Is repairing the third-world feasible?

[Aellex]

That's basically the exact opposite of what colonialism is.

Quite the contrary, it's what Colonialism was all about.

[Vistulange]

That's basically the exact opposite of what colonialism is.

Quite the contrary, it's what Colonialism was all about.

Colonialism was about teaching the colonised how to be "civilised", and not about extracting resources from the colonised place and transferring wealth to the colonisers?

[The South Falls]

Quite the contrary, it's what Colonialism was all about.

Colonialism was about teaching the colonised how to be "civilised", and not about extracting resources from the colonised place and transferring wealth to the colonisers?

Not true. While it may have been said that colonialism was about teaching 'civilization', by the colonizers to justify their terrible actions, it was actually for the benefit of the Colonialists, resource wise. Name ONE colony that didn't have it's leaders and administrators enriching themselves, at the expense of the populace.

[Vistulange]

Colonialism was about teaching the colonised how to be "civilised", and not about extracting resources from the colonised place and transferring wealth to the colonisers?

Not true. While it may have been said that colonialism was about teaching 'civilization', by the colonizers to justify their terrible actions, it was actually for the benefit of the Colonialists, resource wise. Name ONE colony that didn't have it's leaders and administrators enriching themselves, at the expense of the populace.

...did you even read what I wrote in the context of what I was responding to? Did you notice the question mark at the end of my single, albeit slightly long sentence?

[Aellex]

Colonialism was about teaching the colonised how to be "civilised", and not about extracting resources from the colonised place and transferring wealth to the colonisers?

We were driven by a desire to help but that didn't mean we were total charities. A man has to keep itself fed first if he wants to help feed others.

[Vistulange]

Colonialism was about teaching the colonised how to be "civilised", and not about extracting resources from the colonised place and transferring wealth to the colonisers?

We were driven by a desire to help but that didn't mean we were total charities. A man has to keep itself fed first if he wants to help feed others.

Ah, so you were helping by establishing forms of government that solely served to facilitate the extraction of resources and the transfer of wealth to the imperial power, and that the great human cost of this "help" was a necessary sacrifice in the long run? Was that how Europe got where it is now, I wonder, or was it through its own gradual development? Since when did any nation or culture "rise" with a paternal figure holding its hand - or rather, with the colonisation example, "consistently and perpetually beating the child" - as opposed to its own organic development?

[The South Falls]

Not true. While it may have been said that colonialism was about teaching 'civilization', by the colonizers to justify their terrible actions, it was actually for the benefit of the Colonialists, resource wise. Name ONE colony that didn't have it's leaders and administrators enriching themselves, at the expense of the populace.

...did you even read what I wrote in the context of what I was responding to? Did you notice the question mark at the end of my single, albeit slightly long sentence?

Vistulange, I have failed at life. Sorry. I don't pay attention to things, often....

[Aellex]

Ah, so you were helping by establishing forms of government that solely served to facilitate the extraction of resources and the transfer of wealth to the imperial power, and that the great human cost of this "help" was a necessary sacrifice in the long run?

Yes, exactly! ;D

Was that how Europe got where it is now, I wonder, or was it through its own gradual development? Since when did any nation or culture "rise" with a paternal figure holding its hand - or rather, with the colonisation example, "consistently and perpetually beating the child" - as opposed to its own organic development?

Well, it was clearly through the first. Can't thank enough Grand-Pa Roma for beating some civilisation into us, paving our roads and building us nice cleans cities with proper sanitation.
Which is exactly what we did and more in Africa.

[Des-Bal]

Quite the contrary, it's what Colonialism was all about.

I have heard this idea a lot but never from anyone who was educated on the subject.

Colonialism was about establishing governments that fundamentally did not work and creating conflicts that could not be easily resolved. Colonialism destroyed government systems that served their purpose and replaced them with ones that did not. The entire purpose of colonialism was to create an unstable situation where only the interventions of the imperialist state would allow the colonial state to function

[Minilov]

Nick Griffin holds the fringe opinion of a fringe party in a fringe nation. BNP has nothing to gain from this debate. So the only noise they generate is to benefit this own future speaking engagements.

Regarding your overarching question: is repairing the third-world feasible?

The answer is: yes.

A secondary question: is repairing the third-world easy?

To which the answer is negative: no.

For me, the priorities are:
1. Restore a sense of justice in these kleptocracies. This increases the efficiency of public funds, trust in government, and lowers crime.
2. Focus on education. This increases the chance at an equal opportunity, reduces ethnic tensions and lowers birth rates.
3. Enable basic utilities for the large majority while keeping an eye on pollution and sustainability. Combined with #1 and #2 this helps people improve their lives.

[The South Falls]

Nick Griffin holds the fringe opinion of a fringe party in a fringe nation. BNP has nothing to gain from this debate. So the only noise they generate is to benefit this own future speaking engagements.

Regarding your overarching question: is repairing the third-world feasible?

The answer is: yes.

A secondary question: is repairing the third-world easy?

To which the answer is negative: no.

For me, the priorities are:
1. Restore a sense of justice in these kleptocracies. This increases the efficiency of public funds, trust in government, and lowers crime.
2. Focus on education. This increases the chance at an equal opportunity, reduces ethnic tensions and lowers birth rates.
3. Enable basic utilities for the large majority while keeping an eye on pollution and sustainability. Combined with #1 and #2 this helps people improve their lives.

These are perfect goals, but we don't know how we are going to implement them. They end up going to be implemented in three ways.

1. The West comes in, breaks down the doors and makes things worse.
2. The west gives money, to start foreign businesses, crippling local businesses, and making things still worse.
3. Someone in the nation tries to form a coup d'etat, which inevitably turns into a civil war.
The way that we have to implement these goals, is the education of the populace, through the dissipating of papers, and articles online, that show the need for civic engagement, to restore a sense of order, and therefore implement the rest of these goals. What I'm saying is probably also lofty, call me out on it if so.

[Korvale]

No we owe the third world nothing at all, let them advance on their own feet or forever be babies who cant do anything without the help of the white man.

[Krasny-Volny]

Quite the contrary, it's what Colonialism was all about.

I have heard this idea a lot but never from anyone who was educated on the subject.

Colonialism was about establishing governments that fundamentally did not work and creating conflicts that could not be easily resolved. Colonialism destroyed government systems that served their purpose and replaced them with ones that did not. The entire purpose of colonialism was to create an unstable situation where only the interventions of the imperialist state would allow the colonial state to function

Plenty of colonial states functioned autonomously without much supervision from the metropole power. Most of the posters here have considered Liberia a colonial state, but for all of its history it was independent of the US.

[Des-Bal]

Plenty of colonial states functioned autonomously without much supervision from the metropole power. Most of the posters here have considered Liberia a colonial state, but for all of its history it was independent of the US.

The overwhelming majority of colonial states have failed for exactly the same reason. You're trying to find one guy who survived the drug trial to announce it's a success. Not only that, your search has gone so poorly that you and the rest of the "colonialism's the bees' knees" crowd keep jabbing the same dead guy with a stick.

Liberia was never really independent of the US until the Coup in the 80s. The US consistently propped them up and encouraged them to develop institutions that were almost purely extractive. There was a period of a few years where the US stepped back back but that played out the exact way it always does: the state couldn't do the things it hadn't been expected to before. Liberia became totally dependent on foreign aid from different countries whereupon the US stepped in again and divied up their value amongst western nations.

[Krasny-Volny]

Plenty of colonial states functioned autonomously without much supervision from the metropole power. Most of the posters here have considered Liberia a colonial state, but for all of its history it was independent of the US.

The overwhelming majority of colonial states have failed for exactly the same reason. You're trying to find one guy who survived the drug trial to announce it's a success. Not only that, your search has gone so poorly that you and the rest of the "colonialism's the bees' knees" crowd keep jabbing the same dead guy with a stick.

Liberia was never really independent of the US until the Coup in the 80s. The US consistently propped them up and encouraged them to develop institutions that were almost purely extractive. There was a period of a few years where the US stepped back back but that played out the exact way it always does: the state couldn't do the things it hadn't been expected to before. Liberia became totally dependent on foreign aid from different countries whereupon the US stepped in again and divied up their value amongst western nations.

And what of Southern Rhodesia and South Africa under apartheid? Were these not essentially states with colonial systems that were completely autonomous of a metropole power?

[Des-Bal]

And what of Southern Rhodesia and South Africa under apartheid? Were these not essentially states with colonial systems that were completely autonomous of a metropole power?

You just picked two regions that were settled and required to develop working institutions for the benefit of settlers. What a fucking coincidence that is.

Your efforts to find an outlier are turning into a seminar on what indirect rule is and why it fucks up countries.

[Krasny-Volny]

And what of Southern Rhodesia and South Africa under apartheid? Were these not essentially states with colonial systems that were completely autonomous of a metropole power?

You just picked two regions that were settled and required to develop working institutions for the benefit of settlers. What a fucking coincidence that is.

Your efforts to find an outlier are turning into a seminar on what indirect rule is and why it fucks up countries.

Wait a minute. You just wrote the entire purpose of colonialism was "to create an unstable situation where only the interventions of the imperialist state would allow the colonial state to function".

Surely you would agree that in the examples I named, creating unstable situations and forcing dependency on the metropole was clearly not the sole purpose of colonialism. Rather the objective was settlement. Hence why the Dutch imported so many people to the Cape, etc.

[Aellex]

I have heard this idea a lot but never from anyone who was educated on the subject.

Colonialism was about establishing governments that fundamentally did not work and creating conflicts that could not be easily resolved. Colonialism destroyed government systems that served their purpose and replaced them with ones that did not. The entire purpose of colonialism was to create an unstable situation where only the interventions of the imperialist state would allow the colonial state to function

I have heard this rhetoric a lot but never from anyone who actually knew what they were talking about.

Divide et Impera was always used as a system (both in the homeland and oversea) but it was always to make ruling easier, not to purposefully fuck shit up and arguing the contrary is pure stupidity ascribing to people a maliciousness that simply wasn't there.

[Erythrean Thebes]

I have heard this idea a lot but never from anyone who was educated on the subject.

Colonialism was about establishing governments that fundamentally did not work and creating conflicts that could not be easily resolved. Colonialism destroyed government systems that served their purpose and replaced them with ones that did not. The entire purpose of colonialism was to create an unstable situation where only the interventions of the imperialist state would allow the colonial state to function

I have heard this rhetoric a lot but never from anyone who actually knew what they were talking about.

Divide et Impera was always used as a system (both in the homeland and oversea) but it was always to make ruling easier, not to purposefully fuck shit up and arguing the contrary is pure stupidity ascribing to people a maliciousness that simply wasn't there.

Give me a fucking break, you don't think the Europeans viewed the life of the African people as worthless and their condition as living things beneath that of human beings?

[Des-Bal]

Wait a minute. You just wrote the entire purpose of colonialism was "to create an unstable situation where only the interventions of the imperialist state would allow the colonial state to function".

Surely you would agree that in the examples I named, creating unstable situations and forcing dependency on the metropole was clearly not the sole purpose of colonialism. Rather the objective was settlement. Hence why the Dutch imported so many people to the Cape, etc.

It was the entire purpose of the style of indirect rule most common in the scramble for Africa. As I've said earlier in the thread settlement doesn't create the same stupid institutions or the same stupid divisions.

I have heard this rhetoric a lot but never from anyone who actually knew what they were talking about.

Divide et Impera was always used as a system (both in the homeland and oversea) but it was always to make ruling easier, not to purposefully fuck shit up and arguing the contrary is pure stupidity ascribing to people a maliciousness that simply wasn't there.

No, they specifically wanted to fuck things up. See, it would be really inconvenient if your puppet state could function without you. That's why you put minority groups in power and that's why you make sure the government isn't beholden to the people. You don't want a system that can function without an imperial authority behind it, that way the local administration has every reason to obey you. That aside these states were designed only to extract resources, these governments did not do the jobs of actual governments. They did not work. By design, they did not work.

[Vistulange]

Wait a minute. You just wrote the entire purpose of colonialism was "to create an unstable situation where only the interventions of the imperialist state would allow the colonial state to function".

Surely you would agree that in the examples I named, creating unstable situations and forcing dependency on the metropole was clearly not the sole purpose of colonialism. Rather the objective was settlement. Hence why the Dutch imported so many people to the Cape, etc.

It was the entire purpose of the style of indirect rule most common in the scramble for Africa. As I've said earlier in the thread settlement doesn't create the same stupid institutions or the same stupid divisions.

I have heard this rhetoric a lot but never from anyone who actually knew what they were talking about.

Divide et Impera was always used as a system (both in the homeland and oversea) but it was always to make ruling easier, not to purposefully fuck shit up and arguing the contrary is pure stupidity ascribing to people a maliciousness that simply wasn't there.

No, they specifically wanted to fuck things up. See, it would be really inconvenient if your puppet state could function without you. That's why you put minority groups in power and that's why you make sure the government isn't beholden to the people. You don't want a system that can function without an imperial authority behind it, that way the local administration has every reason to obey you. That aside these states were designed only to extract resources, these governments did not do the jobs of actual governments. They did not work. By design, they did not work.

I wholly agree with you, but for the sake of future use (read: my personal, selfish use which I will never, ever credit you for), can you toss some sources for the "intent to fuck up"? That would be a mightily fine source to have on hand.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Foreign aid as it exists today should be cut. If we’re going to provide aid to developing countries it should be geared towards human capital and technical skills.

Well yes, but money is needed to build things

True. My recommendations were more geared towards not flooding local markets with mass-produced goods, rather than not providing money for building roads, schools, and hospitals.

[Des-Bal]

I wholly agree with you, but for the sake of future use (read: my personal, selfish use which I will never, ever credit you for), can you toss some sources for the "intent to fuck up"? That would be a mightily fine source to have on hand.

Not off the top of my head. The only thing I can thing of would be a meta-analysis of scholarship on states effected by indirect rule. Anything on colonial Burundi or Rwanda would provide a good example. There's probably no better example of how european states created purely extractive governments with multiple points of failure if they weren't around.

[Sanctissima]

I have heard this rhetoric a lot but never from anyone who actually knew what they were talking about.

Divide et Impera was always used as a system (both in the homeland and oversea) but it was always to make ruling easier, not to purposefully fuck shit up and arguing the contrary is pure stupidity ascribing to people a maliciousness that simply wasn't there.

No, they specifically wanted to fuck things up. See, it would be really inconvenient if your puppet state could function without you. That's why you put minority groups in power and that's why you make sure the government isn't beholden to the people. You don't want a system that can function without an imperial authority behind it, that way the local administration has every reason to obey you. That aside these states were designed only to extract resources, these governments did not do the jobs of actual governments. They did not work. By design, they did not work.

Oh bull.

That's both a massive oversimplification and Marxist-inspired drivel.

European colonial systems and the impetus behind them changed and adapted over the course of the many centuries they were implemented. It wasn't some grand Machiavellian conspiracy to oppress and subjugate the world to Europa's whims.

In the vast majority of cases, colonies were established for two primary reasons:

1) To pursue mercantilist policies of monopolizing as many resources and as much trade as feasibly possible.

2) To civilize or uplift the natives.

The latter was a particularly prominent driving impetus of the British colonial administration in Africa, which, frankly, invested far more financially into its colonies than it ever got out of them. In fact, for most European powers, their colonies represented net monetary losses, with only the major plantation islands of the Caribbean and Dutch spice islands in the Moluccas having actually produced a consistent surplus.

To say the main goal of European colonialism was to "fuck things up" is an inordinately pretentious falsehood, especially considering how in many ways the colonial powers objectively improved local living conditions (improved infrastructure, public education, healthcare, etc.) Notably, the British in particular went out of their way to put an end to the African slave trade. Hardly the type of behaviour to be expected of evil bourgeois capitalist boogeymen with top hats and curly mustaches.

[Erythrean Thebes]

To say the main goal of European colonialism was to "fuck things up" is an inordinately pretentious falsehood

What's pretentious about it?