I am THRILLED to see you again! Thank you so much for sharing these views on colonialism. The approach I took since the very first chapters of Part 1 is that this is a sort of political awakening for Peter. He has assumed that England and all her people are all the same (they are not) and that nothing can compare to the diversity of Narnia. The positive to England's colonial past (as I finally got Edmund to say in the Liverpool chapter) is that there are things about that exposure that are very good -- the diversity. There are also, as most conventionally presented and as is playing out in England, some very bad things about colonialism -- a very, very relevant issue given that August 1942 is when the British imprison the Congress Party officials in India. Peter dodged the colonial position in Chapter 3 of Part 1 when he refused to take a position on genital mutilation - a HUGE issue in the African colonial movement but did try to articulate how, morally, the sovereign might use its power and authority to eliminate what it perceives as objectionable practices. Lucy then raised the uncomfortable question that maybe things like this were occurring in Narnia but they chose to ignore them and to let communities practice their own culture without interference. The companion stories in the Lone Islands were intended to get to this issue in a way -- how does the sovereign change practices in its colonies in ways that are humane and respectful. They learned (the hard way) how to do it in Narnia and that translates into an anti-colonial sentiment in 1942 England -- at least for Peter and Lucy.