Not really mate- had say India had the means to have conquered a resource laden Britain in those days do you really believe they wouldn't have done so?
Of course you can look at the positives and negatives of empires
(Positives being they introduced technology and infrastructure to the colonised nations in particular the Roman and British Empires) whilst acknowledging the obvious negatives of it being the take over of another nation and its populace in the pursuit for its resources and the awful things that come with that.
However you are looking at things purely from a civilised modern perspective - back then it was literally the wild west.
Oh dear kin lordy....
the obvious negatives of it being the take over of another nation and its populace in the pursuit for its resources and the awful things that come with that...
Now what in the world of banjo plucking inbreds is there that can counter that with 'some positives and benefits'?
Do you know how colonialism works? Or resource stripping? How entire continents have had almost perpetual wars on the back of being ripped of the means of self sufficiency/trade and the wonga loan terms of the World Bank.
As for 'the Wild West', no it wasn't. It was nothing like that. Yours is a very 'British' outlook on history, a history written by the British that thinks in terms of fuzxie wuzzies and teaching the natives about baby Jesus. There are truer histories written by the oppressed, read them.
Cool. Well done you.
