HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:Telconi wrote:
There may have been incidental benefits gained by Kenya as a result of occupation, but colonialism was never "charitable". Empires occupied colonies for their own gain, generally to the detriment of the colony.
At some times that was true, e.g. I wouldn't argue that the 18th century East India Company was in the charity business. But late 19th century imperialism in Africa was mostly charitable. What did Britain, the world's greatest industrial power, get out of ruling a sparse population of peasant farmers who would have looked unbelievably primitive even to the Romans? We taxed away part of their straw huts? Abolishing of slavery isn't an incidental but a massive benefit.
You're never going to get your money chief.