Has the decline of colonialism lead the third world to decline? Should the British, French, and other European powers still be in control of much of the world, specifically the African continent?
I think your ego is talking. Worse its attached to your head which is stuck up your colonial, white supremacist ass. You make no sense really. Whats the matter with the third world and why do you have to be the one in control? They'll get to where they get when they are good and ready. Just like you did.
The British still control a vast majority of the diamond mines in South Africa, Shell, Cheveron, BP& Exon control a vast majority of the Oil fields in Africa. China owns 40% of the oil fields in Sudan for instance. Here's my point, Africa doesn't have control of it's resources, until it does it will be economically challenged. And since you're smarter then 99.9% of all Africans, how come you're not RICHER THEN 99.9% of all Africans? I see Black Millionaires being made every day.. How about you? *******Crickets**************
Prince James hasn't accomplished anything on his own. So he looks for achievments that other White men have made then claims them as his own. Its' sad when you have to look back at what your ancestors did to sustain your self esteem. Today it doesnt' matter if you're Black or White, it matters if you're rich or poor.
No. I think the colonial powers added their particular skills in business and most importantly- capital, and that a separate state doesn't have the same potential for power than a larger empire can have. They are just in a process of re-adjustment.
Iam, Ganymede: Go back to the sandbox, little boys. Spidergoat: The problem is not only that, but a lack of law and order, infastructure, food shortages, et cetera, et cetera. Under colonial control, Africa and many other trouble areas were on the way towards development. Now, it is possibly the worse area on Earth to live, even exceeding Mid-East and Communist hell holes. Sauna: And they are not? The British and French governments seem to be working.
I think the best way to help the third world is to allow them the chance to enter the general market with their produce, products, etc. We basically need to help them help themselves. They need to self govern instead of being governed. One of their main problems at the moment is the issue of despotic leaders who only take power to line their own pockets at the expense of the population. The West taking control won't rectify the situation. It will only ensure that some flourish and the majority delve deeper into poverty.
James: I suggest you take a gander at this: http://www.amazon.com/White-Mans-Bu...=pd_bbs_1/103-8063171-8905411?ie=UTF8&s=books
Bells: Do you think they are intelligent enough (Africa has been demonstrated, albeit it controversially, to house the lowest-IQ countries in the world), bred for civilization (by which I meant experience some 5,000 years of natural selective force for pro-civilization people), and capable of securing for themselves law and order to assure they can reach this point? It seems that the Hobbesian principle that life is "nasty, brutish, and short" is proved by Africa's anarchy.
SamCDKey: I'll purchase that book when I go to pick up a book at Barnes and Nobles soon. Thank you for linking it for me.
Why are you turning this into a racial issue? Anywho to answer your question. When Africa, primarily, was colonised, the countries on that continent flourished only because their colonisers allowed them to and up to a certain point. The nations were basically plundered to allow the West to flourish. We are attempting to make them into Westernised nations, or judging their development based on Western standards, when we in the West don't really have that much of a leg to stand on. We treat and keep the indigenous populations of our countries in third world conditions. Therefore, before we start attempting to take over countries in Africa, we should basically be looking to how we treat the third world conditions in our own countries. Do I think they (nations in Africa) are able to self govern? Yes if given the chance and the time. Instead of allowing them to decide for themselves the political path they wish to follow, we are attempting to dictate their politics, often with disastrous results. Despots, supported by the West take control, resulting in horrors for the population. Religion also has a lot to answer for in my opinion, with religious interference attempting to sway party politics and the way the countries are governed through the use of aid. We blackmail them into doing what we want and we see the horrendous results. When we should step in and help the people begging for it, we fail to. In short, we have stuffed up royally.
Bells: I wasn't turning it into a racial issue. Simply that the best example of where colonialism has vacated and anarchy results is Africa, which similarly has had major some studies suggest that the continent is filled with people of lower IQs than the average human being, possibly owing to severe malnutrition, and also likely due to genetic factors. A mixture, not a dominance, of one over the other. Also, the lack of a natural selective force for 5,000 years. Well the West had obvious a stake in it and yes, the colonization was not merely about a "white man's burden" as Kipling put it. However, it was growing to be as such. Surely, no one can deny that British and French colonial interests were also incorporating -some- sense of humanitarianism during the end period. I doubt that if colonialism persisted unto the present that more would have been done overall. Um...which ones are that? The only indigeneous peoples I can think of are the North American Indians (and maybe the Saami) and the North American Indians live on sovereign land. Are the despots really -supported- by the West or ignored? Mugabe doesn't seem to be supported at all, nor are the majority of other African despots.
Something tells me it was 'the white man' who made the 'first world/third world' distinction in the first place. Now, very conveniently, see how Prince James is forced to consider how to 'help' the 'third world'.
James R.: Since colonialism's dismantling, Africa has seen a precipitious decline. War, famine, AIDS, massive human rights abuses, genocide... Third world Asian countries haven't done much better. You know, considering the rampant militant Islamic prescence, or the horrific Communism. Southstar: Have I ever claimed that the third world should not be intelligently aided?
In your opinion, has India fared any better after its Independence from Britain, or was it better off under the British Raj?
Did I question any of your generous sentiments or denigrate you in any way? What, then, is the meaning of your question?
Do you blame the dismantling of colonialism for AIDS? I'd like to hear your reasoning on that. Genocides have also happened in places like Bosnia. Human rights abuses are going on in the good ol' US of A, at places like Guantanamo Bay, for example. (Oops, America has defined that as a non-US, human-rights-free zone, hasn't it, so maybe that doesn't count then.) Wars, you say? I recall this place called Iraq. I don't think it was invaded by Africans. Hmm... Interesting how you define yourself out of any argument here. I suppose you don't consider China a third-world country, because of its rampant economy and industrial boom. So, its communism doesn't count for you, presumably. By definition, any country which is successful is no longer "third world". So, all you're really saying is that unsuccessful countries are unsuccessful - so far. Fairly obvious, wouldn't you say?
