Do majority of them think it was justified, a net benefit or completely unjustified behaviour? I'm specifically asking about the colonization of places in Africa and south east Asia if that helps.
For example I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) Niall Ferguson argues that the countries who were conquered by the British empire benefited from its ruling and industrialization and therefore it's justified, but I want to know if this opinion is commonly held among other historians or is it more on the controversial side?
And if the more common opinion is that the colonization of said countries was unjustified and harmful could you provide me with some reasons or even citations for why historians argue that?
I would greatly appreciate any help.
With regards specifically to Niall Ferguson, this older post by u/International_KB - which links in turn to the (in)famous review of Ferguson by Pankaj Mishra which is well worth a read - gives a brief overview of how Ferguson's work on empire is currently viewed. I'd warn though that asking anyone to provide a complete critique of entire books (or multiple books) tends get a limited response - systemically reviewing an entire text is a lot of work. You might have better luck asking more focused questions on specific points that you are interested in.