Why I am a liberal/lefty who is AGAINST illegal immgration and amnesty for them. (law, accuse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but the truth is in 1910 S. Korea was out right annexed by Japan. Mass Japanese immigration brought industrialization to S. Korea. Percent land own vs. population was less than in Algeria, Kenya, Ivory Coast, and South Africa...to name a few. Compared to people in those nations, S. Korea was luckier...not the greatest situation, but better off than many other places during the colonial era.
Sorry, but the truth is in 1910 S. Korea was out right annexed by Japan. Mass Japanese immigration brought industrialization to S. Korea. Percent land own vs. population was less than in Algeria, Kenya, Ivory Coast, and South Africa...to name a few. Compared to people in those nations, S. Korea was luckier...not the greatest situation, but better off than many other places during the colonial era.
Not really Korean culture was restricted, and mass Japanese immigration brought industrialization for the Japanese settlers. All resource development and exploitation in Korea were done 1. to benefit Japan, and 2. To allow the Japanese military to move quickly in case of war with China. In fact, by the end of the occupation starvation was rampant due to much of the food production being utilized to feed Japan. I would not say that luckier at all.
Algeria was a department of France and if you think Koreans were considered Japanese in that example you are very wrong. Koreans most certainly did not have the same rights as Japanese even if they did abandon their identity as Koreans and try to pass.
Algerians in Algeria were not French...So the laws were not the same as in Metropolitan France. Even prior to my parents moving to Oran, my dad extensively lived in France and traveled to Algiers during the colonial era. It's citizens were subjected to worse treatment than those considered citizens.
Asia was also effected by colonialism. Malaysia was ripped apart by a 15 year war between communists and anti communists and Singapore upon independence had massive unemployment, race riots, chronic housing problems and no water supply to boot, but they overcame it as many African countries are overcoming their problems. To blame the problems of the third world on phantoms of colonialism is just counterproductive.
Asia had better infrastructure than Africa during the colonial era. More money was spent on infrastructure works. African countries are simply subjected to neocolonialism due to a system in place from colonialism. To deny history, however dark it may seem, is to not understand how to fix the problem. Simply saying, "okay, let's go." without understanding the underlying causes is more counterproductive.
The first part 1. I addressed earlier, and two it was a response to you suggesting that places with the same model (part of another country) as Algeria were better off because of it.
As to Asia much of the "better infrastructure" existed before the colonial period and a great deal was spent on infrastructure works in Africa during the colonial area, particularly in terms of railroads, and roads. Additionally, it doesn't make sense to suggest that Africa is hindered by neocolonialism and Asia is not when both areas have similar legacies. If anything I think the opposite is true. Africa and the various African nationalist movements sought to cut ties with the west similar to how the North Koreans did with Juichi (sp). while many Asian countries sought to expand ties and particularly trade ties. As a result many Asian countries with similar legacies of colonialism made vast gains while many countries in Africa stagnated and continued to blame their problems on colonialism.
The first part 1. I addressed earlier, and two it was a response to you suggesting that places with the same model (part of another country) as Algeria were better off because of it.
But Algeria was VERY different. There are obviously exceptions to the rule. However, the rule still holds VERY firm. Ceuta and Mellila are much better than say Equitorial Guinea (which, despite it's oil riches, the majority of the population is still in dire poverty and don't recieve benefits). Ceutia is an integral part of Spain.
As to Asia much of the "better infrastructure" existed before the colonial period and a great deal was spent on infrastructure works in Africa during the colonial area, particularly in terms of railroads, and roads. Additionally, it doesn't make sense to suggest that Africa is hindered by neocolonialism and Asia is not when both areas have similar legacies. If anything I think the opposite is true. Africa and the various African nationalist movements sought to cut ties with the west similar to how the North Koreans did with Juichi (sp). while many Asian countries sought to expand ties and particularly trade ties. As a result many Asian countries with similar legacies of colonialism made vast gains while many countries in Africa stagnated and continued to blame their problems on colonialism.
Look at the wars that can be classified due to the colonial structure. Angola, Ivory Coast, Congo/Zaire, Biafra. These are a direct result of a structure that was instituted during the colonial era. To rectify the situation we need to break the system. Lack of fair trade is hindering small scale farmers. General exploitation occurs in Africa. Chocolate slaves of Nestle in Ivory Coast? Neocolonialism is just a permuation of the colonial structure. There is a difference with commercial links to the west, but wanting exclusive deals (which France does to many of its former colonies) and buying raw materials at ridiculously low rates is wrong. It's shocking to think that in America, many still believe that Africans are somehow just "not getting it". Ignorance isn't bliss in this case. There are more forces at work and simply giving platitude advice as "don't be corrupt" is not only flawed, but also dangerous.
As to Asia much of the "better infrastructure" existed before the colonial period and a great deal was spent on infrastructure works in Africa during the colonial area, particularly in terms of railroads, and roads. Additionally, it doesn't make sense to suggest that Africa is hindered by neocolonialism and Asia is not when both areas have similar legacies. If anything I think the opposite is true. Africa and the various African nationalist movements sought to cut ties with the west similar to how the North Koreans did with Juichi (sp). while many Asian countries sought to expand ties and particularly trade ties. As a result many Asian countries with similar legacies of colonialism made vast gains while many countries in Africa stagnated and continued to blame their problems on colonialism.
Well stated. Much of the world was colonized by 'outsiders'; some of it in the form of a relatively benign, if smothering 'paternalism', in other cases, a pretty ruthless form of heavy-handed "rule". No need to go into the specifics of each and every case...but it IS safe to say that the 'ruthlessness' (or lack thereof) of the colonizers seems to have VERY LITTLE connection at this late date (DECADES after colonialism nearly everywhere 'went by the wayside'). What seems to have by far the largest effect on the societal health and vitality of former colonies is the culture, societal practices, and 'outlook' of the PEOPLE who LIVE THERE..
Some places "bounced back" from the domination of foreign colonizers in very short order, and seemed to 'flourish' in their newfound freedom..while OTHER places seemed to take note of the departure of the foreigners as their cue to descend even farther into poverty than they previously HAD been....with the added fact, that in the 'vacuum' left when the 'rulers' left, they ALSO experienced a disheartening downward plunge into tribal violence, corruption, kleptocracy, and a general wholesale 'pillaging' of the population by whoever managed to bully his way into power.
Some populations adopted and 'built upon' the infrastucture left by their former 'landlords'....other populations simply tore it up; stole it and sold off the 'parts'...or just allowed it to deteriorate from lack of maintenance.
'Colonialism' is more-or-less a part of history for MUCH of the world's people...how they dealt with its effects depends on how they "deal" with life in general. Being a 'former colony' is no reason a country must be a dysfunctional 'basket case'....most of that is determined by the way these places are run today; how their people relate to one another; how they relate to the rest of the world; and what they "do" with the resources they have.
The first part 1. I addressed earlier, and two it was a response to you suggesting that places with the same model (part of another country) as Algeria were better off because of it.
But Algeria was VERY different. There are obviously exceptions to the rule. However, the rule still holds VERY firm. Ceuta and Mellila are much better than say Equitorial Guinea (which, despite it's oil riches, the majority of the population is still in dire poverty and don't recieve benefits). Ceutia is an integral part of Spain.
As to Asia much of the "better infrastructure" existed before the colonial period and a great deal was spent on infrastructure works in Africa during the colonial area, particularly in terms of railroads, and roads. Additionally, it doesn't make sense to suggest that Africa is hindered by neocolonialism and Asia is not when both areas have similar legacies. If anything I think the opposite is true. Africa and the various African nationalist movements sought to cut ties with the west similar to how the North Koreans did with Juichi (sp). while many Asian countries sought to expand ties and particularly trade ties. As a result many Asian countries with similar legacies of colonialism made vast gains while many countries in Africa stagnated and continued to blame their problems on colonialism.
Look at the wars that can be classified due to the colonial structure. Angola, Ivory Coast, Congo/Zaire, Biafra. These are a direct result of a structure that was instituted during the colonial era. To rectify the situation we need to break the system. Lack of fair trade is hindering small scale farmers. General exploitation occurs in Africa. Chocolate slaves of Nestle in Ivory Coast? Neocolonialism is just a permuation of the colonial structure. There is a difference with commercial links to the west, but wanting exclusive deals (which France does to many of its former colonies) and buying raw materials at ridiculously low rates is wrong. It's shocking to think that in America, many still believe that Africans are somehow just "not getting it". Ignorance isn't bliss in this case. There are more forces at work and simply giving platitude advice as "don't be corrupt" is not only flawed, but also dangerous.
First, compare those conflict areas to places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Singapore has Chinese, Malays, Tamils and all sorts of various ethnic groups that all seem to get along. Indonesia, while it has its problems does not have anything on par with the areas you mentioned despite having hundreds of ethnic groups spread over 922 inhabited islands. Both the African countries/areas you mention and these countries have this set up due to colonialism, but Singapore, and Indonesia have, more or less, found peaceful means to settle these conflicts the regions in Africa have not.
"don't be corrupt" is exactly right. Why do these former colonies give exclusive deals to their former mother countries? Could it be that the French send a check or some weapons systems the dictator's way? Why is that? Is that because those dictators are corrupt and don't care about their countries? I think so. Compare that to a place like Singapore, do you honestly think someone like Lee Kuan Yew would have sold out his country and killed his people like Nguema did in Equitorial Guinea? I do not think so. The key difference between somewhere like Equitoral Guinea and somewhere like Singapore is exactly that corruption and quality of leadership.
Also AZBear, not allowing land to be bought, lack of rights, in YOUR country is apartheid. Plus, the "middle class" were Muslims initially in Algeria...since it was THEIR country.
The closest analogy is when we came to California, literally took the Ranchos from the Californios and made them have certain provisions in order to obtain full rights. This was wrong.
Please read up on your history.
And things were made right concerning the Californios: never mind they being part of a defeated culture we 'owed' them nothing by 19th Century standards. Note that the previous dominant culture of what was once Mexico; the Aztecs, they were treated like trash by the Hispanics yet there little/no hue and cry by the 'la raza' types today over how the former was abused.
Well stated. Much of the world was colonized by 'outsiders'; some of it relatively benign 'paternalism', in other cases, a pretty ruthless form of "rule". No need to go into the specifics of each and every case...but it IS safe to say that the 'ruthlessness' (or lack thereof) of the colonizers seems to have VERY LITTLE connection at this late date (DECADES after colonialism nearly everywhere 'went by the wayside'). What seems to have by far the largest effect on the societal health and vitality of former colonies is the culture, societal practices, and 'outlook' of the PEOPLE who LIVE THERE..
Are you serious? VERY LITTLE connection? Decolonialism ended in 1960 in a HUGE swath of the world. Events in America from 1960 still affect our nation. Why would it be any different anywhere else? Still is rididculous. We know for a fact that many countries were set up VERY hastily during the 1950s for a post colonial transistion. That system is in place in a MARJORITY of nations. I can't even begin to fathom why you would think that something that happened fairly recently would not affect people today.
Some places "bounced back" from the domination of foreign colonizers in very short order, and seemed to 'flourish' in their newfound freedom..while OTHER places seemed to take note of the departure of the foreigners as their cue to descend even farther into poverty than they previously HAD been....with the added fact, that in the 'vacuum' left when the 'rulers' left, they ALSO experienced a disheartening descent into tribal violence, corruption, kleptocracy, and a general wholesale 'pillaging' of the population by whoever managed to bully his way into power.
Not to mention NEOCOLONIALISM and EXPLOITATION from their former colonial powers.
'Colonialism' is more-or-less a part of history for MUCH of the world's people...how they dealt with its effects depends on how they "deal" with life in general. Being a 'former colony' is no reason a country must be a dysfunctional 'basket case'....most of that is determined by the way these places are run today; how their people relate to one another; how they relate to the rest of the world; and what they "do" with the resources they have.
Again, being a former colony means that you have to look at the structure in place (economically and politcally) and base a plan that can recitfy the situation. Successful post colonial nations looked at the previous structure and sought to change by realizing that internal investment needs to made with Western help. The West does need to help. Not in a fashion that reinforces a neocolonial structure (IMF Bank and World Bank, I'm looking at you). But rather in way that doesn't discount said nations as being "slackers". What's interesting is that many in the international community take your approach. They simply say "have a good outlook" and wonder why nothing has happened. It's because they have not dealt with the past. They have not fundementally looked at the problem and sought to bring about how they deal with former colonies. To them, the status quo remains the same. Thus reinforcing a negative pattern of neocolonial behavior and corruption. This is why diminishing the importance of how colonial rule changed Africa and other nations is VERY dangerous. It enables people to simply stay with the status quo.
First, compare those conflict areas to places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Singapore has Chinese, Malays, Tamils and all sorts of various ethnic groups that all seem to get along. Indonesia, while it has its problems does not have anything on par with the areas you mentioned despite having hundreds of ethnic groups spread over 922 inhabited islands. Both the African countries/areas you mention and these countries have this set up due to colonialism, but Singapore, and Indonesia have, more or less, found peaceful means to settle these conflicts the regions in Africa have not.
East Timor? Really? Indonesia? That's great a great place. BTW this was due to colonialism. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The West simply going about as if nothing happened and both sides not fixing the root cause. As for Singapore, strict rules and lack of some freedoms will work. It's a highly censored nation. The government has control of media and instills fear in its population. All for the sake of trying to keep itself together. That's not the type of nation that most want to become. Another way would be to encourage free speech, being critical of the overall system (both internally and externally...neocolonialism leading to corruption) and working from there.
"don't be corrupt" is exactly right. Why do these former colonies give exclusive deals to their former mother countries? Could it be that the French send a check or some weapons systems the dictator's way? Why is that? Is that because those dictators are corrupt and don't care about their countries? I think so. Compare that to a place like Singapore, do you honestly think someone like Lee Kuan Yew would have sold out his country and killed his people like Nguema did in Equitorial Guinea? I do not think so. The key difference between somewhere like Equitoral Guinea and somewhere like Singapore is exactly that corruption and quality of leadership.
No, it's mostly because this is the status quo and many banks as part of a loan deal, simply say "work with the west". Colonial partners come in and set up corporate interests that repatriate the money. So the country is left with little left and huge debt. Because they carry the same mentality as you. "Don't be corrupt" without looking at the underlying problems. Becomes a little problematic when you take history into consideration.
Please don't tell me that you think that most places were peaches and cream after colonial rule.
First, compare those conflict areas to places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Singapore has Chinese, Malays, Tamils and all sorts of various ethnic groups that all seem to get along. Indonesia, while it has its problems does not have anything on par with the areas you mentioned despite having hundreds of ethnic groups spread over 922 inhabited islands. Both the African countries/areas you mention and these countries have this set up due to colonialism, but Singapore, and Indonesia have, more or less, found peaceful means to settle these conflicts the regions in Africa have not.
East Timor? Really? Indonesia? That's great a great place. BTW this was due to colonialism. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The West simply going about as if nothing happened and both sides not fixing the root cause. As for Singapore, strict rules and lack of some freedoms will work. It's a highly censored nation. The government has control of media and instills fear in its population. All for the sake of trying to keep itself together. That's not the type of nation that most want to become. Another way would be to encourage free speech, being critical of the overall system (both internally and externally...neocolonialism leading to corruption) and working from there.
"don't be corrupt" is exactly right. Why do these former colonies give exclusive deals to their former mother countries? Could it be that the French send a check or some weapons systems the dictator's way? Why is that? Is that because those dictators are corrupt and don't care about their countries? I think so. Compare that to a place like Singapore, do you honestly think someone like Lee Kuan Yew would have sold out his country and killed his people like Nguema did in Equitorial Guinea? I do not think so. The key difference between somewhere like Equitoral Guinea and somewhere like Singapore is exactly that corruption and quality of leadership.
No, it's mostly because this is the status quo and many banks as part of a loan deal, simply say "work with the west". Colonial partners come in and set up corporate interests that repatriate the money. So the country is left with little left and huge debt. Because they carry the same mentality as you. "Don't be corrupt" without looking at the underlying problems. Becomes a little problematic when you take history into consideration.
Please don't tell me that you think that most places were peaches and cream after colonial rule.
Frankly: the hell with the former colonial possessions--------as it stands: the odds are quite high that China will try to take 'em over.
Good luck; Beijing---------you will need it.
Something else to consider: all of the Asian countries that are affluent democracies today were authoritarian regimes not so long ago, so draw your own conclusions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
