Ah I see, thanks for the correction! (It also kind of demonstrates the problems I have with my own language :P)
Ah I see, thanks for the correction! (It also kind of demonstrates the problems I have with my own language :P)
My language is diglossic - it has a written form and a spoken form that are very different to each other. It’s quite difficult to understand the written form if you’ve only grown up speaking and listening to the language, as the written form is essentially the language as spoken in the 1600s.
To compare it to English, it would be like saying “Where are you?” to someone over the phone, but then having to send them “Wherefore art thou?” as a text.
If by “brought about positive changes”, you mean that it’s allowed colonial powers to enrich themselves enormously while draining their colonies of wealth, leaving millions to starve and destabilizing regions for generations, then yes perhaps you’re right. The argument you used could be applied in exactly the same way to justify slavery. The positive changes here always favour the oppressor, never the oppressed.
This is the case where the police union official said that the victim’s life had “limited value” - https://publicola.com/2023/09/11/write-a-check-for-11000-she-was-26-she-had-limited-value-spd-officer-jokes-with-police-union-leader-about-killing-of-pedestrian-by-fellow-cop/