The power struggles of post colonial time frames don't have nothing to do with the colonial rule. In a lot of places the goal of the colonial power was to leave the former colony in as shitty of a position as possible. For instance the French had orders to remove every bit of copper, iron, and steel on their way out of Guinea, going so far as to pull wires out of walls. When you wreak entire countries economies like that and leave a power vacuum, what do you expect to happen?
And BTW, the whole "the savages are better with a little civilization forced on them" was one of the primary arguments in favor of slavery.
My claim was in response to rosser's claim about "victims of colonialism" -- no doubt there were plenty, but there have been many, many more victims of poor government (and counting) in those countries (again, see Egypt and South Africa) since the fall of colonialism.
I'm also not aware that the goal of colonialism was to "leave the former colony in as shitty of a position as possible" (seems like a pretty shitty way to treat an investment, which is what colonies were -- expansions of empires) -- care to provide some sources?
Colonialism primarily fell as a result of internal political struggles within developed nations, not as a result of any legitimate physical threat by the colonized country.
I'm inclined to quibble mildly with 'monocasa's phrasing, but the ultimate point still obtains that the post-colonial conditions in those countries are, in no small part, rather direct consequences of the rapacity of their colonizers.
If the Dutch had left Rhodesia even marginally less resource-stripped, can you really assert that Zimbabwe would have played out like it did?
If the French hadn't treated the Cambodian and Vietnamese peoples like it did, would Pol Pot even have happened?
If we (the US) hadn't propped up puppet assholes around the world, would those countries and their regions have fallen into the states they did after?
The entirety of the current mess in Middle East can, in a very real way, be traced back to dividing up Kurdish territory into multiple countries, because the colonial powers recognized that the Kurds were the greatest real threat to the oil flowing. Literally drawing lines on maps right through the heart of their historical lands fixed that — temporarily. Now, though, we've got the House of Saud and Iran (another great example; the Shah much?) and Iraq (another!) and Syria, and, net, a death and misery toll we will never be able to fully reckon.
Consequences are a thing. Our system has a cost in other people's lives. Is that supposed to be better than having a cost in our own? I repudiate that notion. The GPS coordinates of your birth do not alter the intrinsic value of your life.
No, my claim is that, if they hadn't been stripped bare as the colonizers were leaving, what followed would have had a better chance at being those things.
Burning someone's house to the ground, and then bailing leaves them in a rather more precarious state than simply sneaking out in the middle of the night. That's on the person with the match, not the folks who had to clean up after.
EDIT: To torture the metaphor further: Of course, if the people who are cleaning up the fire decide to go full-on Lord of the Flies with their cleanup and post-cleanup organization, that's on them.
My point is: It is beyond specious to suggest they would have done the same if the house hadn't been burnt down.
Sounds like an argument that the colonies should’ve been left intact rather than destroyed as a result of interna politics in the colonizing country.
In any case, why are they still dangerous places now? It’s been quite awhile, and places like Singapore prove that backwaters can be turned into empires rather quickly.
The "internal politics in the colonizing country" were premised on the notion that the colony was their (the colonizer's) economic resource, not the indigenes they took it from.
The existence of multiple-axis exceptional cases like Singapore doesn't obviate the general pattern. The notion of "the exception that proves the rule," might apply here.
All of these things ultimately, directly or indirectly, fall into the bucket "consequences of markets". Whether we're are trying to own a market, or own a resource, or whatever, we have demonstrated a set-your-watch-by-it reliable pattern of considering the people in the way of the thing we're trying to own expendable, but we somehow very pointedly ignore counting those people and consequences when we talk about how "bad" Communism is.
It's a double standard, and it's boringly predictable, and boringly disappointing, especially in a crowd that purports to be as smart and capable of understanding all of the things as this one does.
I don't know. I wish I had the resources or otherwise were meaningfully able to hang out with that question, because it fascinates me endlessly.
I do, however, find it a curiously "happy" (for someone, anyway) outcome of the current model that the lack of opportunity to contemplate "better alternatives" is kinda structurally baked in.
People who do have the opportunity to ponder that kind of thing are, on the whole, the people who benefit most from the system, and so are thusly disinclined. And the people who suffer most under the system are in a position of, generally, having none of the time, inclination, or education to do so.
I won't go so far as to suggest that's by design but it is rather, "Well, isn't that curious?" to me.
Gotcha, I suggest checking this out, it’s rather long and mind-bending (but what good political treatise isn’t?) and I think will change your perspective on the matter.
Edit: And my point is that making a hard separation between colonial and post colonial circumstances is a mistake, as many of the post colonial issues trace their reasons to colonial decisions.
And BTW, the whole "the savages are better with a little civilization forced on them" was one of the primary arguments in favor of slavery.