Is there a part of colonialism that views the colonies as not part of the core territory? I know the French tried really hard to believe Algeria was part of France, but somehow I feel like deep down they knew it to be a tenuous case. Similarly with India and even the US to an extent. Britain treated none of its colonies as “full equals” so to speak, and that’s reflected in its mercantilist policies.
Moving on to IL’s policy outlines, I guess we’re approaching more practical applications of the ideas we’ve been discussing. It’s fairly clear that those policies won’t ever work, but the question is why. I don’t think it’s simply because the international norms and standards have changed, but that’s part of it. It’s also a valid point that you would quickly have a revolt on your hands if you implemented only a few of these policies. However, IL, your comment
@Imperious:
They had to agree to allow the transfer of power in the first place. Are they just to then say “Wait we have to work to make our situation better?” Or " I just thought everything was gonna be handed to us on a silver platter like before." I think not! If they want to rebel, then the host nation should just leave and never do business or trade with them again. call it the “let them rot idea”.
does seem to imply that the people who are colonized are themselves responsible for the situation that they find themselves in. I partly agree with this statement, as post-colonial Africa has been wracked by wars, famine, etc. in many ways due to the corruption of its own politicians. But that doesn’t exonerate the European and American (slavery) colonial powers either. The question is how much, and that is very difficult.
And I think you’ve got a strawman here as well. In my travels to former colonies, the last attitude I find is one of entitlement. Rather, I think your comments are reflective of US attitudes towards Mexico, which is not quite on point. Even then, migrant workers come here to work, not for a handout. Almost all are lured not by the potential for care in a social system, but for the opportunity for work that doesn’t exist in their home country.
In addition, I don’t think any colony in history actually agreed to the transfer of power as a matter of democratic decision-making or even autarkic decision-making either. Remember, India resisted, so did the Philippines, and New Zealand fought the British almost to a standstill (reflected in the strong Maori culture today). In addition, I don’t think it’s always or even often possible for former colonists to leave a country to its own devices. International economics and sometimes sheer necessity pushes hard against this. Just think of Iraq, India, and China as prominent examples.
Again, I remain unconvinced that colonial projects would actually have a chance of succeeding. If we’re going to take a more practical turn in the discussion, then I would need examples of the unmitigated benefits that colonialization provides. But seeing as how I don’t usually have internet access over the weekend, this might be something I’ll get to next week. :-)
