Put simply: the rhetoric doesn't match reality.

A nice parallel to this that most people will recognize is the conventional wisdom on communism: while it may sound good on paper, once put into practice human nature muddles execution.

Longer answer: Any time a people in a position of power subjugate or coerce another society into doing their bidding, the coercive power gains far more than the subjugated gain—and, the subjugated lose. They lose a lot.

It has been this way all throughout history, with no notable examples that I personally know of to contradict this. And the numbers easily demonstrate what is lost. India, who the British ruled for 190 years (1757 to 1947), saw zero per capita income increase during their entire rule. By contrast, America's wage growth has remained relatively stagnant since the 1970's, and look at the kinds of problems that has caused. Now imagine your entire country's growth flatlining for two centuries, despite the wealth of your neighbors increasing with global inflation. You don't have to totally imagine, because India's life expectancy decreased by a whopping 20% between 1872 and 1921, then increased by 27 years (+66%) between independence from Britain and today.

"But India's infrastructure got better, they got railroads and better communications...."

The infrastructure argument doesn't reflect who got to enjoy modernized infrastructure. The point of building railroads was to better move British troops around. This cut manpower and military base costs while giving the British better mobility so they could more quickly shut down civil unrest and/or uprisings. The more effective communications were simply to better distribute propaganda. The public didn't benefit from these bits of infrastructure until they were able to declare independence. Manufacturing and production benefited, but remember that the country's growth remained stagnant during British rule—which means any benefits from streamlining raw material and goods production never benefited the government or citizens of India.

Another argument pro-colonial people will make is that a country needs colonization to be exposed to technology of the oppressor in order to be brought into the modern world. This is also untrue, as Japan and Turkey, two major non-colonized powers, can attest to. Both are modern influential powerhouses and Japan has the third largest GDP in the world.

The colonized also often find themselves in positions where their governing power will ignore disaster by not taking care of them when needed. There are plenty of historical examples to cite, but to see this playing out in real time, remember the lackluster response of the United States when Puerto Rico was slammed by Hurricane Maria—and by all accounts modern man [incorrectly] considers itself more "civilized." Puerto Rico isn't even colonized by force, it's a commonwealth. Now imagine that cognitive dissonance applied to the mid-19th century British Empire who intentionally crippled China in the Opium Wars for strategic gain; by all accounts they were decidedly indifferent to the plights of those they ruled.

Finally, there hasn't been a successful academic who has made a favorable case for colonization that has swayed his peers. Academic peers are important, because in the context of history, they are most suited to be guided by facts filtered through an objective lens. Portland State University scholar Bruce Gilley published "The Case for Colonialism" a mere two years ago. Like most arguments in favor of colonialism, he erroneously ignored the massive stack of abuses caused by colonialism (death, unfair laws, destruction of culture, theft of natural resources, unfair distribution of wealth, labor abuses, forced soldier recruitment, etc) while arguing for a relatively narrow bit of benefits (of which I'm sure you're familiar). The author has since redacted his publication at the request of 3Q, yet as /u/khosikulu points out, he is still defending his position.

A final question you might ask yourself: why would a country, who undoubtedly has demands being made by its citizens, freely spend resources to prop up another country overseas? Because they're doing it from the good of their heart? Because its citizens want a good faith project? No. The answer is always either resources, satellite influence, or some combination of the two.

​

Sources:

Gilley, Bruce. "The case for colonialism." Third World Quarterly. 8 Sept 2017. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2017.1369037

McQuade, Joseph. "Colonilaism was a disaster..." The Conversation. 26 Sept 2017. https://theconversation.com/colonialism-was-a-disaster-and-the-facts-prove-it-84496

Habib, Irfan. "Studying a Colonial Economy—Without Perceiving Colonialism." Modern Asian Studies. Vol 19, Issue 3. July 1985. pp. 355-381. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/studying-a-colonial-economywithout-perceiving-colonialism/5A4AA6A1A73FAC4399B2FFC957B560A6

"Projected GDP Ranking" Statistics Times. 9 June 2018. http://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php

Hayes, Jack Patrick, "The Opium Wars in China." Asia Pacific Curriculum. https://asiapacificcurriculum.ca/learning-module/opium-wars-china

The best way I'd find, is by looking for similar analogies within ones own backyard.

One option that comes to mind would be, how would people in general respond to claims that poor people benefit from rich people's exploitations of them?

This can alternatively be framed, without a class distinction, how would people respond to the claims that the disenfranchised-from-power benefit from having an elite exerting control over their lives?

Now what's interesting about postulating the question in both these terms (and I've done so to try to free the question from a specific political leaning), is you can see how the argument begins to be mirrored in modern political debates. This is no accident, because if you are a person who might be in favor of colonization, you can see how they might begin to formulate arguments for the benefit of the former.

I've worded the second question in a nebulous way, because the same "conservative" (not intending to deride its politics) that might accept an argument for a colonization of an indigenous people and the exploitation of their bodies and resources by a more powerful bureaucratic state, could simultaneously reject an argument (and this is an analogy) for a "colonization" of their "indigenous/traditional" ideas by a powerful "liberal elite".

(I put "colonization" in brackets in the second term because then we get into the modern politics of the conservative movement co-opting the tools of critical theory for their own benefit. But those are best suited for longer discussions elsewhere, rather than here in /r/askhistorians).

The whole point of this exercise, is highlighting the inherent double standard in claims of the benefit of "colonization." If you perceive YOU are in charge, forcing your ways onto others by whatever means is a good thing for their benefit. But if you are NOT in charge, then it's tyranny.

Consider the contradictory positions of a hypothetical american conservative, who rails against the colonial oppression of an 18th century Great Britain who tramples on colonial American freedoms, taxes them without representation while sending their money to benefit the home island, with the same american conservative who might tout the benefits of an occupation and invasion of a foreign country where we bring law and order to a barbarian land, who sees the financial benefit in using their colonial revenues to fund their home triumphs.

The base perspective most modern historians take, is that people who do not have their own freedom, deserve it. There are plenty of others that don't.

My point is simply, before you align too closely to those pro-colonialist circles, consider yourself and your own country were it to be in the same colonized position, and be cognizant of the contradictions inherent within those positions.