3 ms·

I think the situation is far more complex than just blanket blame of former colonial powers for present day problems. It is also disingenous to expect such coun

I think the situation is far more complex than just blanket blame of former colonial powers for present day problems. It is also disingenous to expect such countries to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps considering the legacy of colonialism.

missedthecue 5y ago
I don't think it's disingenuous whatsoever. I think at some point you should expect that. As an extreme example, what's now the United Kingdom was once an occupied colony of Rome, and they've done ok for themselves since. The United States was a colony of the United Kingdom just 250 years ago. Singapore was a colony of the UK just 58 years ago and they are incredibly rich now.
- pastrybanking 5y ago
  As you have mentioned these are extreme examples. I think Singapore is the most interesting since it is the example politicians in my home country use to gaslight the electorate. This doesn't actually address why an Asian Tiger like Singapore was able to rapidly industrialise or the difficulties of implementing good governance and economic policies.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    I'm sure being a politically stable, western-friendly port in the middle of a shipping superhighway during a globalization boom didn't hurt.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  Some points: 1) It's about 1600 years since Britain was a Roman colony. A lot has happened since then, such as the Dark Ages. When Rome was in charge the local population was in effect the Welsh (and Cornish and Bretons). How's Wales doing now relative to England? 2) Yes, the US was a British colony, but the dominant group in the US is still the descendants of the colonizers. I don't the history of Singapore, but I would be curious to know who was in charge when England took over versus who is in charge now. In all these cases there is a complex history which can't be glossed over by saying "they were all colonies". Important issues are the support they were given to create or rebuild institutions, population replacement, the extent to which they achieved control of their own resources, the institutions they were left with, or whether they were saddled with debt. Haiti was a colony that achieved its freedom, but was left with a crippling debt to its occupiers which it only finished paying off in the 20th century.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    But my point is that it's perfectly reasonable to expect the passage of time to improve previously colonized countries. 1600 years is obviously plenty. Should 56 be enough such as in the case of Gambia? I'm not sure. That's almost three generations.
- okal 5y ago
  A few questions: How well did British colonisation work out for Native Americans? That would be a more fitting comparison to make. Look at life in the reservations. Did the Romans meddle in British affairs after they were booted from the isles? How was life in the British isles in the aftermath (let's be generous and give them 100 years) of Roman colonisation for the common people? Singapore is an interesting, and exceptional case. But also worth noting that even here, the economically and politically dominant Chinese Singaporeans supplanted indigenous Malays. The Chinese mostly arrived during the British colonial period. People who espouse this sort of thinking also say similar things about South Africa. "Apartheid ended almost 30 years ago. You should be over it." Or that Black Americans - people who were only accorded full civil rights in the 60s - should get over centuries of domination since it's "already" been a couple of generations since they could vote and sit at the front on a bus. I could keep going.

missedthecue 5y ago

I don't think it's disingenuous whatsoever. I think at some point you should expect that. As an extreme example, what's now the United Kingdom was once an occupied colony of Rome, and they've done ok for themselves since. The United States was a colony of the United Kingdom just 250 years ago. Singapore was a colony of the UK just 58 years ago and they are incredibly rich now.

pastrybanking 5y ago
As you have mentioned these are extreme examples. I think Singapore is the most interesting since it is the example politicians in my home country use to gaslight the electorate. This doesn't actually address why an Asian Tiger like Singapore was able to rapidly industrialise or the difficulties of implementing good governance and economic policies.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  I'm sure being a politically stable, western-friendly port in the middle of a shipping superhighway during a globalization boom didn't hurt.
DFHippie 5y ago
Some points: 1) It's about 1600 years since Britain was a Roman colony. A lot has happened since then, such as the Dark Ages. When Rome was in charge the local population was in effect the Welsh (and Cornish and Bretons). How's Wales doing now relative to England? 2) Yes, the US was a British colony, but the dominant group in the US is still the descendants of the colonizers. I don't the history of Singapore, but I would be curious to know who was in charge when England took over versus who is in charge now. In all these cases there is a complex history which can't be glossed over by saying "they were all colonies". Important issues are the support they were given to create or rebuild institutions, population replacement, the extent to which they achieved control of their own resources, the institutions they were left with, or whether they were saddled with debt. Haiti was a colony that achieved its freedom, but was left with a crippling debt to its occupiers which it only finished paying off in the 20th century.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  But my point is that it's perfectly reasonable to expect the passage of time to improve previously colonized countries. 1600 years is obviously plenty. Should 56 be enough such as in the case of Gambia? I'm not sure. That's almost three generations.
okal 5y ago
A few questions: How well did British colonisation work out for Native Americans? That would be a more fitting comparison to make. Look at life in the reservations. Did the Romans meddle in British affairs after they were booted from the isles? How was life in the British isles in the aftermath (let's be generous and give them 100 years) of Roman colonisation for the common people? Singapore is an interesting, and exceptional case. But also worth noting that even here, the economically and politically dominant Chinese Singaporeans supplanted indigenous Malays. The Chinese mostly arrived during the British colonial period. People who espouse this sort of thinking also say similar things about South Africa. "Apartheid ended almost 30 years ago. You should be over it." Or that Black Americans - people who were only accorded full civil rights in the 60s - should get over centuries of domination since it's "already" been a couple of generations since they could vote and sit at the front on a bus. I could keep going.