5 ms·

Yep! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

rosser 8y ago
No-one ever counts the dead that "wealth" and its pursuits created like this. Why is that? Are all of the slaves, and people who died in crap working conditions, and victims of colonialism and profit-driven wars and on and on and on just "necessary sacrifices" for progress, or something?
- sbenitoj 8y ago
  Um, WAY more people have died and been assaulted in former colonies than died or were assaulted during colonial rule (see Egypt and South Africa). The ethics of colonization can be debated, I’m certainly not an advocate of it, but the safety of the citizens living then vs now can’t be, it’s at least an order of magnitude more dangerous to live in Egypt and South Africa now than during colonial rule.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    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.
    - sbenitoj 8y ago
      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.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        > I'm also not aware that... It was the goal of _decolonization_. 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.
      - rosser 8y ago
        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.
        sbenitoj 8y ago
        Your claim is that with more economic resources these places would’ve been peaceful, civilized societies post-colonialism?
        rosser 8y ago
        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.

rosser 8y ago

No-one ever counts the dead that "wealth" and its pursuits created like this. Why is that? Are all of the slaves, and people who died in crap working conditions, and victims of colonialism and profit-driven wars and on and on and on just "necessary sacrifices" for progress, or something?

sbenitoj 8y ago
Um, WAY more people have died and been assaulted in former colonies than died or were assaulted during colonial rule (see Egypt and South Africa). The ethics of colonization can be debated, I’m certainly not an advocate of it, but the safety of the citizens living then vs now can’t be, it’s at least an order of magnitude more dangerous to live in Egypt and South Africa now than during colonial rule.
- monocasa 8y ago
  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.
  - sbenitoj 8y ago
    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.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      > I'm also not aware that... It was the goal of _decolonization_. 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.
    - rosser 8y ago
      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.
      - sbenitoj 8y ago
        Your claim is that with more economic resources these places would’ve been peaceful, civilized societies post-colonialism?
        rosser 8y ago
        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.