Message-ID: <58s8bg$9o8@hassaleh.cedar.buffalo.edu> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:47:12 -0500 From: "v kr.pAsundar" <mailto:kripa@CEDAR.BUFFALO.EDU> Subject: Re: Colonialism To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
David Johnson writes: => "There has never, in history, been a former colony which has => risen from the third world to take its place among the developed nations => in the first world". [...]This is analogous to stating that there has never been a house/family that was plundered and looted, and whose earning members have been killed or maimed, which has since risen to the same level of financial security as the looters. And i think that is largely true of houses as well as nations.
The "developed nations in the first world" are the ones who wreaked the havoc in colonised countries.
=> Has it just been too recent or is there something about the => colonial experience which so shatters a nation that it can't recover?
I hope it is not the case that "it can't recover". It is a very long and difficult haul, however.
=> [...] You can maybe argue about Singapore but that => is really a nation state. [...]
I am confused about "state", "nation", and "nation state". I have heard these terms used in several articles, but am unclear about the distinctions that they draw. What do these terms mean, please? Thanks in advance.
peace, ;; i mean, why would UB have --kr.pA ;; an opinion at *all*?