this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
1064 points (99.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
10164 readers
3058 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In the short run, no. In the long run, it depends.
Many countries that were colonized had absolutely terrible child mortality rates. Parents had to expect that a third of their children would die before they became teenagers. One in five didn't make it to one year old. Being colonized eventually brought medicine which reduced childhood mortality so parents didn't have to watch their children die.
How important that is depends on your point of view. Maybe you personally don't care much about your children dying, and having unspoiled nature is more important. If so, then maybe there are no major benefits to being invaded / colonized, even decades or centuries later.
My friend from India said this once. The British are like when someone visits your apartment and they brought cake. Then proceeds to smash your TV and kill your grandma, and steal your safe. At least you have cake I guess.
Yeah, not particularly a good trade off.
For the folks that told me "no that isn't what people think" here you go. Hot fresh colonizer mindset, for your pleasure.
There you go, someone who is unwilling to actually think.