I’d like to point out that America (i.e. the USA, and most other nations on the continent) are “successful colonies”: the colonizers have killed the natives (USA) or driven them out or made them into economically second-class citizens (Israel), and the financial success belongs to the colonists.
Whereas in African colonies, the natives have taken economic and political control, and the economic failures are theirs.
You need to explicitly dislaim any possibility of a racist/eugenicist connotation, at least I would say it wise to. Not for me, but for others reading.
I’d like to point out that America (i.e. the USA, and most other nations on the continent) are “successful colonies”: the colonizers have killed the natives (USA) or driven them out or made them into economically second-class citizens (Israel), and the financial success belongs to the colonists.
Whereas in African colonies, the natives have taken economic and political control, and the economic failures are theirs.
Note also many succesful colonies in asia, e.g. Singapore, Hong Kong, postwar Japan, South Korea.
Certainly. I wasn’t commenting on your argument, but saying some of the supporting arguments are wrongly applied.
I agree with the factual content here. Though the connotation is dangerously close to racist/eugenicist.
This claim is rather unfairly discriminatory against eugenicists!
What connotation?
You need to explicitly dislaim any possibility of a racist/eugenicist connotation, at least I would say it wise to. Not for me, but for others reading.
I ask again: exactly what connotation are you talking about?