Re: What is Racism.?

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:42:27 -0700 (PDT), "deemsbill@xxxxxxx"
<deemsbill@xxxxxxx> wrote:


It's not all self-inflicted by any stretch. "Foreign
investment" has long been a nice way of saying exploitation. In Latin
America, until quite recently...and it's still a huge problem today,
less than 5% of the population have owned over 95% of each country's
wealth. This 5% is usually in bed with foreign investors and business
and will do just about anything to keep its share.

True, but is it much different here except that it is not foreign, well,
not much?

One of Latin America's problems is they've never seemed to be
able to shake the "Jefe" syndrome of rule by autocratic strongmen.
It's really hard to blame the average peole because all most people
want is to be left alone and allowed to live their lives without too
much interference.

It's always the people that take the load.

Revolutions have tended to see the replacement of one group of
despots with another....after the usual killing, rape, looting, etc.
Many coups in these nations have simply been one group of rich
assholes trying to replace the current group...with the vast majority
of the people just trying to keep their heads down. They know nothing
will really change, so they just hope they aren't caught in the
crossfire.

Foreign business investors want stability above anything else, so
they tend to back whomever they see as being able to keep the lid on
things...usually the entrenched rich families backed by the military.


With my sample of one, when the Portuguese/Dutch arrived there weren't any
buildings better than bent sticks and mud. The Colonists left behind
thriving economies, institutions of government, judicial systems,
education, food self-sufficiency etc. and after we withdrew, that went all
to hell... and the begging bowls get proffered.


Africa is a mess, but just blaming the Africans is a mistake.
Colonial powers did a really crappy job of preparing colonies for
independence. Extreme examples are Gabon.....which was the only French
Colony to say "no thanks" to joining the (I can't think of the name
off the top of my head) trade union between France and her former
colonies. The French literally stripped everything of value when they
left, down to the proverbial kitchen sink....and then were shocked, I
say shocked, when Gabon turned to the Soviets for aid.

They all went Soviet regardless of the Colonial power, they chose guns
instead of money..

Zaire would be poster child number two. I mean, the Belgians were
among the crappiest overlords around, but when they "freed" the
Belgian Congo, there were no native doctors, I believe only 2-3 native
engineers, etc, etc. This is an extreme case, but most newly
independant colonies faced similar problems. There was an educated
elite....but many of those had liberal arts, etc degrees....but there
were virtually no trade schools, professional schools, etc. The
colonial powers had been running the railroads, the power plants, the
airlines, etc and there weren't enough natives proficient in their
operation.

True, but after 40 years??? Still a ***-hole.

Add to this the fact that the colonies' infrastructure was geared
towards resource trade with the mother country. The roads, bridges,
railroads, etc tended to connect the resource source with the nearest
port. Often, there was very little connection between cities within
the country.

And then there's the militaries. Often, the most educated and
technologically adept natives were military officers. They saw things
falling apart and decided they could do a better job of running things
than the politicos who were overseeing the chaos. Now, most third
world militaries are crap compared to "real" militaries, but they're
quite sufficient to take over and sit on the locals....that's their
real job in most third world countries...internal security/oppression/
the occasional massacre/maintain the status quo.
true
All of these things have combined to make a mess out of most third
world countries. These things were exacerbated by the Cold War....one
side or the other gave them "aid", but it was often in the form of
weapons....to help "maintain order" or free food/goods which helped
gut the already struggling local economy.
true

The company I was with in the late'80s, had two factories in mainland
China. The work capacity was just amazing and see what they have achieved.
Our fat waddlie ones wouldn't make it till the first lunch break. Work
conditions weren't great eg. talking on the job was a dismissible offence.


Anyone who thinks China is a shining example of progress is
extremely naive. The next decade or so will be "interesting" in the
Chinese sense of the word. They've raised expectations but I'm not
sure they can come close to meeting them for enough of their people.
Remember, the Chinese govt's kneejerk reaction to dissent is still to
squash it. This is an ancient Chinese tradition...when you've got
boatloads of people, what do a few hundred or thousand dead mean?

After the Tiamen square incident. I suggested to an longtime Taiwanese
colleague in Taiwan, that it might mean the coming of Democracy to China,
she just laughed, long and hard and said. "never in a thousand years".

There are striking differences between third world countries with little or
no natural wealth that have pulled themselves up by their boot straps and
resource rich countries that have failed.
.

Loading