Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?

by tootired2care 52 Replies latest social current

  • confusedandalone

    As usual you are wrong. Let's discuss prejudice. You stating there were no successful civilizations anywhere colonialist went and that what they brought to people was better than what they had. That is the expression of a white ring whackadoodle. Look at what your people did... they go to zimbabwe and take land from people and make them second class citizens and slaves. Then alter the education of these people's children and yell them all the great monuments that their own people built were actually built by Europeans because africans were not smart enough to have done these things.

    This was institutionalized white washed revisionist history. It made people forget centuries of their own accomplishments and made them feel that they were subhuman.

    Your mom's take on the farming issue was also foolish. The indigenous people there were local farmers providing for family and tribes and small markets. White farmers who raped them of the land had a goal of mass farming with yield being the only concern. After all these people farm the land for centuries prior to your arrival and they were fine. Again it was colonialist greed that made it a problem.

    Now let's talk prejudice. My best man in my wedding is white. My current neighbors who we go on vacation with are white. Etc... they are also well aware of my feelings and realize that I am informed and not a racist.

    You on the other hand grew up in rhodesia which like Congo was governed by a bunch of racist Europeans that believed in wholesale killing and it seems you are in agreement with those actions.

    Why would you ignore the facts about Leopold and congo? Based on what you said what he did was better for the land of Congo because they were just tribal pwople.

    Explain how an invading European force Killin 15 million of 30 million inhabitants of a country is better for them. You can always just ignore that again or wait for someone else to support you with more exciting news of how africans and indigenous people of the Americas were just savages that needed to be colonized

  • Apognophos

    I don't know much about this subject, though I think about it often. All I can say is that, considering that many of these countries have only been independent for a couple generations, there's going to be a resulting chaos from the change in power structure and we can't expect a nation to be on stable footing so quickly.

    I haven't studied pre-European-contact African civilization at all, but I have studied Native American history as an amateur, and I can share a few salient facts:

    - Indian civilization was continuing to advance over the centuries before the whites showed up. They had cities larger than London and Paris ("cities" were composed of a few thousand people back then), they were seafaring, they had a country-wide trading network, and the Iroquois League was a sort of proto-United States (less democratic, but an alliance of tribes that was probably going to continue expanding). The Indians also largely reshaped much of what is now the U.S. through generations of plant breeding and large-scale landscaping, transforming wildernesses into park- or garden-like spaces.

    - When the whites showed up, disease killed 90%+ of the Indians. As you would imagine, this destroyed many tribes completely. Most of the Indians who died from European diseases never met a European. When the settlers would come across "primitive" Indians, they failed to comperehend that many of these Indians were no more than post-apocalyptic stragglers. The parklands the Indians created were reverting to wilderness, but not before the Europeans saw them and concluded that God Himself must have prepared this land for his white children to settle in.

    So did Indians benefit from European advancements? Were they better off before or after the Europeans showed up? And does the current sad state of many Indians on reservations indicate that they never had much potential as a people, or was their potential completely derailed by another civilization?

  • trillaz

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that capitalism has made life in China better. Their borders are open to western money now and their top brass have benefitted from their human resources and trade. But the divide between the rich and poor there is greater than in the United States of America. Along with humans, China also has vast shipping areas that allow provincial lands totaling areas larger than the US to have direct access to export. India does not have the same political struggles of government versus its people as China, but they can also export with ease. Proven in the middle east, a country that has natural resources such as oil but no egress point will require one by whatever means it can get one. When I look at Africa, a continent, I see quite a lot of land in land-locked small countries than I see vast areas with a sea border controlled by one nation. Even today, oil and large quantities of bulky goods are still being shipped versus being flown, so it can't be argued that an airport that materializes in the middle of nowhere would make a land-locked location a viable exporter of goods.

    So there is an infrastructure catch-22. Why build where there is going to be no return? So what do those small countries have of wealth that they can offer to the outside world? It's not their human resources. What about natural ones? It is hard to catchup when your wealthiest natural goods are owned by others. Let's go down to South America and note how its land is divided into couintries. The ones we know all know about that participate in the "western" industrialized base of capital have large coastlines. I suppose at least one big business there might be the cause of troubles in the world, but that is another story.

  • confusedandalone

    trillaz - " So there is an infrastructure catch-22. Why build where there is going to be no return? So what do those small countries have of wealth that they can offer to the outside world? "

    Excellent question! If you look at South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia the natural resources of these countries are abundant. The problem is most of the nations that were colonizers made insane amounts of moneyu off the natural resources of the lands lited aboev. As a matter of fact that is where most of European wealth came from. They had complete control of the resources of these nations until they gave these nations independence. However even after independence most of the mines and resources were owned by private European companies so they just continued to rape these countries of the resources they had up until today in many places.

    Look at Jamaica for instance. They received thier independence not to long ago and they have a wealth of natural resources. However Foreigners own the majority of them. Such as Alcan. They literally turned acres of Jamaica into an acid pit with the runoff from the work they did there. The resorts most of which are owned by foreigners as well. The little they are able to have on thier own islands ends up being sold off to China. The roads in Jamaica needed repairing and they had to borrow from China and sell off gobs of land to do it. Which is shameful after the way that Britian raped the native people of everything they owned. The Arawaks are nearly gone.

    Looking at Africa is even worse. Looking at Central and South America is worse. As I stated above how can someone expect a nation like Congo to thrive when 50% of the population was killed of FOR NO REASON and another 10% were mutilated just because... I really wish some of the people railing against these people would have answered that question. <---- I know no one has time to read books about this but this wikipedia article touches on a number of poitns. <--- Look at what happened to natives who did not meet rubber quotas

    These African countries many are barely 50 years old. Where was America 50 years into its countryhood. Not to mention the fact that Americans where not in a time period where technology reigns supreme as it does today. What most it be like to recieve a country to control and you have no one who really wants to help and those that do are really just depleting your resources and stirring up trouble even after you are supposedly independent. More importantly the wealth of colonialist contries came on the backs of slaves they never paid. It is alot easier to build a grand and bountiful country when you have free labor.

    Country Independence Date Prior ruling country
    Liberia, Republic of 26 July 1847 -
    South Africa, Republic of 31 May 1910 Britain
    Egypt, Arab Republic of 28 February 1922 Britain
    Ethiopia 1 , People's Democratic Republic of 5 May 1941 Italy
    Libya (Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) 24 December 1951 Britain
    Sudan, Democratic Republic of 1 January 1956 Britain/Egypt
    Morocco 2 , Kingdom of 2 March 1956 France 2
    Tunisia, Republic of 20 March 1956 France
    Ghana, Republic of 6 March 1957 Britain
    Guinea, Republic of 2 October 1958 France
    Cameroon 3 , Republic of 1 January 1960 France
    Senegal, Republic of 4 April 1960 France
    Togo, Republic of 27 April 1960 France
    Mali, Republic of 22 September 1960 France
    Madagascar, Democratic Republic of 26 June 1960 France
    Congo (Kinshasa), Democratic Republic of the 30 June 1960 Belgium
    Somalia, Democratic Republic of 1 July 1960 Britain
    Benin, Republic of 1 August 1960 France
    Niger, Republic of 3 August 1960 France
    Burkina Faso, Popular Democratic Republic of 5 August 1960 France
    Côte d'Ivoire, Republic of (Ivory Coast) 7 August 1960 France
    Chad, Republic of 11 August 1960 France
    Central African Republic 13 August 1960 France
    Congo (Brazzaville), Republic of the 15 August 1960 France
    Gabon, Republic of 17 August 1960 France
    Nigeria 4 , Federal Republic of 1 October 1960 Britain
    Mauritania, Islamic Republic of 28 November 1960 France
    Sierra Leone, Republic of 27 April 1961 Britain
    Tanzania, United Republic of 9 December 1961 Britain
    Burundi, Republic of 1 July 1962 Belgium
    Rwanda, Republic of 1 July 1962 Belgium
    Algeria, Democratic and Popular Republic of 3 July 1962 France
    Uganda, Republic of 9 October 1962 Britain
    Kenya, Republic of 12 December 1963 Britain
    Malawi, Republic of 6 July 1964 Britain
    Zambia, Republic of 24 October 1964 Britain
    Gambia, Republic of The 18 February 1965 Britain
    Botswana, Republic of 30 September 1966 Britain
    Lesotho, Kingdom of 4 October 1966 Britain
    Mauritius, State of 12 March 1968 Britain
    Swaziland, Kingdom of 6 September 1968 Britain
    Equatorial Guinea, Republic of 12 October 1968 Spain
    Guinea-Bissau 5 , Republic of 24 September 1973
    (alt. 10 September 1974)
    Mozambique, Republic of 25 June 1975 Portugal
    Cape Verde, Republic of 5 July 1975 Portugal
    Comoros, Federal Islamic Republic of the 6 July 1975 France
    São Tomé and Principe, Democratic Republic of 12 July 1975 Portugal
    Angola, People's Republic of 11 November 1975 Portugal
    Western Sahara 6 28 February 1976 Spain
    Seychelles, Republic of 29 June 1976 Britain
    Djibouti, Republic of 27 June 1977 France
    Zimbabwe, Republic of 18 April 1980 Britain
    Namibia, Republic of 21 March 1990 South Africa
    Eritrea, State of 24 May 1993 Ethiopia
  • confusedandalone

    " Indian civilization was continuing to advance over the centuries before the whites showed up."

    - Look at the Maya and Inca and Olmec and Aztecs! Look at what they accomplished and the knowledge they had. The technological advancements they made. Then it comes to a full stop and people regress. That happens when you are made a slave and not allowed education and a complete loss of your culture. After a single generation think of what can be lost.

    -As stated before the multitude of african civilizations that built all sorts of huge buildings engaged in astronomy like the aztecs and native americans.

    - Look at the Arabs

    - Look at India

    Then colonialism comes in and its like a full stop on the development of these nations

  • little_Socrates

    Why has the USA been so sucessfull in overcomming its own colonialism? Is it simply that we have been "free" longer?

    India has only recently recieved her independence. Why is she doing so well?

  • confusedandalone

    India for years prior to Industrial Revolution were very very powerful economically and militarily. They did suffer greatly under colonialization but they did not fall as much as most other areas conquered by Europeans. The conditions of Latin America and most of Africa were not the same as those in India and China prior to this period. There were a number of extremely powerful african empires as well as Latin American empires but not on the scale of India or China. Let us not forget the Sahara and how that seperation from other parts of Africa slowed the development of Sub-Saharan Africa as well. There were many wealthy african nations as well. Even today as you look at Northern African nations many are on a huge upswing and nations such as Ghana and Nigeria are doing well to a degree.

    In a couple of generations if there is not to much meddling and the educational systems are allowed to improve Africa as well as a number of Latin American countries will begin to progree. For the most part many African literacy rates surpass those of India. The problem is there is no real industrial presents. Not to mention the Thugs who ruled over them embedded within the education systems that they were monkeys and sub-human and raped them of their culture and language. The same can be said of the native peoples of Latin American nations as well.

  • Apognophos

    Why has the USA been so sucessfull in overcomming its own colonialism?

    I think it's important to keep in mind that if "USA" means "the settlers who came here on the Mayflower, etc.", they settled peacefully and an in orderly manner at their own leisure. Then they got around to overthrowing their British rulers in an orderly manner. At no time were they taken over by the British; they were the British!

    On the other hand, if you defined "USA" as "the land that once belonged to the Native Americans", then it didn't overcome contact with colonialism very well at all, did it? Americans spread out over the land with their "manifest destiny" mindset and the Indians have almost gone extinct. The ones that live on reservations are mired in poverty and alcoholism.

    The point being that the American colonies were not subjects of colonialism in the sense that India, Africa, etc. have been. They were settlers from England who got tired of British laws and cut the cord to their homeland.

  • Qcmbr

    A good set of resources cited here discussing benefits and problems of colonialism.

  • humbled

    It seems that economic exploitation of poorer nations by richer nations keeps them from being a threat to the powerful nations. If a poorer nation tries to cut free of service then there are pretexts made or else covert actions aken to destabilize them. Rich Man's Club vs. anyone who wants a chance

    At the top of it all is greed--not so much patriotism/nationalism. Just money/power/greed setting up shop in the countries that are best able to secure these interests.

    The record of the C.I.A. 's operations for the past 60 years gives an idea of what the wealthy and powerful U.S.A. will do to stay on top of the heap. and I personally feel that the rank and file citizen of this nation has been victim more than victor of the Rich Man's Club. If there ever was a "trickle down" effect that benefitted working people then the obscenely wealthy have found the leaks and plugged them up.

Share this