The colonial-legacy argument has a structural problem that makes it impossible to falsify. Whatever outcome Caribbean nations produce, the argument can accommodate it. If outcomes are bad, that is evidence of the colonial legacy’s ongoing damage. If outcomes are good, that is evidence of Caribbean resilience despite the colonial legacy. No outcome is ever taken as evidence that the colonial effect has diminished or that post-independence governance has played a significant independent role.
This unfalsifiability is a serious intellectual problem. Arguments that cannot in principle be disproved by any evidence are not empirical claims. They are articles of faith. The colonial-legacy explanation of Caribbean outcomes is treated by the reparations campaign as a settled fact, but it has never been subjected to the kind of rigorous testing that would distinguish it from the alternative hypothesis that post-independence governance quality is the primary determinant of contemporary outcomes.
The variation between Caribbean nations provides the most direct test. Barbados and Jamaica share an almost identical colonial history but have produced substantially different outcomes over sixty years of self-governance. If the colonial legacy were the primary determinant, they should look similar. They do not. The variation is the evidence, and the evidence points toward governance rather than history as the decisive variable.
