Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
Way to go with making up excuses to dodge the point of the example.

Ah, the arrogance of colonial powers. It's nice to know it's still there.
A bit like how Hong Kong is the fault of the Brits. The Brits were wrong to hold it for so long as a colony, simply by virtue of an inter-state treaty signed before any of us were born. The Hong Kongers panicked when the Brits left, but only because they were uncertain about their future, but all that's been solved when China guaranteed its future, and now the Brits are gone and good riddance. Except the Brits have been gone for over a decade, have given up the ex-colony as no longer theirs, and Hong Kongers are still pining after them, and are at odds with mainland China whom they regard as more alien than the British. But that can still be blamed on Britain as having once been there, and the opinions of the natives can be dismissed as Stockholm syndrome or whatever it is that dismisses their right to self-determination whilst still blaming Britain.

The lesson in all this is: blame Britain. The arguments may vary, but as long as the conclusion is there, they're pointing in the right direction. If the logic directly contradicts this conclusion, dismiss the logic as irrelevant. So Britain is at fault for promoting slavery, but Britain's massive efforts at stopping slavery should be ignored. To paraphrase Cato, aim for the conclusion and the arguments will write themselves.