Colonialism; YAY OR NAY

I want to begin by thanking my opponent for a very well argued debate. I want to begin my last argument by pointing out his assertion that: "America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore are examples of post-colonial success. These nations do not, however, represent the normal course of colonialism and that they are either settler societies, or trade post cities." I want to argue that, in fact, reputable historians and economists label all those countries as, at one point, a colony. in definition, a reputable source states that a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state. Hong Kong was a British colony from 1841 to 1997. Macau was a Portuguese colony from 1557 to 1999.The United States of America, originally thirteen distinct English (or British, if founded after the Acts of Union of 1707) colonies in British North America. The Colony of Virginia, later to become the US states of Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia, was the first of the thirteen colonies and was under English and then British rule from 1607 until 1783, at least nominally. East Timor was a colony of Indonesia from 1975 to 1999. Yes, they were settler societies, trade post cities, and also a territory under the immediate political control of a state. You stated that theorists such as Andre Gunder Frank, argue that colonialism actually leads to the net transfer of wealth from the colonized to the colonizer, and inhibits successful economic development. It may be fact that he said that, but it is a relative judgment and also only an opinion. That is also true regarding your other assertion that; critics of colonialism such as Frantz Fanon and Aime Cesaire argue that colonialism does political, psychological, and moral damage to the colonized as well. Some have failed, and some have flourished; there are many intricacies in colonizing, so the outcome isn't always foreseeable, but, to say the international society hasn't improved, despite how communication, trade, and transportation has greatly inter-connected all the nations together, is not factual statement. You said that Indian writer and political activist Arundhati Roy said that debating the pros and cons of colonialism/imperialism "is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape". One can not compare rape with colonialism. Rape has no potential of good in it while colonialism have in fact, lead to very prosperous independent countries today. You stated that colonialism and exploration are both beyond terrible and again, that is an opinion and not fact. You also claimed that studies show that Canada would be the cleanest country in the world if we had not intruded into the aboriginal society. That might have been a study, but does not mean the study is accurate. The duration involved is too vast to foresee something like that, and there are too many contingencies involved to consider that claim as legitimate. Lastly, I want to point out how you said, it was our fault that we are not living in the best society we could! I feel that is a pessimistic way of thinking. I am grateful to be alive and I take nothing for granted. Yes, it might be true that the world might be a lot different if things didn't happen the way they did, but that is so in every aspect of life. With less than a thousand dollars, I can fly all the way to the other side of the globe. I can pay for something I bought, that is in another country 5000 miles away, and have it sent to the exact address. Countries that were at war in the past are major constituents of the Unite Nations. I want to conclude this debate by saying, let's not always complain what we don't have and how things could have been and complain about how we can utilize what he have now and make it better. Thank you