Northern Ireland 2125?

You say " nobody suggested it (colonisation) was all bad". I am saying you suggested it was. Care to list positive things about British colonisation so, if you want to prove me wrong?

I'll be delighted to see it sticking in your craw.

Never saw you admitting they built infrastructure ? In Singapore they were there to trade and that beneffitted everyone. Free port. Free trade. Education . Open economy. Common law. Publiic service. And English language helped trade throughout the world too. The study from Singapore does not mention much about exploitation. Singapore is now a leading country, if not the leading country, in Asia. Are they exploiting everyone else?

Never saw you having the point of view the Britsh done something positive before.

I did not bring up the Bengal famine of 1770. Your above account is exaggerated: some estimates put the death toll at 1 million, not 10 million, but even 1 death is too many. There is much of colonisation that was wrong, especially when you look back hundreds of years ago and judge events by standards of the 20th and 21st centuries. The British had fought the French for control of east Bengal just shortly before 1770, and Portugal was also involved in exploiting the far east wherever it could. There were hundreds of famines in India before the British arrived. However, the subcontinent was free of famine between the 1900s and 1943, partly due to the railway and other improved communications. Rail transport played an essential role in supplying grain from food-surplus regions to famine-stricken ones.

In the last 7 to 9 years, between 2016–18, 194 million of 810 million undernourished people globally lived in India, making the country a key focus for tackling hunger on a global scale.

Incidentally, still in the far east, going to the same country which makes ipads, byd cars etc now, did you know that as recebtly as from 1959 to 1961 in China, there was what is considered one of the most devastating famines in history, with estimates of death tolls ranging from 15 million to 50 million people. I suppose you think that was the fault of the British too, they could easily have built railways for the Chinese back then and supplied in food to stop the famine, even though China was a different country? The British were next door in Hong Kong. When the British 99 year lease of Hong Kong came to an end in 1997 nearly all of the people in Hong Kong wanted the lease to continue, and did not want the British administration to leave.

From wiki: British colonial rule indubitably benefited Hong Kong, through measures ranging from establishing key infrastructure and the rule of law, from propelling the city's economic miracle in the 1960s to leading its world-class civil service.

After nearly 8 decades of independence, 194 million under-nourished people are living in India, while Hong Kong, Singapore Australia, New Zealand etc have much higher per capita GDP.

The French were in Vietnam, Laos etc. Dutch in Indonesia. Spanish in the Philippines. Portugese in Macau. What are their per capita GDPs do you think? Japan had its own colonial empire, like Korea and Taiwan. Lets not go there.

I was not the one who brought up the subject of the Bengal famine of 1770, or the previous famines in India before the British arrived. Anyway you did not answer the questions, and while talk of India, Singapore etc and colonisation by many different countries in Asia is very interesting as I lived in some of those places, it is off topic so I'm not talking about that again on this thread.