Baloney. The Brits were simply slavers. The main reason the Brits stopped the slave trade was to stop competition. They built their plantations where the slaves were and had no need to transport them. Furthermore any Indian who ever dared try to improve the life of Indians was strapped to the front of a cannon.
Absolutely true. The self-righteous Brits were posing as anti-slavery in their lack of support for the CSA (also because the Brits then had a cheaper, closer supply of cotton for the mills in Manchester and the new mill in the beginning Indian Raj— Egyptian cotton). The Brits simply moved off to countries in their Empire that already had culturally developed slavery- like that in the Indian Raj and the caste system of large numbers of crude, disposable labor- rented from the Rajas who found new income.
This is how it has been with the Brits and virtually every other civilization, including any and all tribal groups-Hebrews too.
The brits were not saints. But have you ever lived in India? I have.
The only thing that makes it even partially tolerable today is the civilizing effect of former British rule.
You can cherry pick bad behavior all you want and use it to smear British rule - leftists are aces at that. Libs also never take historical context into account but instead like to selectively apply modern mores. But the Brits did FAR more good than harm in India.
So according to you the American Indians were peaceful happy hippies at one with nature who were brutalized by vicious white men?