Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (73112)	1/27/2000 3:09:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

the developed nations, and especially the United States, would like to use them as vehicles for promoting their own vision of order, which those with a quasi- Marxist interpretation of such matters would view with a baneful eye. I don't think that baneful eye is in any way limited to those of Marxist inclination. A lot of thoroughgoing capitalists in the developing world are nervous about the idea of having the big countries writing the rules for their own benefit. For example, the American effort to restrict imports of coconut and palm oil - ostensibly for health reasons, though the corn and soybean producers have their own reasons - is not well looked upon by the big producers, who are in no way Marxist in outlook. They were mostly better off under the aegis of the British and French. Don't speak those words in an ex-colony. Have you ever inquired seriously into conditions in Indochina under French rule? Do you have any idea of the extent of the economic, political, and social distortions imposed by colonial rule? It is no coincidence that the ex-colonies are in such awful shape. For example, do you know why the spinning wheel was a symbol of rebellion for Gandhi's followers? Because in India, a leading producer of cotton, it was illegal to make cloth. Cotton was exported to England, made into cloth, and sent back, and those who couldn't afford it could bloody well go naked. Or we could talk about the British opium trade, the single most profitable drug-running operation ever conducted, and the financial jewel in the British colonial crown. Or the 10,000 "Annamite ingrates" sent to the guillotine for participation in a peaceful independence movement.... Ask an Indonesian about the Dutch sometime. The colonial powers weren't there to spread civilization, they were there to make money and to live in the lap of luxury with small brown people serving their every need - including some that the official histories rarely discuss. How did anyone expect countries in which all political organization had been forbidden for 100 years to govern themselves efficiently? How do you develop a capital infrastructure in a country where all capital is controlled by an occupying power? How develop a functioning economy when the country has been restricted to the role of raw material exporter? Can these problems be solved by letting the occupying power stay on longer? Almost all of the former colonies had to fight for their freedom, and because of that their first free governments were run by fighters. Unfortunately, fighters seldom make good statesmen. But who should take the blame, the people who had to fight or the people who made them fight for a chance at attaining a state that you and I take for granted. is not too late to promote peace and democratic governance through multi- lateral institutions that depend on the resources of the United States for their operations..... I agree. But we won't accomplish this by skewing the trade rules to favor ourselves, or by supporting anti-democratic forces that happen to fit in with our short-term strategic objectives.