States are unequally prepared for global economic competition and it is not fair. A solution for this unfairness is if the developed nations of the world who see a country struggling to develop and their people are suffering for it then we should teach them to fish. Look at America and how we developed as a nation. We were born from one of the most powerful empires of all time. We didn’t come into existence by ourselves either; we had a lot of help, if it wasn’t for the rest of Europe especially the French who knows if we would have won our war of independence. When we were born we were the only country on our side of the planet, we had a giant ocean to the east protecting us from the armies or Europe and another giant ocean to the west along with a huge expanse of land. Also after two relatively short wars we have had two friendly neighbors to the North and South. We were able to develop so fast and easily compared to other countries in the world because of these conditions. We never had to devote as much to our military for defense until WWII but we were already industrialized and had been experiencing economic success and failure.
The countries history must also be taken into account when judging the fairness. Earlier I talked about how America was able to develop and succeed much easier compared to a lot of other countries because of the circumstances. Look at countries that are post-colonial. I know there are countries like America, India, and Hong Kong that have been very successful since their former colonial rulers left and either granted them independence or was forced to. Look at Africa, European countries controlled almost the whole continent at one time and except for a select few most countries there aren’t doing well. They have been left with many problems like diseases and political corruption. To be fair to the former colonial rulers some of these colonies were asking for independence when they weren’t ready for it like Algeria, Angola Haiti. Look where they’re at now.
It isn’t fair that some countries are better prepared for global economic success than others. Countries that are successful like the United States and most of Europe should try and help these countries that aren’t as well off. Giving them money hasn’t worked out, their governments have horded the money and aide. A better solution like I stated above would be to teach them how to fish. By helping develop their industries, education systems, agriculture and infrastructure. If we give them some fish they’ll eat for a day, if we teach them how to fish they’ll eat for a lifetime. Also if we teach them how to fish they will buy fishing equipment driving the world economy. Eventually their economy will come full turn when they sell the fish and buy steak.
It isn’t fair that some countries are better suited for global economics and development. As more privileged nations we should help them with their development and economies. Money in the form of short term aide is fine, but money without industry, education, agriculture, infrastructure of the tools to make them is not good. Nothing will come of that country.
Alex:
ReplyDeleteSome political critics like to make the bizarre comparison between Africa and the United States because the US was once a colony. I see you mentioned this in passing in your second paragraph. However, the U.S. was a colony for British settlers. As a colony, the U.S. was in no way stripped of its natural resources or enslaved by their colonial rulers. I wouldn't include America in the examples of successful post-colonial nations. India is a better example.
Also, you wrote "To be fair to the former colonial rulers some of these colonies were asking for independence when they weren’t ready for it like Algeria, Angola Haiti. Look where they’re at now." I don't think you have to be fair to these colonial rulers. The reason countries like Algeria weren't ready for independence was their inherent lack of infrastructure and government. They were never going to be ready. Thus, the struggle of international development still ensues.
Aubrey,
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, I also cited the "bizarre" comparison used above in my own blog post. However, I did so not because I felt that America and Africa are truly comparable, when they clearly are not; rather, I meant to illustrate how ridiculously optimal America's colonial circumstances were, and how unless something approaching these circumstances ever happened in an African colony, that colony's independence would be sure to end in disaster. Sure enough, these circumstances never materialized, and there have been many disasters. Perhaps this is what Alex was going for.
As to your second point, I reject your claim that we don't have to be fair to colonial leaders. Actually, who am I kidding: I think what happened in Africa is just as grotesque as you do. That said, I think your last point is fascinating. Of course Europeans in Africa transformed society to their liking, and of course true economic freedom never would have been achieved under the yoke of mercantilism. But: as I discussed in my own post, what has happened since?
To look at Algeria quickly: since the stabilizing (if, yes, OPPRESSIVE) hand of the French was removed, there has been: a military coup, civil war, a repressive single-party system, repressed media, famine, and the rise of militant Islam. Now, and ONLY now - forty five years after independence - is Algeria begining to find its feet, and still militant cells pose constant danger. And in Algeria - AS WELL AS just about every other post-colonial African state which was touched by colony-implemented and corrupt Native Authority rulers - still sees its native people ruled over by the same corrupt and inefficient systems set up by the British and French and Belgians.The colonists are gone, yes, and bear the blame: but the INSTITUTIONS of racism and separation live on in the system.
So, I guess the question is: Given the way that nascent nationalism makes democratic elections in newly-independent colonies violent, unsteady, and prone to coups; given how these new states are also very prone to civil war (see Angola as well); and given how distateful, racist, and primitive institutions established by the Europeans LIVE ON in Africa anyway, WITHOUT the benefits of stability from those colonists; is it truly worth it to take the travails of independence merely for the fact of being so? It's a meaty question, and a fascinating one: I would be extremely interested to hear your opinion on all this.
Toby:
ReplyDeleteI read your blog to further explore your comments and line of logic here. I don’t think you are making a similar comparison to Alex, seeing as you cited America as the exception and not the rule. Alex included America in a list with India and Hong Kong as examples of post-colonial successes juxtaposed to failures of the African countries. I am merely pointing out what you included in your blog in confirming the idea of American exceptionalism in this regard.
To clarify my point: I am only rejecting the notion that being fair to colonial rulers is required in a moral assessment of post-colonial development. Alex is right. Various colonies in Africa were terribly unprepared for independence. However, all transition periods are expected to be rocky and painful. Whether Algeria was granted its independence in the 1950s or twenty years before, the potential for civil war, famine, and the rise of militant Islam was still looming. Even though France provided stability for the region, I do believe that at some point nations just have to be thrown into independence. The struggle for functioning and stable government with post-colonial circumstances is messy and considerations of time and place don’t necessarily mitigate this ugly reality.
I absolutely agree on the presence of institutions of racism and separation that live on in Africa in the post-colonial era. In evaluating the progress of post-colonial development, it is important to keep in mind our place in the historic timeline. Take Algeria for example. Algeria won its independence from France in an armed struggle from 1954 to 1962. It is currently 2010. That factors to an approximate fifty year gap. This short time frame is relevant because of generation turnover. History shows that true progress in post-colonial development will occur when we are two or three generations out from the independence period. As young college students who have only been alive for eighteen or nineteen years, we often lose sight of that fact.
Could you clarify your last question? I am a little confused as to what you mean by “Is it truly worth it to take the travails of independence merely for the fact of being so?”
Alex, feel free to join in! We did kind of highjack your blog post…
I realize now that I probably should not have included any of those countries with the US. The United States is a very special case. Even when we were under colonial rule we were not enslaved and even if they tried to strip us of our natural resources their were just so many. Also I never thought about whether countries like France or Britain would eventually offer their former colonies like Haiti or the US Independence. I honestly don't think they would unless the colony asked for it and why would they. The colonies were their to support the home country as a source of income and natural resources.
ReplyDelete