It was all worth it, then. Thanks.

As you say, Algeria sat on natural resources. It also had a “better” experience of empire than Korea, which was absolutely brutalized by Nazi-adjacent Japanese, leaving it (IIRC) the 2nd poorest country in the whole world. Korea has no natural resources, as doesn’t Japan, possibly the world’s least colonized country. The different trajectories of these three countries suggests very clearly to me that degree of empire-suffering - at the hands of “white” people or otherwise - is not the determinant factor in human development. Nor are material resources. It is something else. But anyway, none of this is falsifiable, neither of us is going to convince the other and nobody else is reading, so let’s call it a day there.

About “fucked” this and “fucked up” that, personally I just see it as laziness and weak language skills. Always reaching for the bazooka because hunting for the scalpel is too hard. But it’s probably a bit generational too.

On empire, it’s the story of humanity. Every nation in the world has been either the author or the subject of imperialism, and it’s usually nonstop back-and-forth. Sure, the European empires were the first to cross seas, but why should that change anything fundamentally?

Personally I find it interesting to observe the relative fates of those countries that choose to dwell on their imperial victim status, and those that don’t. Look at the different outcomes of Algeria and South Korea, for example.

If anyone’s “fucking” taking things personally here, then it’s not me.

The argument I was responding to is an obviously ahistorical attempt to blame almost literally everything on “Victorians”. That’s dumb for exactly the reasons you just outlined.

Facile and lazy. In reality, the norms and practices in “third world” countries are pretty comparable no matter who, if anyone, colonized them. It’s just a question of development. Not everything in the world is the responsibility of big bad white man.

Sure but you must see that speeding is far easier for a motorized vehicle than for a bicycle.

That’s an American perspective. In Europe many people don’t even have cars, or (Germany) just keep them at home as trophies. Lots of rental cars in holiday destinations like this.

In that case the Netherlands is ignoring EU law, which now very clearly defines a regular e-bike: 25km/h, 250W max output, no throttle.

PS: clarification - if they have a license plate then obviously they’re not regular e-bikes. Seems to me crazy to just allow them in bike lanes.

But there’s an obvious difference between a car running a red light and a bike running a red light. Namely, that in the second case the only bodily risk is to the miscreant.

That’s an important difference that your argument elides.

Always important to remember in this debate: electrification of transport is not just about carbon and climate. It’s about public health, not to mention public sanity.

The filthy noisy combustion engine was never compatible with dense cities, which is where most people live these days. Anyone who has been to one of the few places in the world where urban transport has been completely electrified will testify to the difference it makes to be free of the internal combustion engine. It’s night and day.

Let’s not lose sight of the wood for the trees.

French has a nice neologism for this phenomenon: autobésité