Colonial rule

Subject: Colonial rule.

It's interesting that white colonial rule is nearly always castigated and made the reason for the demise of the people of Africa. Even that statement is bound to cause a flurry of disquiet in certain quarters as we struggle to come to terms with the venal nature of mankind in general.
 Is a person who has lived in a family who's domicile covers more than a few generations on the African continent not also an African. We have no hesitation with claiming Britishness for people from Africa who settle on our shores and yet we seem strangely disquieted by the thought that white people are anything other than usurpers when they live in other lands where the bulk of the people are non white.

The colonial rulers, the British, the Belgians, the French and Germans not to mention the the Portuguese who were the first to settle roots on the continent,  are all seen in a poor light by modern day ideologues who wish for a better more equitable world encouraging multiculturalism in Europe but denying  it in terms of colonialism.
The phrase used most often in the description of colonialist rule is "brutal". They were brutal towards the native inhabitant, robbing them of their birthright, stripping the land of the riches which natural assets such as diamonds, gold, copper and rubber had a greatly magnified value in Europe, whilst in Africa they were virtually worthless.  The exploitation was if anywhere in the value system, between and within the societies. Without the potential asset being transformed into a commodity which had value in the one and not the other it seems to me a flawed argument to equate the one with the other. Does the fact that the Chinese now exploit their economic position over ourselves make them criminal, of course not, it's rather that the course of history which flows an uneven course exposes  some whilst protecting others.
Europe is currently being exploited for its social awareness, its protective human rights culture as it becomes a cherished destination for people of Africa. It's a reverse colonisation which, much as the colonial settlements caused dislocation in the tribal affairs of Africa so the cultural divide of the peoples of Africa causes disruption in the urban landscape of Europe.
The oft discussed propensity of African nations to wither away ( some would argue they are historically rejuvenated) back to a tribal  acknowledgment of power, power held in the hands of a tribal or political chief, with all the potentially despotic consequences which patriarchal dictatorship brings, is a better outcome than the colonial rule, now thrown on the scrap heap of history.
The trauma of the Congo or Zimbabwe are only the latest in a long line of post independence failures. The blame has always been placed on the colonisers and the decay in those countries of what we in Europe would call the assets of modern living, the roads, rail, fresh water, and sewerage disposal have been left to rot, somehow it was up to the colonisers to implant their importance on the local population.
Perhaps as the reverse colonisation takes hold the word will get back from the sons of the sons that colonial rule was not all bad.