The con side argued why colonialism is, well, bad. The exact four points, more or less, were that colonialism leads to a loss of cultural identity, effects the environment negatively, is a corporately run tactic, and that it has long term effects. Yes, it's quite true that occasionally colonialism has destroyed many cultures, millions of trees, and ruined cultural identity. So here's my take on it, excuse my red, it might be showing: I'm sorry that we're trying to advance the world into the 21st century like an episode of South Park.
The Pro side of the debate countered that colonialism is good. Big surprise. Their red was showing. Their four points were that colonialism promotes the reduction of the carbon footprint, promotes economic growth, promotes tradition and culture, and promotes world thoughts and global education. They do more promoting than Nike before a basketball playoff. However, I can't hate too much, as they did the better job in my eyes, not to mention they were much less emotional about it. The rebuttal to one of their points was "People don't want other ideals forced upon them", but my in my political uncorrectness (I hope you all got that), if it's for global betterment, ask me if I give a damn.
No comments:
Post a Comment