Do so - please also show alongside the wars, genocides, plagues, social customs, legal systems, educational attainment rates, infrastructure projects, slavery rates and death rates before and after colonisation over say a 100 year period. I'm interested in your information. Seriously.
Posts by Qcmbr
-
52Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?
by tootired2care inthroughout several past threads various posters have emphatically made the point that countries like great britian, united states, france etc.
basically countries where white people exist, are to blame for the poverty in many other 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 often see excuses such as these for why a country refuses to provide clean water, some food and basic sanitation for its people:.
-
-
-
52
Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?
by tootired2care inthroughout several past threads various posters have emphatically made the point that countries like great britian, united states, france etc.
basically countries where white people exist, are to blame for the poverty in many other 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 often see excuses such as these for why a country refuses to provide clean water, some food and basic sanitation for its people:.
-
-
Qcmbr
So you want me to answer for all of the benefits or problems of colonialism with the Congo? No. It is a stupid extreme scenario of course no country does well after it has been bombed colonial or not. Are you able to open up at all and see ANY benefits or are you simply rehearsing an absolute?
..and this example of your inability to see what is being said and simply restating as a strawman:
who gloss over every aspect of history
NOBODY IS
-
52
Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?
by tootired2care inthroughout several past threads various posters have emphatically made the point that countries like great britian, united states, france etc.
basically countries where white people exist, are to blame for the poverty in many other 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 often see excuses such as these for why a country refuses to provide clean water, some food and basic sanitation for its people:.
-
-
Qcmbr
Confused - the difference in my viewpoint is that countries are responsible for themselves - we can't keep excusing their failure to progress using victim language. I think people are more empowered than that.
We also shouldn't pretend that an alternate history that we make up would be better. I have no belief that the violent tribal cultures of the world would be or have been better off without colonialism (and I really have no way to run the clock back and check!) . I'm NOT saying that colonialism was moral or without terrible often genocidal cost ut I am saying that it was incredibaly effective in pushing cultures forward along the path of progress just as Britain benefited from the invasions in her past.
-
52
Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?
by tootired2care inthroughout several past threads various posters have emphatically made the point that countries like great britian, united states, france etc.
basically countries where white people exist, are to blame for the poverty in many other 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 often see excuses such as these for why a country refuses to provide clean water, some food and basic sanitation for its people:.
-
-
Qcmbr
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_Western_European_colonialism_and_colonisation
A good set of resources cited here discussing benefits and problems of colonialism.
-
52
Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?
by tootired2care inthroughout several past threads various posters have emphatically made the point that countries like great britian, united states, france etc.
basically countries where white people exist, are to blame for the poverty in many other 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 often see excuses such as these for why a country refuses to provide clean water, some food and basic sanitation for its people:.
-
-
Qcmbr
No your prejudice means you can't listen or have a dialogue confused.
-
4
Snowpiercer - anyone seen this creative movie?
by berrygerry injust saw it.. anyone seen it and felt like the train was the borg?.
.
.
-
-
Qcmbr
I saw it and couldn't get past the science goofs to enjoy the movie :( . The announcer woman was played perfectly though, pure educated evil.
-
17
Love all the people...
by new hope and happiness inthere are a lot of topics about religiouse hatred, so on a personal level why do you find it difficult to love or like individuals?.
.
.
-
-
Qcmbr
Some people have social qualities that cause me to have visceral biological responses like dry heaves and headaches. These people generally take more than they give or is a just share arguing that it is a biological response. There is a category of person I loathe - the bully - they intimidate me and elicit a fight or flight response.
-
17
Love all the people...
by new hope and happiness inthere are a lot of topics about religiouse hatred, so on a personal level why do you find it difficult to love or like individuals?.
.
.
-
-
Qcmbr
From an evolutionary point of view I do not have the cranial space to form emotional attachments much beyond a few hundred people and beyond that I am forced to conceptualise people in blocks.
Plus some people are ars*holes.
-
33
A Challenge to Apoligists - Why Would a Heavenly Father Kill a Newborn?
by berrygerry inas a father, made in god's love, that has troubled me for a very long time, is that god, as described by the wts, is soon, going to slaughter every, roughly, 7.9 billion people on the planet, because they have figured out a way to come know him as a father according to the wts.. .
as a father, dear apologist, why would you kill/murder a one-day old baby?.
.
-
-
Qcmbr
I asked this question of my Baptist co-worker and in essence he said we exist to worship god, anything he does for us is just and all children who die will have a place in heaven.
I am convinced religion is a form of madness.
-
52
Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?
by tootired2care inthroughout several past threads various posters have emphatically made the point that countries like great britian, united states, france etc.
basically countries where white people exist, are to blame for the poverty in many other 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 often see excuses such as these for why a country refuses to provide clean water, some food and basic sanitation for its people:.
-
-
Qcmbr
Most people who don't read history don't realise that most people are repressed by one system or another. The African tribesman for example was oppressed by the African slave trader, the tribal chiefs, constant tribal warfare and by the religious superstitions taught by the shamans. When Europe was colonising the overall benefit brought to the conquered territories was great just the same way as when the Romans conquered Britain it brought huge benefits that dwarfed any tribute extracted. There is such a lot of liberal angst among so many naive people who don't logically follow through their thinking and just blame great powers for the problems of everyone.
No territories were virgin indigenous land that hadn't already been carved up by politics, wars, tribes , treaties and colonisation (Britain itself has been invaded, colonised, united, broken etc. by Danes, Germans, Normans, Romans, Celts etc.) . Is anyone whinging that Europe's issues stem from post Roman Empire? In fact a cursory look at the break up of the Roman Empire shows how society initially regressed in the chaos (Saxon England stopped using money and abandoned many Roman cities). There were terrible things about the Romans but the systems that they replaced and in turn replaced them were arguably much worse (if you think Roman punishment severe check out the Viking Blood Eagle.)
When Europe colonised it didn't find idyllic societies and simply destroy them; it found cultures ruled by kings , divided and exploited (for example the Indian caste system), slavery was rampant ( especially amongst African nations - have a look at who ran those ) , the rule of law was chaotic and brutal (I was reading one commentary from the time that talked about how British colonial troops stopped the tribal practise of tying a criminal to a post , heating a metal rod and forcing them to slide down the post onto it ). If Europe had never colonised the world it is an utter lie to say they would now, and in the intervening years have been free from war, oppression and exploitation and would be first world countries. Most , without invasion and it's cultural lendings, would still be tribal even today (and I include pre Roman Britain in that.) The spread of democracy , technology, philosophy, legal thought , education and trade are what should be focused on not current wars. Countries suffering war now do so because they are socially still tribal or stratified by political religions over which Western colonisation, influence and nation building is a veneer.
A personal lesson my mum told me from my childhood in Rhodesia. She said you could tell the African owned farms from the European because the Africans reverted to tribal farming (grazing goats or low level corn agriculture as their ancestors had done) , the women did most of the farming and in their culture the men went to the town to discuss important matters (drink and play dice normally!) The European farm would be tended, fertilised, productive (remember when Zimbabwe was Africa's breadbasket?) and would employ lots of local people. Mum said that the culture was for the men (or their wives - yes plural) to earn enough money for today and then to stop working and go spend it and that's what many did. Now wind that forward to post colonial now and those farms are all owned by the Africans, but, surprise surprise the ruling party is oppressing its people, the farms aren't productive, Zimbabwe relies on food imports and their leaders blame Britain.
Squalor , poverty and a nations status is in the hands of its own people and it's own local leaders. Colonialism isn't this collosal force of evil as it is painted. Third world countries are third world because despite all the money, knowledge, culture and technology on offer they cling to older traditional beliefs and practices - Ebola is a salient example, spreading largely through an ignorant and superstitious population living a rural existence and suspicious of 'western' technology.