Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many third world countries have proven that they are incapable of governing themselves properly. Should we consider reintroducing foreign control over those territories given the following conditions:
1) Voters in the countries would have to vote in favor of foreign control.
2) Voters would have a new referendum every 10 years.
3) The election would have international observers provided by the UN.
Oh, when I saw your thread title, I thought you might be volunteering to be one of the colonized.
How capable is the US in government itself? It hasn't been looking very good the last 20 years or so.... Not sure we're in a position to be judging others.
Many third world countries have proven that they are incapable of governing themselves properly.
I would ask when did Third World countries actually have an opportunity to "govern themselves?" The thread's author seems to be under the impression that once "independence" was declared that independence was a fact in reality. The truth, more accurately told, is that true independence escaped the Third World (which by the way is defined as those nations not aligned with Moscow or Washington) as they were used as political play ground for First and Second.
As for the idea of recolonizing the Third World, how would that change the inherent problem of governing artificially created countries made up of vastly disparate populaces who in many cases still have not bought into a singular national consciousness? Will we reinstate the favoritism of one ruling ethnic group to the disadvantage of all others?
One last failing of the author's idea is this, like those who harken back to the idyllic of bygone era that never existed, independence didn't come about for the vast majority of 3rd World countries as the result of Western magnanimity but years of civil and revolutionary unrest and violence, apparently for the vast majority of these nations the good ole days weren't all that good.
Name the countries? Is it that they were once colonized and then left in a shambles such that now they are "incapable of governing themselves properly"?
What is "properly" - according to what WE think is right?
We can offer aid but why should we stick our noses into their culture and their business?
Sounds like a justification and rationalization to make money from their misery while ostensibly helping them.
I would ask when did Third World countries actually have an opportunity to "govern themselves?" The thread's author seems to be under the impression that once "independence" was declared that independence was a fact in reality. The truth, more accurately told, is that true independence escaped the Third World (which by the way is defined as those nations not aligned with Moscow or Washington) as they were used as political play ground for First and Second.
It's probably a mistake to refer to the "Third World" at all. The planet is a big place, and the situations that might have happened when expansionist powers like the Zulu or Sioux ran up against AngloAmerica are darned different than the history of Burma or, say, the VOC in Java.
Another axis to all of this might be to think about how places like sub-Saharan Africa or South America would be different if the Europeans had never stopped by. While I can see no reason for the Africans to have advanced a bit beyond the technology of 1000 years ago, we could have at least avoided the upcoming population holocaust that is going to happen there.
If a majority of countries are fine with being independent, then maybe the issue isn't with those countries. Maybe it is with those who have a desire to rule over other nations. No one rules over other nations for the benefit of that nation. It does so to take from that nation.
And how many Haitians really want to be a USA territory? Can you prove a majority want this?
There have also been Haitians who've expressed a desire for Haiti to return to French rule. I highly doubt a majority or anything close to it want to return to colonial rule, though. (Pretty sure the Filipinos who want to return to American rule are also a minority).
Oh, when I saw your thread title, I thought you might be volunteering to be one of the colonized.
How capable is the US in government itself? It hasn't been looking very good the last 20 years or so.... Not sure we're in a position to be judging others.
There's a lot more chance of the US being a Chinese colony or Scandinavia being a Muslim colony than there is of any western countries re-establishing formal colonialism (as opposed to the informal colonialism that exists with France vis-a-vis Africa and the US vis-a-vis Central America)
It's probably a mistake to refer to the "Third World" at all.
In the post war era the world was divided into three camps; the First World, the U.S. and the western capitalist states; the Second Word, dominated by the Warsaw Pact nations; and the Third those post colonial nations non-aligned with either. So, in the context of my comments Third World is the perfect description.
You "don't think that statement is true" but you are going to spout your right wing, revisionist bull manure as if it is. Well, it it's not, and if you had bothered to read a history book on Latin America, Asia, or Africa since you took "A Survey of Western Civilization" in freshman year of college, you might actually know that.
The exploitation and genocide against indigenous peoples by colonial powers has been decried for 500 years, beginning with Bartolomeo de Las Casas who wrote A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies in 1542, less than half a century after Columbus discovered the New World and claimed most of it for Spain. It's been translated into English and is still in print and available on Amazon.com.
They were no different than the Ottomans, the Mongols, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Huns, the Persians, the Zulus, and the many tribes from Biblical times. If you can find a spot of land that hasn't been conquered and reconquered since the dawn of mankind you would be living on antartica.
The need for Liberals to want to feel guilty over what Europeans had done in their past is underwhelming. I bet the Ancesters of Atilla the Hun and the Turks don't lose a bit of sleep over their ancestors.
Many third world countries have proven that they are incapable of governing themselves properly. Should we consider reintroducing foreign control over those territories given the following conditions:
1) Voters in the countries would have to vote in favor of foreign control.
2) Voters would have a new referendum every 10 years.
3) The election would have international observers provided by the UN.
We are 20 trillion dollars in debt. I don't really believe we are the best option to bring stability to these countries.
And which countries? When you say they are unable to govern themselves, do you mean they don't govern themselves to our liking?
The answer is no. Colonialism has largely had a negative impact on human history. Look at Africa and the ME. Most of the reason they are they way they are is because of old European colonialism. And your solution to solve that is to... colonize them. That's like sticking the knife back into a stabbing wound hoping it will stop the bleeding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
