Look, there are a whole lot of people who want to be ruled. They crave it. They want to be managed. They need to be told what to do. And by God they want others to live under the same yoke.
What kind of pathetic person makes the case for colonial domination, and then tries to couch such an argument in “progressive” terms? A particularly gutless fellow I’d say.
Someone who would prefer to be a subject, and prefer more importantly that others be a subject, than be a free individual. Think about that.
He argues that if only we’d stayed part of the empire we’d have been a lot nicer to native peoples etc. This person has apparently NO KNOWLEDGE of the British Empire beyond, well, I doubt he has much knowledge at all. We suggest that this writer for Vox start by learning about British rule in India, then go from there.
Who do you think got the slave trade really going Mr. Mathews? It wasn’t colonial Americans I can assure you of that.*
Truly stupefying ignorance.
What’s particularly bizarre is that this guy doesn’t even understand (apparently) that he’s making a reactionary, a “conservative” (in the worst sense) argument. That we should never have manifested the Enlightenment in the American Revolution. We should have just puttered along as subjects, sub-humans fundamentally, to the British crown.
One needs to stand for something in life. This guy can stand for political correctness, personal surrender and ignorance. He can stand for compliance and a boot heel existence. That is his sad prerogative.
I on the other hand prefer to live by words uttered against the colonial masters we overthrew and chased back to the Old World many many years ago.
“Live Free or Die.”
(From The Washington Examiner)
Matthews argues that had the colonies remained under British control, slavery would have been abolished earlier, government would be more proactive, and calls for a carbon tax would have passed with ease.