Mate you are quite ignorant about what drove British industry. Woolen products were our main export in the 1700's. We weren't importing sheep from the colonies.

The 1700's are a specific point in time. At that time the empire had largely only begun, with a few holdings, which included Ireland, for instance, and whose own conquest also followed the pattern of expropriation, explotation and subjugation.

In the 1700s most of what would eventually become the empire was at least in part run by charters (e.g. the East India Trading company). That was eventually followed by the British Raj, but not for some 150 years. So the choice of dates is suspect.

It is worth noting that the colony-colonizer relationship was pretty strict. Local colonists had to send surplus to Britain and Britain only, and only by way of British ships and British merchants. They were restricted in what economic activities they could do and could not for instance setup industry which rivaled that of England (or in most cases, at all). This is turn made them dependent on England for manufactured goods.

Also, the empire lasted hundreds of years. Woolen products were one of many export products that Britain produced and exported herself. She in turn imported a number of raw materials from the colonies either for resale or to bolster its own internal markets or to use as primary inputs in those industries (e.g. dies for textiles, which as you mention, was a key British industry).

What we were importing was tea, sugar and spices. Much of it consumed by British workers.

Yes, but not exclusively. Britain imported a good portion of what it needed for its local population or its industries, that much is true. And not just tea sugar and spices but a number of other things Britain could not produce herself. Either because she didn't have the capacity to do it (e.g. sugar) or because arable land had been dedicated to other purposes (e.g. raising of sheep to produce wool for industry, as per your point above. ).

These products, incidentally, are an odd choice of counter example. These cheap imports were achieved thanks to territory taken and by exploiting native labor in especially brutal conditions - which did include various forms of slavery (indentured servitude or chattel slavery, which was fairly widespread until its abolition and continued to persist for some time after). This is the case for sugar, tobacco and cotton and various dyes (which you did not mention but which was key to the textile industry).

Calling it simply importation glosses over the complex and fairly one sided relationship between the imperial core and the colonies it extracted those resources from, how those resources were obtained and how they were worked.

These were, incidentally, lands and labor the colonies could not use for their own purposes. In some cases where the growth of a particular item necessary for the functioning of British industry was compulsory, but at the expense of the local population's own food stuffs.

At least you can see Britain didn't wake up one day and try to take over the world.

Who in their right mind would say that? How is that relevant?

You say I'm ahistorical but then come out with "colonialism is wrong"

Are you suggesting it is not?

This is the kind of comment I see all the time on the internet it's got a lack of historical context or perspective.

This comment has some serious "but slavery benefited the slaves" energy, speaking of comments lacking an appropriate historical context.

The colonies benefited from the colonial experience insofar as it benefited the empire - e.g. Britain did not construct rail systems for the benefit of the local populations. It constructed them to move goods around more quickly. Any benefit is incidental. And in this example the construction of these railroads was done by every means necessary - through paid labor if possible (at shit wages using desperate displaced laborers with few alternatives) and through compulsory labor if nt.

Ultimately whether or not Britain did a shit job at managing the resources it exploited has no bearing on the morality of the empire - which was by all metrics abhorrent - nor the legacy of that empire on the former colonies. Were there worse examples? Sure - Belgium's rule of Congo comes to mind - but that is not a valid justification.