The word ‘colonialism’ has become (at least for some people) a ‘snarl word’ – something that is always bad, and a label used to denigrate whatever you’re pointing at when you say it. The strangest example comes from John Keane, who teaches political science at Sydney University.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry alleged that Keane engaged in ‘doxing’ (an abbreviation of ‘document dropping’) – the malicious release of a person’s information without their consent – by publishing an internal email from a group of mostly Jewish academics on social media. Professor Keane said he did not welcome the university’s direction to ‘be tolerant’. He concluded that the word ‘tolerance’ is a ‘form of colonialism’.

There it is – using ‘colonialism’ as a ‘snarl word’ to snap back at critics. But what does this word ‘colonialism’ mean? And is it always a negative word (as some seem to believe)? Let’s take this back to the source concept ‘colony’.

That word comes from a Latin source, and the notion goes back to Roman times, where a ‘colony’ is a ‘territory administered by a foreign ruler’. So, ‘colonialism’ logically means the consequences of a territory being administered by a foreign ruler. For those who use ‘colonialism’ as a snarl word the unexamined assumption is that this must always be a bad thing.

In fact, some dictionaries build this unexamined assumption into their definitions, and by so doing turn their definitions into moral judgements.

For example, colonialism is defined as, ‘the practice by which a powerful country directly controls less powerful countries and uses their resources to increase its own power and wealth’ (Collins Dictionary). Really? All the time?

When you look at the flourishing democracy in India (or Fiji or New Zealand) is that really what British colonialism did? Or did the Collins allow the token Marxist on their staff to write that particular definition?

And what about Australia? What is our ‘colonialist’ heritage? According to some activists it is a total disaster. But if we look around, surely our colonialist heritage is a mixture of good and bad – and, on the whole, much more good than bad.

It is from British colonialism that Australia (an independent, self-governing nation) has been given (gratis, free and for nothing) such benefits as: engineering, metalworking, productive agriculture, a written language, democracy, the rule of law, trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, universal education, a hospital system, bridges, roads, architecture, science, machinery, mass media… and, of course, the list could go on for pages.

What was lost (tribal ownership of hunter-gatherer lands) is surely very small by comparison. Just ask any of the tens of thousands of successful indigenous Australians working in the professions today.

Now, I am sure to be howled down by the Australia-haters. But I think they are wrong. I think tolerance is a good thing. And if it comes from ‘colonialism’ that is no reason for Professor John Keane to sneer at it.

In fact, he should be saying, ‘Well, yes tolerance is another good thing we’ve inherited from British colonialism.’

Not that I expect him to change his mind any time soon!