Message-ID: <32B318A0.3C37@erols.com> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 13:14:08 -0800 From: "Garvey J. Dyer" <mailto:gdyer@EROLS.COM> Subject: Re: Colonialism To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Hi all,V kr.pAsundar's point is well taken (appended to this message). I would like to clarify it a little bit further. I can't recall the exact quote from that naturalist, but it goes something like this: 'What we observe, is not Nature, but Nature seen through our methods of analysis'.
The analysis of the dynamics that lead to the former colony's plight are interesting because, the class struggle that sometimes takes place to cause the power to change hand (or end), is not immediately apparent. In one scenario the masses stay oppressed because the local elite that inherit the power is as much, if not more corrupt than the former colonists. In that scenario very little socio-economic *structural* rearrangement takes place, after the 'liberation' of the former colony. This is commonly referred to as neo-colonialism. I call it neo-slavery-ism because this system is military in essence ('army of occupation'), and is utterly inhumane, brutal and repressive.
In the second scenario, a genuine socio-economic *revolution* takes place to relieve the condition of the people, but it is quickly labeled *red army sponsored communist terror* by the western world. And the western military-industrial complex makes it a duty to go and collide head on with the small emerging nation.
Of course, there are shades of grey in between the two scenarios. And other factors can complicate the situation further. Active cultural annihilation (or the attempt), not being the least of those factors, will leave the new nation confused and restless. This aspect has been addressed in a movie called 'The Mission'. ___________ Garvey Dyer Bethesda, MD (USA) Internet: mailto:gdyer@erols.com
--------- Reply Separator ----------
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". [...]
v kr.pAsundar wrote: > 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