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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (299796)	9/24/2002 2:35:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Not at all. I am saying that by and large, the introduction of science and technology, of professional civil administration and the modern infrastructure of communications and transportation, of modern medicine and education, was an improvement. Obviously, there remained problems, including the discontent of native elites with being patronized, or the disruption of tribal culture. However, modernization is better than stagnation, in the long run, and imperialism was a useful instrument in forwarding that project. As for being foolishly set free, in most colonies, they were not at all slaves. Indeed, someone like Nehru was practically more British than Indian, having been educated in England since he was a lad, and Gandhi first began social activism as a lawyer in South Africa, at first more influenced by Tolstoy than the Bhagavad- Gita. Increasing numbers of natives were being brought into the civil service, particularly in British and French colonies, and local councils were encouraged. The problem is that there was not enough time to allow the devolution of stable institutions into native hands, or to ensure that the business of completing essential infrastructural development was done. Just guessing, I would say that decolonization, beginning in the late '40s and mostly over by the mid- '60s, was about 50 years premature.......