> Britain’s imperial past and present provide a perfectly adequate explanation for the UK’s relative prosperity.
And the relative prosperity of countries that were colonised? Is this an argument in favour of colonisation?
And the relative prosperity of countries that were colonised? Is this an argument in favour of colonisation?
GDP seems a flawed metric when discussing plunder: of course country A forcing country B to mine or farm will increase the GDP of country B.
I believe it requires either supremacism, inconsistency or hypocrisy to argue that land ownership at home should be sacrosanct whilst the rest of the world is fair game.
I’m actually not arguing for one thing or another, but I do have a side. I’m fine with overt supremacism or racism, though both run counter to my values.