Message-ID: <v02140b01aed809848083@DialupEudora> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:47:38 -0600 From: Anselm Erighono <mailto:aerighon@BLUE.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU> Subject: Re: Colonialism To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
What I find most disturbing is that [neo]colonialism, is not over for most developing countries, some have ceased to develop. Now we have compradors. And everyone thinks colonialism is a thing of the pastAnselm
>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*?
Anselm A. Erighono 504 2nd Avenue #4 Coralville, IA 52241
Tel: (319) 351-7591 mailto: aerighon@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu