6 ms·

The underdeveloped world is intentionally oppressed by the developed world - in order to maintain their way of living. The resulting economic imbalance and clas

by yunohn 5y ago

The underdeveloped world is intentionally oppressed by the developed world - in order to maintain their way of living. The resulting economic imbalance and class hierarchy are crucial to the developed worlds survival. So I’m quite surprised that you think that the climate change will only affect the “under”-developed? Maybe the direct temperature change might, but the ripple effects will be global.

dtx1 5y ago
This is utter marxist bullshit in its finest form. The "under"-developed world has been given trillions in aid and almost every statistic shows that they are doing better than ever before [1]. This is due to capitalism and billions of aid every year [2] that is paid from the taxes from OUR WORK. And again with covid we see the developed world spending massive amounts of money and recources to help the rest of the world get the vaccines. You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines. This spiteful pseudo interlectual left wing bullshit is helping no one. Sure we COULD do better but we are FAR from enslaving lesser developed countries. And it's not like there aren't humanitarian catastrophies SOLELY due to the utter incompetence of these countries and THEIR elected leaders and i'm sick of the double standard we have. Are people from under developed countries to stupid for democracy? To incompetent to elect good leaders? To deficient in their intellect to see an unfair deal when it's offered to them? That's the soft bigotry of low expectations in it's purest form and i'm sick and tired of it. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr... [1] Just an example source https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health...
- eliasmacpherson 5y ago
  > You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines. You really ought to look at what France is currently doing in Africa. If you want to disagree with the parent that Africans or those in the developing world are intentionally oppressed, just because millions are no longer slaughtered is no mitigation of their point.
  - dtx1 5y ago
    And africans are unable to throw out the french boston tea party style because...?
    - eliasmacpherson 5y ago
      So in your opinion as they could theoretically defeat a European military power through revolt, they are not intentionally oppressed? It's an old strategy, Divide et impera - there's a lot to learn from the thousands of years of history of it.
      - dtx1 5y ago
        You don't need to defeat them in open war, as if France would mount an all out war to "save" their colonies from a peaceful revolution. Worked for India but that was impossible too I guess? But thats not what those poor oppressed people want. They get really annoyed when France doesn't help them with their problems [1] but that's just France opressing them by NOT sending enough military. Either way it's always Frances fault [1] https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210926-mali-accuses-france-of-abandonment-approaches-private-russian-companies https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210926-mali-accuses-fra...
        eliasmacpherson 5y ago
        Not just Mali. Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Benin and Niger. I would encourage you to read more about Divide and Conquer, the territories mentioned above, French activities there, and resist the temptation to use a single article to generalize what millions of people want. I think you are hopelessly naive about military affairs, revolt does not work like you think it does and comparing India vs post war Britian and the Boston Tea Party to a much more nuanced contemporary corporatist form of colonialism is ignorant.
        DonHopkins 5y ago
        So ignorant that I'm surprised he doesn't just admit to being a troll to avoid being seen as and proven to be that ignorant by his own words. But even then, Popehat's Law Of Goats would still apply: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Popehat%27s%20Law%20of%20Goats https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Popehat%27s%... >Popehat's Law of Goats >He who fucks goats, either as part of a performance or to troll those he deems has overly delicate sensibilities is simply, a goatfucker. >He claimed he was just pretending to be racist to trigger the social justice warriors, but even if he is telling the truth, Popehat's Law of Goats still applies.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > paid from the taxes from OUR WORK Your work is enabled by the innumerable underdeveloped countrymen that slave away producing everything for you. This is quite obvious if you think hard enough, just actively ignored by most. > Are people from under developed countries to stupid for democracy? To incompetent to elect good leaders? Please read more (1)(2) and learn to have some empathy for the developing people that you indirectly exploit everyday, before making such strong accusations. (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic (2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...
  - dtx1 5y ago
    Glad im not american. But I guess we should just stop "exploiting" them. Let's just stop all trade and aid for under developed countries and let them catch up a century or two, maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms. I mean they are where they are just because of us, it's all oir fault. Look at China, whenever I'm buying something I'm oppressing them I suppose. Oh, wait before they became an export nation that governs themselves terribly they were starving end masse because they followed their idiot leader Mao? No that can't be true it must have been the white man oppressing them that killed all those birds.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > Glad im not american The developing world is supported by the American hegemony’s control over the global market. And like the other commenter showed, Europe has its own share of colonial control. Wherever you’re from, your lifestyle is still enabled by developing countries. > maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms Honestly, your talking points are from 1900s colonial racism. Not sure what you’re doing in 2021. Please educate yourself ASAP.
      - dtx1 5y ago
        maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms I should have marked that as sarcasm I suppose. But it doesn't really matter because the original point stands, if we are suppressing them so badly how come basically every metric for human development had gone up for 20 years straight. How are billions in aid suppressing them? What about the plethora of human rights interventions, international education programs etc. What a sneaky way of supressing people by education and access to clean water. But that idea clashes with leftist dogma therefore it musnt be true.
Fckd 5y ago
Automation will make whatever advantage undeveloped world has redundant.
- yunohn 5y ago
  That’s a great utopian idea. If only the developed countries would stop suppressing the rest of us, and go fuck around with robots instead.
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    I'm afraid he may be referring to automated police forces and armies, ala Robocop and Terminator.
overallduka 5y ago
Actually this is true, I live in Brazil and European countries really try to dictate what we can and cannot do with our Amazon, nobody should interfere in our internal affairs, that region is the most underdeveloped region of Brazil because nobody has courage to face European lobbies. Also, is clear that the anti-petro propaganda will slow down the growth of poor/developing countries.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  You mean in terms of conserving it?
  - overallduka 5y ago
    Yes, they said is to conserve it, but everybody knows that very poor people is not thinking about environment, but thinking how they can survive the next day, they will cut centenary trees to sell wood, they will extract precious metals using poisonous substancies, etc. Apart from the fact that they should care about their forests or what's left there(if any), they developed theirselves using their resources and lobby to Brazil not use his own resources because it will "hurt the entire world".
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      So the loss of the rainforest is entirely due to "very poor people"? They must find it hard to afford the tools to do so. > they developed theirselves using their resources Are there no other people in Brazil, except very poor woodcutters, who might have some other claim to these resources?
      - overallduka 5y ago
        I'm not saying that is just because of poor people, but big part is, another way they destroy it is due to fire, when they clean the terrain to plant next year, and the fire go out of control. "They must find it hard to afford the tools to do so" With the centenary woods in Amazon and the abundance of gold is not very hard to make money there. There are the criminals as well, people who go to Amazon just to make money..and those should be hunt, but, since there are very big extensions of land is really hard to get those. Amazon is really huge, it's a Europe. And since we don't extract the resources and use it to preserve the forest, there is no money to preserve it all. Wealthy countries love to complain but don't give the money necessary to preserve it ($50b/year is the needed). A solution would be give the right of exploration to companies extract the resources in certain areas of land, get the taxes and invest in protection and require these companies to monitor a part of Amazon in exchange for the right of exploration. But since no one can touch there, is really a no mans land.
csee 5y ago
I dislike these sweeping and 1-dimensional viewpoints, both because they're bait for extremist thinking and because they're high-bias statements despite reflecting the ghost of a truth. The reality is that there's not a clean picture to be painted, and like a Rorschach test different narratives (i.e., abstractions) can fit the identical ground truth. The underdeveloped world has been significantly harmed by the developed world in a number of concrete ways. Colonialism, historically, obviously, with some still dodgy things going on in geopolitical interference that could be considered "neocolonialism". But the underdeveloped world has also been benefited by the developed world. Trade, aid and openness with the developed world undeniably lifts them up. South Korea is a miracle. You can enter the developed club despite having a long history of brutal actual oppression. If we built a wall around some poor country 500 years ago and made a rule that zero contact was allowed - no colonialism, no nothing - would they be better off now or worse? The answer in most cases is they'd be worse off. They'd have a life expectancy of 40 and die often from violence. So this is reason to think that this oppression viewpoint is correct in a gross sense but false in a net sense and is ignoring some real, tangible benefits that the developed world gives to the underdeveloped.
- eliasmacpherson 5y ago
  I realise that you are trying to present this as 'balanced' 'two sided' debate, but I really hate this sort of apologist approach. You create a false dichotomy between a star trek prime directive no contact world and then say in a net sense it was of benefit. Using the likes of Singapore or South Korea as a counter example is also typical. Take a look here at life expectancy and when exactly it started to rise above 40. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/life-expectancy https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/life-expect... Take a look at the correlation between post colonialism and death from violence, in one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... This isn't a case of 'what have the Romans ever done for us', and few will accept that it's not oppression in a net sense.
  - csee 5y ago
    I'm not trying to present a 'two sides' story in the sense that it's exactly 50/50, since I think the viewpoint I was countering is quite a bit more false than it is true, which is why I flatly asserted that developed countries provided a net benefit to underdeveloped countries. My opinion here doesn't stop me from admitting that there's facts that underlie the narrative that are true, even if I believe the subsequent conclusions to be false. An underdeveloped country can be suffering from the consequences of colonialism, while still benefiting significantly on net from technology, trade, and so forth, with the ratio between the former and the latter expected to decline over time. This can all be true simultaneously. > You create a false dichotomy between a star trek prime directive no contact world and then say in a net sense it was of benefit. That's not an example of a false dichotomy. It's a hypothetical, or a thought experiment. > Using the likes of Singapore or South Korea as a counter example is also typical. Typical != incorrect. > Take a look here at life expectancy and when exactly it started to rise above 40. Having the boot of colonialism being lifted is one of many reasons for this graph. > Take a look at the correlation between post colonialism and death from violence. Which is confounded by poverty/education/etc, the main drivers of death from violence.

by yunohn 5y ago

dtx1 5y ago

This is utter marxist bullshit in its finest form. The "under"-developed world has been given trillions in aid and almost every statistic shows that they are doing better than ever before [1]. This is due to capitalism and billions of aid every year [2] that is paid from the taxes from OUR WORK. And again with covid we see the developed world spending massive amounts of money and recources to help the rest of the world get the vaccines. You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines. This spiteful pseudo interlectual left wing bullshit is helping no one. Sure we COULD do better but we are FAR from enslaving lesser developed countries. And it's not like there aren't humanitarian catastrophies SOLELY due to the utter incompetence of these countries and THEIR elected leaders and i'm sick of the double standard we have. Are people from under developed countries to stupid for democracy? To incompetent to elect good leaders? To deficient in their intellect to see an unfair deal when it's offered to them? That's the soft bigotry of low expectations in it's purest form and i'm sick and tired of it. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr... [1] Just an example source https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health...

eliasmacpherson 5y ago
> You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines. You really ought to look at what France is currently doing in Africa. If you want to disagree with the parent that Africans or those in the developing world are intentionally oppressed, just because millions are no longer slaughtered is no mitigation of their point.
- dtx1 5y ago
  And africans are unable to throw out the french boston tea party style because...?
  - eliasmacpherson 5y ago
    So in your opinion as they could theoretically defeat a European military power through revolt, they are not intentionally oppressed? It's an old strategy, Divide et impera - there's a lot to learn from the thousands of years of history of it.
    - dtx1 5y ago
      You don't need to defeat them in open war, as if France would mount an all out war to "save" their colonies from a peaceful revolution. Worked for India but that was impossible too I guess? But thats not what those poor oppressed people want. They get really annoyed when France doesn't help them with their problems [1] but that's just France opressing them by NOT sending enough military. Either way it's always Frances fault [1] https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210926-mali-accuses-france-of-abandonment-approaches-private-russian-companies https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210926-mali-accuses-fra...
      - eliasmacpherson 5y ago
        Not just Mali. Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Benin and Niger. I would encourage you to read more about Divide and Conquer, the territories mentioned above, French activities there, and resist the temptation to use a single article to generalize what millions of people want. I think you are hopelessly naive about military affairs, revolt does not work like you think it does and comparing India vs post war Britian and the Boston Tea Party to a much more nuanced contemporary corporatist form of colonialism is ignorant.
        DonHopkins 5y ago
        So ignorant that I'm surprised he doesn't just admit to being a troll to avoid being seen as and proven to be that ignorant by his own words. But even then, Popehat's Law Of Goats would still apply: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Popehat%27s%20Law%20of%20Goats https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Popehat%27s%... >Popehat's Law of Goats >He who fucks goats, either as part of a performance or to troll those he deems has overly delicate sensibilities is simply, a goatfucker. >He claimed he was just pretending to be racist to trigger the social justice warriors, but even if he is telling the truth, Popehat's Law of Goats still applies.
yunohn 5y ago
> paid from the taxes from OUR WORK Your work is enabled by the innumerable underdeveloped countrymen that slave away producing everything for you. This is quite obvious if you think hard enough, just actively ignored by most. > Are people from under developed countries to stupid for democracy? To incompetent to elect good leaders? Please read more (1)(2) and learn to have some empathy for the developing people that you indirectly exploit everyday, before making such strong accusations. (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic (2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...
- dtx1 5y ago
  Glad im not american. But I guess we should just stop "exploiting" them. Let's just stop all trade and aid for under developed countries and let them catch up a century or two, maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms. I mean they are where they are just because of us, it's all oir fault. Look at China, whenever I'm buying something I'm oppressing them I suppose. Oh, wait before they became an export nation that governs themselves terribly they were starving end masse because they followed their idiot leader Mao? No that can't be true it must have been the white man oppressing them that killed all those birds.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    > Glad im not american The developing world is supported by the American hegemony’s control over the global market. And like the other commenter showed, Europe has its own share of colonial control. Wherever you’re from, your lifestyle is still enabled by developing countries. > maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms Honestly, your talking points are from 1900s colonial racism. Not sure what you’re doing in 2021. Please educate yourself ASAP.
    - dtx1 5y ago
      maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms I should have marked that as sarcasm I suppose. But it doesn't really matter because the original point stands, if we are suppressing them so badly how come basically every metric for human development had gone up for 20 years straight. How are billions in aid suppressing them? What about the plethora of human rights interventions, international education programs etc. What a sneaky way of supressing people by education and access to clean water. But that idea clashes with leftist dogma therefore it musnt be true.

Fckd 5y ago

Automation will make whatever advantage undeveloped world has redundant.

yunohn 5y ago
That’s a great utopian idea. If only the developed countries would stop suppressing the rest of us, and go fuck around with robots instead.
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  I'm afraid he may be referring to automated police forces and armies, ala Robocop and Terminator.

overallduka 5y ago

Actually this is true, I live in Brazil and European countries really try to dictate what we can and cannot do with our Amazon, nobody should interfere in our internal affairs, that region is the most underdeveloped region of Brazil because nobody has courage to face European lobbies. Also, is clear that the anti-petro propaganda will slow down the growth of poor/developing countries.

Chris2048 5y ago
You mean in terms of conserving it?
- overallduka 5y ago
  Yes, they said is to conserve it, but everybody knows that very poor people is not thinking about environment, but thinking how they can survive the next day, they will cut centenary trees to sell wood, they will extract precious metals using poisonous substancies, etc. Apart from the fact that they should care about their forests or what's left there(if any), they developed theirselves using their resources and lobby to Brazil not use his own resources because it will "hurt the entire world".
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    So the loss of the rainforest is entirely due to "very poor people"? They must find it hard to afford the tools to do so. > they developed theirselves using their resources Are there no other people in Brazil, except very poor woodcutters, who might have some other claim to these resources?
    - overallduka 5y ago
      I'm not saying that is just because of poor people, but big part is, another way they destroy it is due to fire, when they clean the terrain to plant next year, and the fire go out of control. "They must find it hard to afford the tools to do so" With the centenary woods in Amazon and the abundance of gold is not very hard to make money there. There are the criminals as well, people who go to Amazon just to make money..and those should be hunt, but, since there are very big extensions of land is really hard to get those. Amazon is really huge, it's a Europe. And since we don't extract the resources and use it to preserve the forest, there is no money to preserve it all. Wealthy countries love to complain but don't give the money necessary to preserve it ($50b/year is the needed). A solution would be give the right of exploration to companies extract the resources in certain areas of land, get the taxes and invest in protection and require these companies to monitor a part of Amazon in exchange for the right of exploration. But since no one can touch there, is really a no mans land.

csee 5y ago

I dislike these sweeping and 1-dimensional viewpoints, both because they're bait for extremist thinking and because they're high-bias statements despite reflecting the ghost of a truth. The reality is that there's not a clean picture to be painted, and like a Rorschach test different narratives (i.e., abstractions) can fit the identical ground truth. The underdeveloped world has been significantly harmed by the developed world in a number of concrete ways. Colonialism, historically, obviously, with some still dodgy things going on in geopolitical interference that could be considered "neocolonialism". But the underdeveloped world has also been benefited by the developed world. Trade, aid and openness with the developed world undeniably lifts them up. South Korea is a miracle. You can enter the developed club despite having a long history of brutal actual oppression. If we built a wall around some poor country 500 years ago and made a rule that zero contact was allowed - no colonialism, no nothing - would they be better off now or worse? The answer in most cases is they'd be worse off. They'd have a life expectancy of 40 and die often from violence. So this is reason to think that this oppression viewpoint is correct in a gross sense but false in a net sense and is ignoring some real, tangible benefits that the developed world gives to the underdeveloped.

eliasmacpherson 5y ago
I realise that you are trying to present this as 'balanced' 'two sided' debate, but I really hate this sort of apologist approach. You create a false dichotomy between a star trek prime directive no contact world and then say in a net sense it was of benefit. Using the likes of Singapore or South Korea as a counter example is also typical. Take a look here at life expectancy and when exactly it started to rise above 40. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/life-expectancy https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/life-expect... Take a look at the correlation between post colonialism and death from violence, in one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... This isn't a case of 'what have the Romans ever done for us', and few will accept that it's not oppression in a net sense.
- csee 5y ago
  I'm not trying to present a 'two sides' story in the sense that it's exactly 50/50, since I think the viewpoint I was countering is quite a bit more false than it is true, which is why I flatly asserted that developed countries provided a net benefit to underdeveloped countries. My opinion here doesn't stop me from admitting that there's facts that underlie the narrative that are true, even if I believe the subsequent conclusions to be false. An underdeveloped country can be suffering from the consequences of colonialism, while still benefiting significantly on net from technology, trade, and so forth, with the ratio between the former and the latter expected to decline over time. This can all be true simultaneously. > You create a false dichotomy between a star trek prime directive no contact world and then say in a net sense it was of benefit. That's not an example of a false dichotomy. It's a hypothetical, or a thought experiment. > Using the likes of Singapore or South Korea as a counter example is also typical. Typical != incorrect. > Take a look here at life expectancy and when exactly it started to rise above 40. Having the boot of colonialism being lifted is one of many reasons for this graph. > Take a look at the correlation between post colonialism and death from violence. Which is confounded by poverty/education/etc, the main drivers of death from violence.