5 ms·

Broadly refers to countries with a history of being colonized rather than a history of being colonizers. There certainly was a racial aspect to colonialism, yes

Broadly refers to countries with a history of being colonized rather than a history of being colonizers. There certainly was a racial aspect to colonialism, yes.

rayiner 4y ago
So England is part of the “global south” because it was colonized by the Romans? Is India part of the “global south” because it was colonized by Muslims, or only because it was colonized by the British? Is Thailand part of the “global south?”
- ahelwer 4y ago
  You can Socrates this definition or you can recognize that it is a useful term for talking about global power imbalances from the latest wave of colonialism that resulted in the global order we see today. You do recognize and accept that such power relationships exist, yes?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I disagree that it's a useful term. It centers white people and Europeans to suggest commonality between myriad different groups of people who otherwise have nothing in common. Moreover, it falsely assumes that interactions between those countries and European powers "resulted in the global order we see today." That's backwards. Europeans were able to engage in colonialism because they were already ahead of those other countries. Just as the Romans were able to conquer Britain and Gaul for the same reason. Even with respect to European colonization, former colonies were left in vastly different circumstances. African countries colonized by the French are vastly differently situated than, say, Singapore or Hong Kong. Not least of all, insofar as that view strongly suggests that white people and Europeans were the cause of current global power imbalances, they must be the solution. That is a dangerously counter-productive way to view the world. Even if we accept, for example, the theory that Great Britain transferred trillions of wealth from India to itself through colonization, it is a shadow of its former self and will never be able to meaningfully affect the future prospects of India. I would posit that India should view British colonization the same way Great Britain views Norman colonization: something that shaped the country's past but something of only historical interest going forward. At least in my experience as a Bangladeshi, I think that's how most folks do view it. We don't think of ourselves as being defined by our colonial history. Indeed, my parents (who were born in what was then the British Dominion of Pakistan) have positive as well as negative things to say about colonialism.
    - ahelwer 4y ago
      I doubt people using the term global south generally believe that the west must be the solution to global power imbalances. At most they might believe their countries should stop meddling in the affairs of post-colonial countries and let them develop on their own without further wealth being extracted. Reparations would also presumably be on the table but that's really a pipe dream given the current state of the discourse, where your average american has zero understanding of how labor organizers halfway around the world being shot are connected to the wealth they see around them.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        > I doubt people using the term global south generally believe that the west must be the solution to global power imbalances. Then why do they use a term that centers the west in describing the majority of the world? > At most they might believe their countries should stop meddling in the affairs of post-colonial countries and let them develop on their own without further wealth being extracted. Is the west continuing to meddle in the affairs of India or Pakistan? If not, then what's the point of this term that encompasses them? If you want to talk about African countries dominated by European mining companies, just talk about them. > Reparations would also presumably be on the table That's what I'm talking about. Reparations is an incredibly toxic idea as applied to former colonies. As you observe, they will never happen. But they give political cover to bad leadership in developing countries, enabling them to avoid fixing their own problems.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

Broadly refers to countries with a history of being colonized rather than a history of being colonizers. There certainly was a racial aspect to colonialism, yes.

rayiner 4y ago

So England is part of the “global south” because it was colonized by the Romans? Is India part of the “global south” because it was colonized by Muslims, or only because it was colonized by the British? Is Thailand part of the “global south?”

ahelwer 4y ago
You can Socrates this definition or you can recognize that it is a useful term for talking about global power imbalances from the latest wave of colonialism that resulted in the global order we see today. You do recognize and accept that such power relationships exist, yes?
- rayiner 4y ago
  I disagree that it's a useful term. It centers white people and Europeans to suggest commonality between myriad different groups of people who otherwise have nothing in common. Moreover, it falsely assumes that interactions between those countries and European powers "resulted in the global order we see today." That's backwards. Europeans were able to engage in colonialism because they were already ahead of those other countries. Just as the Romans were able to conquer Britain and Gaul for the same reason. Even with respect to European colonization, former colonies were left in vastly different circumstances. African countries colonized by the French are vastly differently situated than, say, Singapore or Hong Kong. Not least of all, insofar as that view strongly suggests that white people and Europeans were the cause of current global power imbalances, they must be the solution. That is a dangerously counter-productive way to view the world. Even if we accept, for example, the theory that Great Britain transferred trillions of wealth from India to itself through colonization, it is a shadow of its former self and will never be able to meaningfully affect the future prospects of India. I would posit that India should view British colonization the same way Great Britain views Norman colonization: something that shaped the country's past but something of only historical interest going forward. At least in my experience as a Bangladeshi, I think that's how most folks do view it. We don't think of ourselves as being defined by our colonial history. Indeed, my parents (who were born in what was then the British Dominion of Pakistan) have positive as well as negative things to say about colonialism.
  - ahelwer 4y ago
    I doubt people using the term global south generally believe that the west must be the solution to global power imbalances. At most they might believe their countries should stop meddling in the affairs of post-colonial countries and let them develop on their own without further wealth being extracted. Reparations would also presumably be on the table but that's really a pipe dream given the current state of the discourse, where your average american has zero understanding of how labor organizers halfway around the world being shot are connected to the wealth they see around them.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      > I doubt people using the term global south generally believe that the west must be the solution to global power imbalances. Then why do they use a term that centers the west in describing the majority of the world? > At most they might believe their countries should stop meddling in the affairs of post-colonial countries and let them develop on their own without further wealth being extracted. Is the west continuing to meddle in the affairs of India or Pakistan? If not, then what's the point of this term that encompasses them? If you want to talk about African countries dominated by European mining companies, just talk about them. > Reparations would also presumably be on the table That's what I'm talking about. Reparations is an incredibly toxic idea as applied to former colonies. As you observe, they will never happen. But they give political cover to bad leadership in developing countries, enabling them to avoid fixing their own problems.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]