The world is/was a game of risk

BIt of a long one, bare with me!

For one of my first modules in my international relations degree I've been studying 'The making of the Global South', which largely covers issues regarding the G77, Colonialism and the slave trade. It's something I've always had an interest in so not that many of the atrocities of global history came as a large surprise, which I'm not sure is a good or bad thing.

Yesterday we were discussing the implications of colonialism on the third world, and whether it was a 'Good' thing. My opinion was that regardless of changes brought about by colonialism, it is intrinsically wrong to take something that does not belong to you in the first place. I honestly can't fathom why 'western' nations felt it was their right to take over other cultures, especially as at the time the western nations were under a largely christian ethos, and so surely would have been intelligent enough to realize that 'The earth is the Lords, an everything in it'(Psalm 24:1). obviously i understand this was all mixed up with the attempt to 'civilize' developing countries by 'converting' them to christianity, but with the colonizers acting in an entirely uncivilized manner, largely using the countries for their own economic gain.

Its like the world was a game of risk.. I'll have that country, and that one, and you can have that little one there, as you were too slow to get a good one.
Or maybe a more appropriate analogy is Monopoly. I'll have that country and that industry, build a hotel, make some money, try and make money off the other countries.
Then comes the problem of decolonization, you run out of money and realize you need to give the country back to its people, or if sticking with the monopoly analogy 'mortgage it' Sure, you may not continue to profit from it, but at least you get out without making a huge loss and overcomplicating your 'game plan'. Incidentally, this is pretty much what happened in the decolonization of Africa, India etc: the popular perception may be that former colonies were granted their independence because they pushed for it, it is far more likely it was due to the huge amount of debt the 'colonial masters' were in at the time, and so got out before they made too much of a financial loss.

Then what happens after that? If you look at any statistics, any photographs, speak to many citizens, it appears that it is probabale that a majority of former colonies are in much worse social, humanitarian and economic states than they were whilst they were ruled by the colonial masters: and more importantly, worse off (in accordance with the current climate...eg: before colonisation most 'developing' countries were economically and industially on a par with, or at least close to the countires that were to become their rulers.)

Therefore it would seem inarguable that colonisation retarded development in these countries.
Firstly by taking something that did not belong, motivated by greed, trying to run another culture and therefore not crediting the people of that county to know the culture better than they did. When Germany/Russia invaded poland (and of course I realise the differences in these situations) world war 2 began. Now I'm not saying that it would have been beneficial to start a world war over the takeover of african, asian and latin american nations, but shouldn't some of the other 'developed countries' have made a fuss? Probably not, because the colonization would probably be likely to assist them financially, and who would have taken on the UK/France/Spain back in the day? (I also find it interesting that Germany didn't successfully colonize anywhere outside of europe... but thats another story.)
Secondly, and this is another abstract analogy, when the colonies were decolonised they were left with little economic and political support. I'm not for one second saying that the people of these cultures were not capable of running things, but when you have relied on someone/thing for 50 years its a bit much to suddenly be cut loose. Broadly speaking, if you have children, you dont support them financially and offer them adviceetc until the age of 16, then when you run out of money/they push for a little more freedom leave them high and dry, with little financial advice, or help in general. You would take responsibility for the person/country you have moulded and try and help them to become successful independent people/nations.

Arguably, this is all water under the bridge. The effects of colonialism are still obvious: the few good ;legacies (some transport, education& democracy) the bad (poverty, reduced/obsolete manufacturing and trade, underdeveloped health care, corruption) and the mediocre (the use of european language in former colonies. However placing blame, no matter how much I may enjoy it is not really going to help. The only thing to do is look to the future, try and mend previous mistakes and ensure they never happen again.