Dinesh D’Souza and ’2016: Obama’s America’ Debunked by Bill Maher

I just want to understand in which universe is "colonialism" considered to be a good thing? Dinesh D'Souza operates under this inane logic that since colonialism was a form of capitalism, anybody who dislikes or opposes colonialism is anti-capitalism. And since this person is anti-capitalist, he must surely be anti-American. Well for starters, let's not forget that America has historically been anti-colonial. American thought during the 19th century looked at British, French, Spanish and Portuguese occupation of far eastern lands for cheap supply of raw materials as a great ill of modern civilization and an impediment in America's standing in the world. When America fought the Spaniards and ended up occupying Phillipines, it was looked at a severe ideological mistake. Now one may argue that America was itself a former colony, but we always looked at ourselves as "permanent" settlers unlike European colonialists who viewed countries like India, Burma, etc as temporary abodes to further the power of the Queen. So with that view, being anti-colonial is not being anti-American.Now look at colonialism as capitalism - Colonialism didn't promote the kind of free-market open society capitalism that we admire as Americans. It was based on slavery, oppression and subjugation of entire nations to plunder their wealth. Dinesh has written several apologetic books and articles on the benefits of colonialism to former colonies of European powers. He cites the wonderful gifts that his former home, India, received from the Brits via their colonial rule of 200 years of India - western styled democracy, civil and human rights, education system, technology, etc. I personally feel it is only Dinesh's fantasy to believe that Indians would not have learned about western principles of liberty, freedom and democracy without the Brits teaching them. The history of India is ripe with uprisings against the Mughals by different regions of India. That being said, what is the price that one should pay for receiving such gifts from the Brits. Let us not fool ourselves by believing that the East India Company arrived at the shores of Calicut to free-trade with the Indians. The goal of the EIC was to further the power of the Queen. Another juicy tidbit about India when the Brits arrived on its shores. According to the late British economist, Angus Maddison, India's GDP in 1700 was 25% of the world GDP. When the Brits left India in 1947, it was a measly 4% of the world's GDP. The annual revenue of the royal treasury in Delhi was 17 million pounds in 1700. At the time, the TOTAL treasury of the Queen was around 15 million pounds. The point of this long post is, there is a reason why sane, civilized people are anti-colonial. I didn't even know this argument was still valid because I believed we have all moved forward to live in times where we believe societies based on slavery aren't what we idolize as civilized peoples. For some reason, Dinesh D'Souza seems to think otherwise.