4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - sbenitoj 8y ago
    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.
    - rosser 8y ago
      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.
      - sbenitoj 8y ago
        So what form of govt do you believe solves the problem?
        rosser 8y ago
        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.

by rosser 8y ago

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.
- sbenitoj 8y ago
  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.
  - rosser 8y ago
    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.
    - sbenitoj 8y ago
      So what form of govt do you believe solves the problem?
      - rosser 8y ago
        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.