I often read some version of the sentence, "Western countries are rich today because of colonialist imperialism"

This is both incorrect & misses the point

The graphs below shows World GDP. Something special started in the 1700s that led to sustained economic growth

(1/5)

Could this "special thing" be colonialism? No.

If it was, it should have happened much earlier under the Caesars, Attila the Hun, Genghis Kahn, the Mughals, the Ottomans (you get the idea)

Something else led to sustained economic growth in Western Europe

(2/5)

Does this mean that ppl in Western countries did not profit from colonialism? Again, no

Below we can see that Indian wages fell below subsistence levels during colonialism - this was due to economic policies that harmed Indian labourers and favoured British manufacturers

(3/5)

But short-term profit is not the same thing as long run prosperity

Think about the poorest states in the US - Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama etc. What do these states have in common? They were former slave states

Exploitation helps some ppl get a bit richer - that's it

(4/5)

Taking things from others didn't make Western countries as rich as they are today. That was going on for all of human history

It was instead about having a society where relatively more people could innovate & freely participate in economic production - that was the key

(5/5)