NYT: Who’s a ‘Colonizer’? How an Old Word Became a New Weapon
Open link in next tab
https://archive.is/S0CK3
Second-to-last sentence:
Colonialism has given way to post-colonialism and neocolonialism, whatever those sweeping labels may encompass.
Imagine spending money on a NYT subscription and getting this lazy-ass article.
Ah yes, those hot new buzzwords that definitely don't have a century-spanning body of literature attached to them. Frantz Fanon? Never heard of em, probably just some naive college kid who hasn't figured out how the real world works 
Literally reading the definition of neocolonialism reveals this article for the drivel it so so they name checked the concept while acting like it’s too complex to explain. Just incredible writing.
Yeah, that ending paragraph actually confused the shit out of me on a first read. Because I (naively, I guess) assumed that the point of an article was to, well, make a point or argue for something. But this article seems to exist to argue for nothing. Just legitimately I think this article exists so libs on the internet can link to it when someone calls them out for supporting colonialism. And given that, it makes sense that the last paragraph would be some wishy-washy meaningless drivel. It doesn't have to be anything else. In fact, it's maybe even better if it argues nothing and comes to no solid conclusions.
When you’re writing an essay and realize mid-sentence that you hit the word count requirement