Acid Lamp, if you’d bothered to actually read the part about what happened to India, you’d realize that it’s all about suppressing native industry. British apologetics aside, the whole colonial enterprise was about routing all trade through London, and sourcing as much as possible from the UK. In the process, native enterprise was going to suffer.
The US became the US in part because the small Northern cities, Boston - the center of the revolution in the North - New York, and Philadelphia resented British attempts to suppress their initial stabs at development.
The British template worked the same way wherever it went. More or less at the same time as the Indian famines cited above, Ireland went through its own potato famine, for instance. Admitting some tiny number to Oxford doesn’t really make up for having folks dying like flies from hunger.
So, to wish for colonialism to take over again to train some useless “core” to run whatever country you’re talking about is just stupid beyond belief. Most countries that went through colonialism had quite enough of such British, or French or Belgian or whatever, “cores” to last them many, many lifetimes.
Ethnocentrist!
Of course you don’t give a shit. You’ve demostrated amply in your postings on this board that you’ll never let the facts get in the way of your worldview. I’m not taking isolated examples. I am criticizing the entire political and economic structure that lay at the base of most colonialism–a political and economic structure which did impoverish many countries and did prevent industrialization, and which was racist at its core. But, you know, I’ll let you show me where Indians or Africans had equal rights under colonial rule. Of course, you can’t, because it never happened. I’ll let you show me the massive amounts of industrialization that went on in India. Oh, wait. That never happened either.
The vast majority of the railway system was constructed after independence. That’s why its the largest in the world you shit head.
How does any of this contradict the fact that colonialism ruined the Indian economy? How does it contradict the fact that poverty and income inequality increased tremendously under colonial rule? How does it contradict the fact that India almost completely failed to industrialize under colonial rule.
In any immoral system, you can always find people who benefit from it. Otherwise the system wouldn’t survive for any given period of time. The fact that most of the native rulers wanted the British there doesn’t change the fact that the British destroyed the Indian economy.
The context is that you’re a racist asshole who hasn’t made even a minimal attempt to study colonialism. You were trying to justify colonialism with the fact that a few people were edcucated at British schools. Of course the fact that the vast majority of the population was left uneducated doesn’t bother you.
Right. Made up definition day. If you want to argue that it was a bad or croniest constitutional monarcy, I’ll agree. But to state it wasn’t a constitutional monarchy is nonsense.
You were quoting me, puss-for-brains. I assumed you left the attribution off.
How come your so concerned about the Afghani dead and you don’t care about the people killed by colonialism? Oh, right. Because if you did, you wouldn’t be able to justify colonialism.
I need to amend my previous statement about the Indian railways. I’ve stumbled across some sites that claim a larger mileage for pre-independence railways than I’ve encountered before. I’ll have to research this a bit more.
So that’s where the phrase “mind fuck” comes from.
Nice try and way to completely distort the issue. All white people aren’t being blamed for stuff that happened 100 years ago. Individuals are being blamed for advocating on behalf of a racist system in the present day.
I’m off to study for finals again. Flame away.
A White person can say all they like, and I’ll just shrug. A White person calls for Black people to recolonised, you betcha I’m calling Racism.
You just can’t fucking comprehend, can you? I have no problem with people pointing out Africa has problems. It’s the particular solution being proposed, and its nasty, hidden underpinnings, that I have a problem with. But hey, call me racist for pointing out that something’s racist, that’s a good one.
Firstly, wishing death on other posters is a big no-no.
Secondly, nice strawman. I was very specific about who was being pitted in my OP, and exactly what class of posts were the cause of the OP. If you’re the kind of racist fuck that it fits, own your fucking prejudice, mate, don’t try and reflect it back on me.
It’s people who want Africa to be recolonised that I’m calling racist fucks, not all Whites or all British folk or whatever. Hell, even an African American person could come along and advocate recolonisation, and I’d still say the underpinnings of the strategy they’re using are, at heart, racist. It’s not a racist ideology because it’s White people doing it (although it usually is, here on the SDMB), it’s racist because of the generalisations and prejudices it holds about Africans. Your attempt at calling it ethnocentric classism is just stupid, because anyone with half a brain can see that that is just an attempt to run away from the racist label. I don’t know why, I wouldn’t be any prouder of calling myself an “ethnocentric classist”, but hey, clearly the term “racist” stung. Well, Boo-fucking-hoo.
I noticed you didn’t bother to actually counter what makes White-on-Black “Ethnocentric Classism” not racist. Because you can’t, you dumb fuck.
Oh, and Scissorjack: 
Allright fucktard, I’ll play ball.
From the Wiki link HERE
SO far you have failed to prove,in any terms whatsoever that any of the people you were pitting were basing their outlook based on an “Ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races.” The only thing I took issue with you with was your casual application of an inflammatory term that you seem to think means whatever you’d like it to mean.
I further stated that it was a combination of Africa’s climate and the general nature on the native cultures that have combined to make such a bad situation in a post racist system.
Ethnocentrism is defined thusly:
Seems to be a good definition of a non racist motivation for colonization that has little to do with your biological differences.
And just be thorough, I’ll add this one too: Classism
So yeah, I think you are misusing the terminology here. The fact that colonization was historically a racist system does not imply that colozination in general IS or HAS to be. My terms seem to be a just a tad more applicable, your moral outrage nonwithstanding. Fucktard.
Pantom, I’ll not argue with what you posted. I think it’s fair to say that any neo-colonial effort would not resemble the old model very much. I joined the discussion orginally to protest Mr. Dibble 's application of the term racist, which I still find to be falsely utilized.
I’ll also not argue that the old colonial system was primarily about getting as much out of a country as possible and then dumping it. I will, however, stand by my assertion that a temporary occupation by a stable government for the purposes of country-building wouldn’t be a bad or racist idea. I don’t think that the solution to the african problem is merely throwing out all debts and tossing more money at the wound either. What a lot of these trouble spots need is an extended period of law and order, coupled with and intensive focus on building and economic, educational, and medical base. Given the nature of the in-place systems in these regions, I feel that a foreign body that has a long established and successful history might be able to accomplish this faster, and with better results than supporting an unstable local system. It’s also fair to assume that such a massive and expensive effort on the part of the occupying country might be reciprocated with special trade deals once the new stable country is on it’s feet. Whether or not this idea can be called “neo-colonialism” is up to you.
Let’s calm things down a bit
MrDibble objected to me saying in GD that colonialism was not as bad as many posters think it was.
So he pitted me - on the mistaken idea that I was advocating re-instituting it.
He is extremely sensitive about his racial (or I would say cultural) origins, which are interesting. I only know about that stuff by accident, I read a book about the Matabele about 15 years ago and realized that the indigenous inhabitants of South Africa were brown or yellow (not that it matters) and had problems with ‘them up North’.
They picked up tricks from the Europeans and within a few years habitual raiding hordes ran into a brick wall - which did save them from literally being eaten.
In later years they absorbed Malays and who knows what else, to be honest MrDibble has said a number of times that he feels much in common with the Afrikaaners.
I probably am racist - but I get a bit confused, people in the top say 10% of any bell curve are pretty capable of getting on.
Acid Lamp, our rules prohibit wishing death on other users. Cool it.
Sorry, My mouth got away with me. :smack:
I shouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about neo colonialism,just because many people believe that the peoples of various colonised countrys were better off before independence doesn’t mean that they are in favour of recolonising the so called “basket case countrys”.
Far from it I suspect most westerners would rather cut off their own testicles rather then get lumbered with the responsibility of those countrys .
Call me a cynic if you will but Im just a leeetle bit suspicious as to the bona fides of some of the posters who are supposedly of European descent but whos hearts are bleeding so deeply about the evil colonial regimes.l
Finally its not only Europeans who have racists among them ,some of the worst racists I know are white and English,or West Indian and black or Asian and brown ,so purleeeeease spare us all the out raged saintly non white ethnic tripe .
Whats been ignored is the difference between colonizing countries. the belgians were pure resource-extractors-they came to steal, and that was it. the french made many of their colonies into extensions of France-so they did build up an infrastructure. They could be brutal as well, but did put something back. the germans (in their brief colonial history0 were savagely brutal. What about American colonialism? We did pretty good in the Philippines 9built roads, schools, ports)-of course, we did kill quite a number of insurgents. Or the Dutch-great wealth extractors, and horrifyingly brutal as well (in Indonisia). How were the Swedes?
I have trouble imagining the sort of person who would be ruthless enough to invade and occupy another country without provocation, with all the killing of innocents, brutality and oppression that requires, and then be kindly inclined enough to them that he’d build the place up into a modern industrialized country. I have even more difficulty in imagining a country that wouldn’t toss out any “special trade deals” like you suggest the moment they can get away with it, or be anything but the enemy of the occupying country afterwards.
Of course they wouldn’t. The problem with neo-colonialism is that you are comparing apples and oranges to the system of the past. The world is vastly different place now than it was a hundred years ago. A classic “colonial” effort would fall flat on it’s face, and likely incite a nasty war into the bargain.
What I am suggesting is more along the lines of making the occupied country a protectorate of the overseeing one. It all boils down to money. If you as a country make what is basically a hostile take over, you would want to ensure that your new “buisness” would be successful. It takes money to make money. In exchange for building infastructure etc, the parent country would retain certain trade rights etc for a certain period of time. The parent company gets the benefit of the resources of the colonial one and the colonial people get a fair shot at forming a stable country. Is it explotative of the predicament of the colonial country? Hell yes. It still is better than living without basic medical care, food, clean water, etc and wondering when the next drug-addled warlord or local revolutionary group is going murder you in your sleep.
I proved it to my own satisfaction by their casual application of the notion of neocolonialism only to Africa. You have failed to show how picking on one continent because of the percieved deficiencies, moral, cultural or whatever, of most of its inhabitants, and not picking on similar situations elsewhere, isn’t, at heart, a racist endeavour.
I don’t use the term casually, but I do use it intentionally.
“post racist system”? Are you just pulling them out of your arse now?
And I’ve already refuted your argument that there’s something unique about Africa. There’s certainly nothing fucking unique about the climate. If there’s nothing unique, then singling Africa - and it’s always almost the whole fucking continent - out of all the fucked up places in the world, must have a different underlying cause.
Plus, and I fail to see how you don’t see this, ethnocentrism is a racist ideology:
From your own Wiki cite:
If that isn’t racist, I don’t know what is. Do us a favour, mate, read your own fucking links before you quote them, yeah?
Bicycle still going backwards, eh, FRDE?
No, I never fucking ever did. And the rest of that post was more of your incoherent stream-of-unconciousness bullshit, I see. Been down the pub?
well, that was a fuck-up.
Wouldn’t have happened if you’d had some white Europeans editing your posts for you.
But the trouble is that the patron country gets to set the terms of the patron-client relationship. If the parent country can grant themselves certain trade rights for a certain period of time, why can’t they just do so for an indefinate period of time?
Of course, there are countries that still today have a patron-client relationship. Greenland to Denmark, various tiny island nations to France, UK, US, and such. But these are voluntary relations, if Guam voted to sever ties with the US they would be free to do so. And the US doesn’t saddle Guam with exploitative economic relations that favor the US, rather the US subsidizes Guam.
If other countries that are currently independent wanted to voluntarily become dependencies of another country, perhaps something could be done. But the likelyhood of that happening is slim. If the country is being run ineptly, why would the current kleptocrats want the patron country to stop the gravy train? And if the country is doing pretty well on it’s own, why would it need a patron?
Here’s an interesting list: