued with out of control birth and even worse tribalism.
-
Positive and it is not even close. Think of all the extra suffering that would have accrued with out of control birth and even worse tribalism.
yes, without the hegemony of the white man, those scums are exponentially growing
-
Positive or\and negative comparing to what?
You always should compare at least with few reference options. -
Positive or\and negative comparing to what?
You always should compare at least with few reference options.I assumed it was "the hypothetical absence of"
-
Positive and it is not even close. Think of all the extra suffering that would have accrued with out of control birth and even worse tribalism.
yes, without the hegemony of the white man, those scums are exponentially growing
Nah. They would be killing themselves and dying of preventable diseases at such a rate to keep the population roughly the same.
-
Positive but ssssh. Can't say that because it is not the correct thing to say.
-
Positive or\and negative comparing to what?
You always should compare at least with few reference options.I assumed it was "the hypothetical absence of"
Nope, there is no absence.
Look at Russia, look at Indonesia.
They didn't use colonialism per se, but incorporated many various ppls.Also you can look at Japan, Hungary, Austria which also didn't have serious colonial past.
-
Positive or\and negative comparing to what?
You always should compare at least with few reference options.I assumed it was "the hypothetical absence of"
Nope, there is no absence.
Look at Russia, look at Indonesia.
They didn't use colonialism per se, but incorporated many various ppls.
Also you can look at Japan, Hungary, Austria which also didn't have serious colonial past.What part of "hypothetical" did you not understand?
-
Positive or\and negative comparing to what?
You always should compare at least with few reference options.I assumed it was "the hypothetical absence of"
Nope, there is no absence.
Look at Russia, look at Indonesia.
They didn't use colonialism per se, but incorporated many various ppls.
Also you can look at Japan, Hungary, Austria which also didn't have serious colonial past.What? Japan wasn't colonized in name only.
-
Positive or\and negative comparing to what?
You always should compare at least with few reference options.I assumed it was "the hypothetical absence of"
Nope, there is no absence.
Look at Russia, look at Indonesia.
They didn't use colonialism per se, but incorporated many various ppls.
Also you can look at Japan, Hungary, Austria which also didn't have serious colonial past.Also, your examples are s**te in this context.
-
Colonial subjects were heathens. Now they no longer face limbo in the afterlife.
-
On Russia and Central Asia, there is quite a bit of literature on Russian colonialism:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/euro/article/139315
Indonesia today:
-
I can't think of any negatives.