Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?

by tootired2care 52 Replies latest social current

• 

  tootired2care

  Throughout several past threads various posters have emphatically made the point that countries like Great Britian, United States, France etc. (white countries), are to blame for the poverty in most third world nations. Some have even went so far as to suggest that the first world is to blame for all third world conditions.

  I see explanations such as these for why a country hasn't provided clean water, some food, and basic sanitation for its people:

  • All of the minerals were stolen by the Anglo's, and therefore the country can't do anything about it.
  • The Anglo's setup an puppet government, and that is why the people are poor in this or that third world country many decades later

  I do concede that in some instances the interventionist and imperialistic policies of the past are directly to blame for poverty now. I do not however, buy the argument that the bulk of third world poverty was caused by the first world. In fact there were third world countries that had interference, and yet have done fantastically well by emulating ideas like capitalism from the west. Countries such as Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and even India (despite the many poor that they do have in their ranks) come to mind.

  What do you think, is the west to blame for the bulk of third world poverty or not?
• 

  designs

  Colonialism and Imperialism in all its forms and from all its sources around the globe tends to hold the indigenous peoples in a backward setting. They are relegated to second class status and it can take centuries to regain self rule and self independence.
• 

  prologos

  These countries are richer now than they would have been if left to their own devices and in isolation, but

  The ascendencies of the Europeans was due to climate, crops, resources, tough battles and might not have racial roots.

  Where would the bricks be without air conditioning? going to Mars?

  They are!
• 

  designs

  A study of South Africa gives a history repeated around the globe.
• 

  tootired2care

  A study of South Africa gives a history repeated around the globe.

  Can you expound on that thought a bit? What specifically are you referring to in the SA past? Because as it stands right now SA is one of the 10 richest countries in Africa, and not a third world nation.
• 

  prologos

  many of the wars now fought in these countries seem to be the result of borders left by the colonial powers as they withdrew, ignoring ancient tribal territories. The colonial powers forced new battles on the natives.

  Of course these countries would be richer if the colonial powers had paid modern-time's Royalties on the resouces export back then. but

  given what we know now, would it not have ended up in the hands of the proverbial Imeldas? Paris playboys? and

  think of these countries without the benefit of all the imported ideas, technology. In case of war you would not have to "bomb them back to the stone age",-

  they would be in the stone age-, like at the time the white man arrived, but

  how about the pyramids, the ankor wat, the great Chinese inventions?

  Squalor is normally not the result of beeing pushed down* but failure or inability to lift up, organize, clean up.

  * notable noble exceptions the victims of Nazi atrocities.

  ??
• 

  fulltimestudent

  There are multiple factors involved in poverty. But one unassailable fact should be taken into consideration - for most of human history, the bulk (80-90%) of people were peasant farmers. Government taxation and agrarian landlords were factors to be ccnsidered in the well-being (or not) of peasant farmers.

  The climb to prosperity is not well understood, perhaps because a large population of middle class people is a fairly recent phenomenon.

  Clearly, industrialisation played a part in the prosperity attributable to western modernity. However, poverty was still a feature of working class life until the age of social revolution in the early 20th century. (Think of the labour unrest in the USA, in the late 19th and the first half of the 20th C).

  Urbanisation seems to play a role, but in say the Roman empire, the urban poor were likely in a worse situation that the agrarian poor. They were kept alive by government handouts. In rural areas, the large rural estates of the aristocracies were worked by slave labour, making slavery (of one kind or another) another factor to be taken into consideration.

  In China, the most successful example of huge numbers of people moving from poverty to a middle class life, urbanisation is considered an important factor. But in other poor countries, urbanisation leads to the creation of huge slums. Its ten years since I was in Manila (Philippines) but the deep poverty of the lowest levels of philippino society had a profoundly saddening affect on me. The sight of hundreds of kids begging, in one of the main roads overwhelmed me.
• 

  Gregor

  Bill Clintons history with the Haiti money pit is a fascinating case study in corruption. The starving wretches in the dirt are the bottom line.
• 

  Laika

  Tt2c, I expect designs was referring to apartheid. There is a very deep and widespread poverty in South Africa. It's resources are not shared fairly, albeit getting slowly better.

  In answer to your OP, there are other factors, such as the difficulty of growing crops in Africa compared to Europe, which made advancement more difficult, however, we have far from helped the situation.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  It could be true.

  I think the US would still be a 3rd World country if it hadn't been under the loving wing of King George.

  Oh, wait. The earlier citizens fought a war to kick out that SOB and his cronies and went on to establish independence.

  Maybe all those 3rd World countries should quit taking hand-outs from the King and do it on their own.

  You're always in debt to the man with the money purse who holds the strings.

  Doc