Foxy,

Revered mid-20th century economist, Joan Robinson once said.."The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism."

There are many in Australia who whine about us bringing in overseas capital and expertise to develop that which we can't do ourselves. Your article is that same whine but from a different place. Africa needs help to develop and join the 21st century. But there will always dills who don't get that and whine that the help doesn't come free.

Your author also whines about money being 'stolen'. But its not being stolen...he just uses that as an emotive word to suck in the gullible. But it may be obtained by some of his countrymen inappropriately and then stored in Europe as a safe haven. What he's really saying is that his own countrymen are corrupt and he wants someone else to solve that problem. And then he complains of colonialism!!

Of course, were these places left to their own devices and NOT 'exploited', there'd be whining, probably from the same people, that the west won't help them

mhaze,
Perfectly summed up. All we need is to find a way to make all those intellectual experts capable of basic common sense thinking. This is probably the greatest challenge for the World yet !

Canem Malum too is excellent in his summing up of the situations as they arise.

mhaze,

I got a different perspective than you from the
article on the "new colonialism."

The message that I got was that it was about raping
a nation's wealth to make yourself richer (in this
case the British). If we look at the colonialism of
the past history doesn't tell us that it was a
wonderful thing if you look hard at it - it was
about occupying, and suppressing many of the
world's original inhabitants of the conquered lands.
It was about war, greed. It involved the slave trade,
taking machine guns to natives like the Zulus, it was
about controlling a country like India's grain stocks,
and so on. I know many continue to tell us the
British empire was a wonderful thing and they were lucky
that it was the British who came.
That staggers me.

Foxy:

* "raping a nation's wealth to make yourself richer"

No. Its about creating a nations wealth to make everyone richer. A nation might have a lot of natural resources but they are only of value if that nation can access them. And that's where the money and expertise of the west comes in. Force them to stay away and the resources become useless. Now its true that much of that new wealth often doesn't make it into the hands of the people and instead gets expropriated by the nation's elites, but that's a problem for that nation to solve, not western bankers.

or are you advocating the west intervene in these other nations?

* " If we look at the colonialism of the past history"

Well this fictitious "new colonialism" has nothing to do with the old colonialism. But do go on...

*"it was about occupying, and suppressing many of the world's original inhabitants of the conquered lands."

Yes. That's what empire building does. Its been going on since at least Sargon the Great. But bear in mind that many of these 'original inhabitants' welcomed the newcomers. Many were already oppressed and actively helped the Europeans overthrow their native oppressors. Even in Australia, members of one tribe helped police against members of a rival tribe. Cortez had ten of thousands of natives in his army.

*" It involved the slave trade,"

In fact the slave trade had been operating for over 800 yrs before Europeans arrived in Africa.

* "controlling a country like India's grain stocks"

That's factually incorrect. The British bought some grain from India but never controlled the overall grain distribution. The volumes they bought were minor.

*" they were lucky that it was the British who came.That staggers me."

You misunderstand the argument. The view I and others offer is that Australia was going to be occupied by some imperial power. It was inevitable. We, or at least the aboriginals, were lucky that the occupying power was Britain. Had it been someone else there probably wouldn't be an aboriginal issue because there wouldn't be any aboriginals.

Foxy,

What machine guns were used against the Zulu?

There were two sides to the slave trade at point of origin, the buyers and the sellers.

In the African slave trade do you know who the sellers were?

In the African slave trade do you know who the sellers were?
is Mise,
You shouldn't corner do-gooders with such obvious questions, it only makes them say "see you on another thread".

Greed has no limits. I have made a point of watching ordinary working folk such as I doing their Tax returns. It was an eye-opener. They would have written off breathing or being stupid if they could !
The slave sellers & traders & in more cases than would be admitted to, the slaves themselves exploited everything that was exploitable, even each other !
Nothing has changed in the modern age !
It's a perfectly normal human trait even among do-gooders !