4 ms·

I am genuinely interested to hear about any postcolonial country that is doing well without a much larger benefactor behind it. I am not disagreeing with you on

I am genuinely interested to hear about any postcolonial country that is doing well without a much larger benefactor behind it. I am not disagreeing with you on the past mistakes and missteps of intervention and sub-optimal appropriation, but blaming the colonials has not really helped anywhere, especially not Africa. I take it you are opposed to the Monroe Doctrine. Do you think Spain, France, England, and the Netherlands would have just left Central America to their own devices? I am not making a lesser of two evils argument. Indeed, ascribing morality to the interactions of nation-states is silly IMO, but weak states are always going to be manipulated by stronger states.

wz1000 10y ago
Former British India and Colonial Indochina¸ along with nations like Egypt have done pretty well economically given their socioeconomic conditions at the end of colonization, and considering the massive drain of wealth and resources to their colonizers undertaken over centuries.
- classicsnoot 10y ago
  Ignoring the holes in your historical retelling of events, these examples do not fit my criteria as all three listed benefited from outside support from large powers (India::Russia/Britain, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia::China, and Egypt::Russia/USA). As such, my point still stands...
  - wz1000 10y ago
    No nation can exist in a vacuum. Your "criteria" excludes pretty much every country in the world. Even then, USSR-India cooperation was mostly limited to military matters, like when the Soviets sent a carrier during the '71 war of independence for Bangladesh to keep the Americans from joining in. India(under Nehru) and Egypt(under Nasser) actually founded the Non-Aligned Movement to avoid being pawns in the games of the US and USSR. This move confused and antagonized the Americans(if you are not our friend, you must be our enemy), which was why they had much closer ties with the Soviets. Nehru even rejected a permanent seat in the UNSC because of the NAM. You can hardly find two countries that did their best not to depend on foreign influence and benefactors. Of course in Egypt, after Nasser's downfall and the destruction of any hope for sovereign, secular Arab nationalism, the US gladly stepped in and took control of the pieces. The consequences of that are for all to see.

wz1000 10y ago

Former British India and Colonial Indochina¸ along with nations like Egypt have done pretty well economically given their socioeconomic conditions at the end of colonization, and considering the massive drain of wealth and resources to their colonizers undertaken over centuries.

classicsnoot 10y ago
Ignoring the holes in your historical retelling of events, these examples do not fit my criteria as all three listed benefited from outside support from large powers (India::Russia/Britain, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia::China, and Egypt::Russia/USA). As such, my point still stands...
- wz1000 10y ago
  No nation can exist in a vacuum. Your "criteria" excludes pretty much every country in the world. Even then, USSR-India cooperation was mostly limited to military matters, like when the Soviets sent a carrier during the '71 war of independence for Bangladesh to keep the Americans from joining in. India(under Nehru) and Egypt(under Nasser) actually founded the Non-Aligned Movement to avoid being pawns in the games of the US and USSR. This move confused and antagonized the Americans(if you are not our friend, you must be our enemy), which was why they had much closer ties with the Soviets. Nehru even rejected a permanent seat in the UNSC because of the NAM. You can hardly find two countries that did their best not to depend on foreign influence and benefactors. Of course in Egypt, after Nasser's downfall and the destruction of any hope for sovereign, secular Arab nationalism, the US gladly stepped in and took control of the pieces. The consequences of that are for all to see.