NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine if America took, kept, and made states out of all those countries and territories filled with brown people that we conquered. The US would look like this.

We would have:
Japan,
The Philippines,
Libya,
Mexico,
Panama,
Nicaragua,
Cuba,
Marshall Islands,
Microneisia,
Indonesia,
Malaysia,
Egypt,
Liberia,
Somilia,
Papua New Guinea,
Lebanon,
Guam,
Wake Island,
North Mariana Islands,
Iraq,
Afganistan, and
Puerto Rico.

How far back are you going? I noticed you've got Cuba, which puts it at the end of the Victorian Era. So can Brits do the same? Imagine all the places we'd have if we still occupied every country we'd ever taken-
France,
Canada,
USA,
Germany
shall I go on?

Is there a point to this thread, or is it just more arrogant flag waving?

How far back are you going? I noticed you've got Cuba, which puts it at the end of the Victorian Era. So can Brits do the same? Imagine all the places we'd have if we still occupied every country we'd ever taken-
France,
Canada,
USA,
Germany
shall I go on?

Is there a point to this thread, or is it just more arrogant flag waving?
Appearantly, she's going all the way back to the Barbary wars.
And I see that this has made a point. Unlike a few nations in history, the US returns territories to sovereignty very quickly. By rights, for example, Japan could've remained a US colony, as they did surrender to us. Of course, that's just my take on it.

How far back are you going? I noticed you've got Cuba, which puts it at the end of the Victorian Era. So can Brits do the same? Imagine all the places we'd have if we still occupied every country we'd ever taken-
France,
Canada,
USA,
Germany
shall I go on?

Is there a point to this thread, or is it just more arrogant flag waving?
Appearantly, she's going all the way back to the Barbary wars.
And I see that this has made a point. Unlike a few nations in history, the US returns territories to sovereignty very quickly. By rights, for example, Japan could've remained a US colony, as they did surrender to us. Of course, that's just my take on it.

How far back are you going? I noticed you've got Cuba, which puts it at the end of the Victorian Era. So can Brits do the same? Imagine all the places we'd have if we still occupied every country we'd ever taken-
France,
Canada,
USA,
Germany
shall I go on?

Is there a point to this thread, or is it just more arrogant flag waving?
Appearantly, she's going all the way back to the Barbary wars.
And I see that this has made a point. Unlike a few nations in history, the US returns territories to sovereignty very quickly. By rights, for example, Japan could've remained a US colony, as they did surrender to us. Of course, that's just my take on it.

That's just because of the time they lived in, when it's been less socially and internationally acceptable to retain occupied states as colonies. And they probably learnt from Britain, which had a lot of trouble giving them up...

Imagine if America took, kept, and made states out of all those countries and territories filled with brown people that we conquered. The US would look like this.

We would have:
Japan,
The Philippines,
Libya,
Mexico,
Panama,
Nicaragua,
Cuba,
Marshall Islands,
Microneisia,
Indonesia,
Malaysia,
Egypt,
Liberia,
Somilia,
Papua New Guinea,
Lebanon,
Guam,
Wake Island,
North Mariana Islands,
Iraq,
Afganistan, and
Puerto Rico.

And you are currently occupying parts of or all off:
Panama (the canal)<-- not after Jan 1, 2000
Cuba (Gitmo)
Guam
Wake Island
North Mariana Islands
Iraq
Afganistan, and
Puerto Rico.

How far back are you going? I noticed you've got Cuba, which puts it at the end of the Victorian Era. So can Brits do the same? Imagine all the places we'd have if we still occupied every country we'd ever taken-
France,
Canada,
USA,
Germany
shall I go on?

Is there a point to this thread, or is it just more arrogant flag waving?
Appearantly, she's going all the way back to the Barbary wars.
And I see that this has made a point. Unlike a few nations in history, the US returns territories to sovereignty very quickly. By rights, for example, Japan could've remained a US colony, as they did surrender to us. Of course, that's just my take on it.

That's just because of the time they lived in, when it's been less socially and internationally acceptable to retain occupied states as colonies. And they probably learnt from Britain, which had a lot of trouble giving them up...

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

Imagine if America took, kept, and made states out of all those countries and territories filled with brown people that we conquered. The US would look like this.

We would have:
Japan,
The Philippines,
Libya,
Mexico,
Panama,
Nicaragua,
Cuba,
Marshall Islands,
Microneisia,
Indonesia,
Malaysia,
Egypt,
Liberia,
Somilia,
Papua New Guinea,
Lebanon,
Guam,
Wake Island,
North Mariana Islands,
Iraq,
Afganistan, and
Puerto Rico.

And you are currently occupying parts of or all off:
Panama (the canal)
Cuba (Gitmo)
Egypt (Suez canal)
Guam(a US territory)
Wake Island,
North Mariana Islands,
Iraq,
Afganistan, and
Puerto Rico.[/quote]

We gave up the Panama Canal a few years ago. Now, if we do hang out there, it's because they want us to. And I don't blame them.

Imagine if America took, kept, and made states out of all those countries and territories filled with brown people that we conquered. The US would look like this.

We would have:
Japan,
The Philippines,
Libya,
Mexico,
Panama,
Nicaragua,
Cuba,
Marshall Islands,
Microneisia,
Indonesia,
Malaysia,
Egypt,
Liberia,
Somilia,
Papua New Guinea,
Lebanon,
Guam,
Wake Island,
North Mariana Islands,
Iraq,
Afganistan, and
Puerto Rico.

And you are currently occupying parts of or all off:
Panama (the canal)
Cuba (Gitmo)
Egypt (Suez canal)
Guam(a US territory)
Wake Island,
North Mariana Islands,
Iraq,
Afganistan, and
Puerto Rico.

We gave up the Panama Canal a few years ago. Now, if we do hang out there, it's because they want us to. And I don't blame them.[/quote]

Noted and corrected.

How far back are you going? I noticed you've got Cuba, which puts it at the end of the Victorian Era. So can Brits do the same? Imagine all the places we'd have if we still occupied every country we'd ever taken-
France,
Canada,
USA,
Germany
shall I go on?

Is there a point to this thread, or is it just more arrogant flag waving?
Appearantly, she's going all the way back to the Barbary wars.
And I see that this has made a point. Unlike a few nations in history, the US returns territories to sovereignty very quickly. By rights, for example, Japan could've remained a US colony, as they did surrender to us. Of course, that's just my take on it.

That's just because of the time they lived in, when it's been less socially and internationally acceptable to retain occupied states as colonies. And they probably learnt from Britain, which had a lot of trouble giving them up...

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

India?
It wasn't easy for us mentally as a nation to give up any of our colonies and accepting we were no longer an Empire.

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

its not so much they wanted to drop them as they didnt have the power left. and all countries need to start as a dictatorship. its the only way to get a country competitive quickly. countries need to have industry, and literacy, and a middle class before they can be a democracy. in korea, china, cuba, south africa, and singapore, dictatorship ws the best thing that could have happened. so, i guess im saying dont bash tin-pot dictators, they are a neccessary evil.

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

its not so much they wanted to drop them as they didnt have the power left. and all countries need to start as a dictatorship. its the only way to get a country competitive quickly. countries need to have industry, and literacy, and a middle class before they can be a democracy. in korea, china, cuba, south africa, and singapore, dictatorship ws the best thing that could have happened. so, i guess im saying dont bash tin-pot dictators, they are a neccessary evil.

That philosophy is flawed on so many fundamental levels....if their European masters had done more then rape their colonial possession of resources much could have been averted...they didn't...they created a dependency on their European overlords...their colonial bureaucracies were staffed by Europeans..their militaries officered by Europeans, the infrastructures of industry and commerce were owend by foreign investors and when Europe let them go the intelligentsia, the money, and the infrastructure fled Asia, Africa, and South America..they left these new nations impoverished with no substantial cadre of trained administrators or economists or military echelon of command and staff. Basically they said.."You are on your own, we can no longer afford to keep you".

Dictatorship is never the solution.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

How far back are you going? I noticed you've got Cuba, which puts it at the end of the Victorian Era. So can Brits do the same? Imagine all the places we'd have if we still occupied every country we'd ever taken-
France,
Canada,
USA,
Germany
shall I go on?

Is there a point to this thread, or is it just more arrogant flag waving?
Appearantly, she's going all the way back to the Barbary wars.
And I see that this has made a point. Unlike a few nations in history, the US returns territories to sovereignty very quickly. By rights, for example, Japan could've remained a US colony, as they did surrender to us. Of course, that's just my take on it.

That's just because of the time they lived in, when it's been less socially and internationally acceptable to retain occupied states as colonies. And they probably learnt from Britain, which had a lot of trouble giving them up...

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

India?
It wasn't easy for us mentally as a nation to give up any of our colonies and accepting we were no longer an Empire.
The European nations should've kept them. These empires were on the verge of reforming the global economy for the better, and then a few wars cause them to self destruct. I have my own ideas about exactly how they'd reform world economies, but I won't delve into my lenghty theory unless you ask me to.
Anyhow, the only reason the empires crumbled was because of the two world wars. The first destroyed everyone's army, and it sowed civil unrest throughout empires. The second one guranteed their fall. But I feel that a nation that wanted to really change the world should've held on to its empire. There are a few colonies, for example, that I can't see why Britain wanted to dump them. India, for instance, was on the verge of being a family member, and with a little work, Britain and India would be two powers whose destinies were intertwined, and together, would be a potent force. It's a better option than completely separating. The same goes for Algeria and France.
The US was too selfish, too self-absorbed to take colonies. However, European powers did, and if their empires remained, the global economy would be greater than it is today. But sadly, they fell, and the European empires are now confined to a few sunny islands in the Pacific and Carribean.

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

its not so much they wanted to drop them as they didnt have the power left. and all countries need to start as a dictatorship. its the only way to get a country competitive quickly. countries need to have industry, and literacy, and a middle class before they can be a democracy. in korea, china, cuba, south africa, and singapore, dictatorship ws the best thing that could have happened. so, i guess im saying dont bash tin-pot dictators, they are a neccessary evil.

That philosophy is flawed on so many fundamental levels....if their European masters had done more then rape their colonial possession of resources much could have been averted...they didn't...they created a dependency on their European overlords...their colonial bureaucracies were staffed by Europeans..their militaries officered by Europeans, the infrastructures of industry and commerce were owend by foreign investors and when Europe let them go the intelligentsia, the money, and the infrastructure fled Asia, Africa, and South America..they left these new nations impoverished with no substantial cadre of trained administrators or economists or military echelon of command and staff. Basically they said.."You are on your own, we can no longer afford to keep you".

they also built infrastructure. and they did build bureaucracies. i never said that what the europeans did was good. they dug the third world a huge hole. when they left they took the foundation with them. what i am saying is that if these countries want to catch up with the rest of the world, the only way they can do it is through dictators and resistance to free trade. you said what was unfortunate about decolonization was that it paved the way for dictators. what im saying is that an enlightened dictator is the best way a country can modernize. and maybe societally the europeans screwed over africa, asia, etc, but ethiopioia was never colonized and they are lacking in firm leadership, foreign capital, etc. i dont know that many countries would have kept pace with the modern world colonization or not. the west brought medicine and food and new farming techniques. it created cities and electricity and telephones. there were good parts to colonization. there are good parts to dictatorships. its easy to knock the colonizers, but did you ever think they might have done something good too?

except america. theres really nothing the colonizers did for the american indians. you really cant argue for genocide.

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

its not so much they wanted to drop them as they didnt have the power left. and all countries need to start as a dictatorship. its the only way to get a country competitive quickly. countries need to have industry, and literacy, and a middle class before they can be a democracy. in korea, china, cuba, south africa, and singapore, dictatorship ws the best thing that could have happened. so, i guess im saying dont bash tin-pot dictators, they are a neccessary evil.

That philosophy is flawed on so many fundamental levels....if their European masters had done more then rape their colonial possession of resources much could have been averted...they didn't...they created a dependency on their European overlords...their colonial bureaucracies were staffed by Europeans..their militaries officered by Europeans, the infrastructures of industry and commerce were owend by foreign investors and when Europe let them go the intelligentsia, the money, and the infrastructure fled Asia, Africa, and South America..they left these new nations impoverished with no substantial cadre of trained administrators or economists or military echelon of command and staff. Basically they said.."You are on your own, we can no longer afford to keep you".

they also built infrastructure. and they did build bureaucracies. i never said that what the europeans did was good. they dug the third world a huge hole. when they left they took the foundation with them. what i am saying is that if these countries want to catch up with the rest of the world, the only way they can do it is through dictators and resistance to free trade. you said what was unfortunate about decolonization was that it paved the way for dictators. what im saying is that an enlightened dictator is the best way a country can modernize. and maybe societally the europeans screwed over africa, asia, etc, but ethiopioia was never colonized and they are lacking in firm leadership, foreign capital, etc. i dont know that many countries would have kept pace with the modern world colonization or not. the west brought medicine and food and new farming techniques. it created cities and electricity and telephones. there were good parts to colonization. there are good parts to dictatorships. its easy to knock the colonizers, but did you ever think they might have done something good too?

except america. theres really nothing the colonizers did for the american indians. you really cant argue for genocide.
I'd be careful arguing about Native Americans with him. He's a Cherokee, but whatever he felt about settlers doing to them, he loves this country too much. Proceed cautiously on this topic.
Anyhow, you're right, and that's why I argue the empires should've been left in place. They were the foundations of many nations, and created a climate of economic and political stability that only a handful of ex-colonies have regained. It almost makes me wish that a new empire started by someone could form. It'd go a long way to ameliorate the miseries suffered on this planet.

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

its not so much they wanted to drop them as they didnt have the power left. and all countries need to start as a dictatorship. its the only way to get a country competitive quickly. countries need to have industry, and literacy, and a middle class before they can be a democracy. in korea, china, cuba, south africa, and singapore, dictatorship ws the best thing that could have happened. so, i guess im saying dont bash tin-pot dictators, they are a neccessary evil.

That philosophy is flawed on so many fundamental levels....if their European masters had done more then rape their colonial possession of resources much could have been averted...they didn't...they created a dependency on their European overlords...their colonial bureaucracies were staffed by Europeans..their militaries officered by Europeans, the infrastructures of industry and commerce were owend by foreign investors and when Europe let them go the intelligentsia, the money, and the infrastructure fled Asia, Africa, and South America..they left these new nations impoverished with no substantial cadre of trained administrators or economists or military echelon of command and staff. Basically they said.."You are on your own, we can no longer afford to keep you".

they also built infrastructure. and they did build bureaucracies. i never said that what the europeans did was good. they dug the third world a huge hole. when they left they took the foundation with them. what i am saying is that if these countries want to catch up with the rest of the world, the only way they can do it is through dictators and resistance to free trade. you said what was unfortunate about decolonization was that it paved the way for dictators. what im saying is that an enlightened dictator is the best way a country can modernize. and maybe societally the europeans screwed over africa, asia, etc, but ethiopioia was never colonized and they are lacking in firm leadership, foreign capital, etc. i dont know that many countries would have kept pace with the modern world colonization or not. the west brought medicine and food and new farming techniques. it created cities and electricity and telephones. there were good parts to colonization. there are good parts to dictatorships. its easy to knock the colonizers, but did you ever think they might have done something good too?

except america. theres really nothing the colonizers did for the american indians. you really cant argue for genocide.
I'd be careful arguing about Native Americans with him. He's a Cherokee, but whatever he felt about settlers doing to them, he loves this country too much. Proceed cautiously on this topic.
Anyhow, you're right, and that's why I argue the empires should've been left in place. They were the foundations of many nations, and created a climate of economic and political stability that only a handful of ex-colonies have regained. It almost makes me wish that a new empire started by someone could form. It'd go a long way to ameliorate the miseries suffered on this planet.

i was saying the take over of america was a really raw deal for the native americans. there was no silver lining to that cloud.

i think decolonization had to happen. the 60's were an ideal time. the governments of colonies were still in place. the nations were debt free. america was pouring in foreign aid. then came the wto. and yeah, i know it makes me sound like a tree hugging hippie, but it really is the reason. the shitty dictators borrowed from the wto back in theseventies and then left the country. the interest is crippling. it takes up the majority of africa's government budget. countries could get their economies rolling without dictators if they werent being held back. you dont need to hope for a new empire, just no more cia and swiss banks. many countries were developing prretty well until they got into debt. most of them were building pretty stable governments untill the slew of coups in the cold war. they are screwed up because the first world made them that way, not because they are incapable.

China Major:

China Proper
Mongolia
Korea
Japan
Burma
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Thailand
adjacent islands such as Spratly Islands, Borneo etc.
etc.

you dont need to hope for a new empire, just no more cia and swiss banks. many countries were developing prretty well until they got into debt. most of them were building pretty stable governments untill the slew of coups in the cold war. they are screwed up because the first world made them that way, not because they are incapable.

No more Swiss Banks? You seem to forget that democracy only works in developed countries, and it does so for a reason. MONEY. To support a stable democracy a country requires a certain (high) value of economy (the number eludes me) a developing 3rd world country doesn't have this, hence the coups, regime changes, and civil wars.

That’s half the reason the most effective method of government in a developing country is a monarchy. How many of Europe’s great powers, Brittian (excluding Ireland and including Nth Ireland), France, Spain, Germany, Russia etc, started as monarchies?

The reason the (now) 3rd world countries did so well under these nations/empires, is that they provided the economy, the infrastructure, and the stable government. When these left, the economy couldn’t support the current system of government.

brown people, haha :D

you dont need to hope for a new empire, just no more cia and swiss banks. many countries were developing prretty well until they got into debt. most of them were building pretty stable governments untill the slew of coups in the cold war. they are screwed up because the first world made them that way, not because they are incapable.

No more Swiss Banks? You seem to forget that democracy only works in developed countries, and it does so for a reason. MONEY. To support a stable democracy a country requires a certain (high) value of economy (the number eludes me) a developing 3rd world country doesn't have this, hence the coups, regime changes, and civil wars.

pouring money in is fine. charging interests like loan sharks cripples economies. thats what im saying. and that was what i was trying to say. they cant be democracy untiul they are rich. but no country will get rich by using all itstax money to pay off some place in switzerland for money its dictator ran off with twenty years ago. the us causes civil wars and coups too. ever read about the school of the americas?


That’s half the reason the most effective method of government in a developing country is a monarchy. How many of Europe’s great powers, Brittian (excluding Ireland and including Nth Ireland), France, Spain, Germany, Russia etc, started as monarchies?


couldnt agree more. dictatorships are just diamond encrusted dictatorships.

The reason the (now) 3rd world countries did so well under these nations/empires, is that they provided the economy, the infrastructure, and the stable government. When these left, the economy couldn’t support the current system of government.
well, that and the fact that they used too be able to export their raw materials more fairly. and its not like the success of the colonies was shared by the people.

Lot of trouble?...shoot...after WW2..UK couldn't drop their former colonies fast enough..Europe was so cashed strapped after WW2 they dropped their former colonial possession so much like hot potatoes..that's why in the 50'-60's there was a slew of new nations accepted into the UN. Unfortunately in the doing so sowed the seeds for the initial corrupt tin-pot dictators to occur in Asia and Africa and South America.

its not so much they wanted to drop them as they didnt have the power left. and all countries need to start as a dictatorship. its the only way to get a country competitive quickly. countries need to have industry, and literacy, and a middle class before they can be a democracy. in korea, china, cuba, south africa, and singapore, dictatorship ws the best thing that could have happened. so, i guess im saying dont bash tin-pot dictators, they are a neccessary evil.

That philosophy is flawed on so many fundamental levels....if their European masters had done more then rape their colonial possession of resources much could have been averted...they didn't...they created a dependency on their European overlords...their colonial bureaucracies were staffed by Europeans..their militaries officered by Europeans, the infrastructures of industry and commerce were owend by foreign investors and when Europe let them go the intelligentsia, the money, and the infrastructure fled Asia, Africa, and South America..they left these new nations impoverished with no substantial cadre of trained administrators or economists or military echelon of command and staff. Basically they said.."You are on your own, we can no longer afford to keep you".

they also built infrastructure. and they did build bureaucracies. i never said that what the europeans did was good. they dug the third world a huge hole. when they left they took the foundation with them. what i am saying is that if these countries want to catch up with the rest of the world, the only way they can do it is through dictators and resistance to free trade. you said what was unfortunate about decolonization was that it paved the way for dictators. what im saying is that an enlightened dictator is the best way a country can modernize. and maybe societally the europeans screwed over africa, asia, etc, but ethiopioia was never colonized and they are lacking in firm leadership, foreign capital, etc. i dont know that many countries would have kept pace with the modern world colonization or not. the west brought medicine and food and new farming techniques. it created cities and electricity and telephones. there were good parts to colonization. there are good parts to dictatorships. its easy to knock the colonizers, but did you ever think they might have done something good too?

except america. theres really nothing the colonizers did for the american indians. you really cant argue for genocide.
I'd be careful arguing about Native Americans with him. He's a Cherokee, but whatever he felt about settlers doing to them, he loves this country too much. Proceed cautiously on this topic.
Anyhow, you're right, and that's why I argue the empires should've been left in place. They were the foundations of many nations, and created a climate of economic and political stability that only a handful of ex-colonies have regained. It almost makes me wish that a new empire started by someone could form. It'd go a long way to ameliorate the miseries suffered on this planet.

i was saying the take over of america was a really raw deal for the native americans. there was no silver lining to that cloud.

i think decolonization had to happen. the 60's were an ideal time. the governments of colonies were still in place. the nations were debt free. america was pouring in foreign aid. then came the wto. and yeah, i know it makes me sound like a tree hugging hippie, but it really is the reason. the shitty dictators borrowed from the wto back in theseventies and then left the country. the interest is crippling. it takes up the majority of africa's government budget. countries could get their economies rolling without dictators if they werent being held back. you dont need to hope for a new empire, just no more cia and swiss banks. many countries were developing prretty well until they got into debt. most of them were building pretty stable governments untill the slew of coups in the cold war. they are screwed up because the first world made them that way, not because they are incapable.
When someone yanks the rug from another man's feet, they fall. That's what decolonization did. In very few examples did nations even leave slowly. If decolonization was peaceful, all it was a treaty signing, a handshake, and that's it. They had the infrastructure pulled out from them too quickly. You also mentioned that during the sixties, US aid flowed in. Did it ever occur to you that the aid went into the wrong hands, somehow?
Perhaps an imperial system would never fully develope an economy of its colony, but it didn't need to. I'm sure it'd be a more powerful empire if the mothercountry and the colonies were equally developed, but it wasn't a necessity. All the colonies had to do was supply raw materials, and in exchange, the mothercountry would give enough money to sustain a nice economy there (it could even be private sector), and enough to fund a government bureaocracy. How they used it was a different matter.
Quite literally, the only former colonies that are seriously underdeveloped are in Africa. The colonies in Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas bounced back to some extent, but not Africa. That's because the Europeans had no interest in Africa whatsoever. Perhaps a little ivory trading took place down there, but that was about it. The only reason Africa was even colonized was for competition among the empires. When Africa gained independence, the continent became the heart of darkness. At least under the empires, they got what they needed to live. No such luxury, anymore. The empires also provided a sense of stability to their colonies, including Africa. Since the sixties, has Africa been a stable place?
Despite it being a taboo, imperialism is not a bad thing. Rather, it's a win-win relationship, and it's more intimate and cohesive than even globalization. The US was extremely lucky that it was one of the few ex-colonies that made it all the way, but unfortunatly, that's not the case for most of them.

Those of you who lament the end of Europe's empires: The Colony/Mother country relationship was not mutual symbiosis, it was exploitative and often brutal. European nations took colonies to gain natural resources and expand markets for their goods. If the local population resisted, they were subdued.
As well as hindering political development, colonialism inflicts deep wounds in the psyche of a nation. Most people are at least somewhat proud of where they're from, imagine being constantly reminded that your community is subservient to another. Why do you think there is so much nationalism and religious fundamentalism in the arab world? They've been ruled over for so long (under the Ottomans, the British, and US/Soviet puppet dictators), that all they have to fall back on is a sense of national and religious pride. Of course their political development will be slow, they've never been given a chance.

US aid to developing nations (former colonies) went to the people who were strong enough to maintain the free-market system. Corrupt dictatiors? Brutal autocrats? Sure, as long as they ain't commies. US hostility towards any leftist government, democratically elected or violently installed, is what drove so many to the Soveits (who were almost as exploitative with their bitch-nations as US multinationals were with ours).

Those of you who lament the end of Europe's empires: The Colony/Mother country relationship was not mutual symbiosis, it was exploitative and often brutal. European nations took colonies to gain natural resources and expand markets for their goods. If the local population resisted, they were subdued.
As well as hindering political development, colonialism inflicts deep wounds in the psyche of a nation. Most people are at least somewhat proud of where they're from, imagine being constantly reminded that your community is subservient to another. Why do you think there is so much nationalism and religious fundamentalism in the arab world? They've been ruled over for so long (under the Ottomans, the British, and US/Soviet puppet dictators), that all they have to fall back on is a sense of national and religious pride. Of course their political development will be slow, they've never been given a chance.

US aid to developing nations (former colonies) went to the people who were strong enough to maintain the free-market system. Corrupt dictatiors? Brutal autocrats? Sure, as long as they ain't commies. US hostility towards any leftist government, democratically elected or violently installed, is what drove so many to the Soveits (who were almost as exploitative with their bitch-nations as US multinationals were with ours).
However, the empires did provide economic and political support, though it wasn't enough to all areas. They should've, for example, focused on industrializing these nations, and at the same time, liberalizing their economies. It would've both developed the nations, and preserve the market for the mother country's goods. Any nationalist yearnings would barely exist, especially if they were granted a degree of autonomy. Many colonies do well if all they really have to with their mother countries are to pay them taxes and send troops, but are left alone for their own internal political affairs. And of course, most of the European empires did permit freedom of religion.
And btw, why would the Arabs hate the Ottomans? They were only a stonethrow away from them, and were part of their empire for centuries. The Middle East would be a better place if the Ottoman Empire wasn't broken up. Even if it was broken up internally, at least the Middle East would develop at their own pace, not being bounced between fundementalists, superpowers, etc.

Those of you who lament the end of Europe's empires: The Colony/Mother country relationship was not mutual symbiosis, it was exploitative and often brutal. European nations took colonies to gain natural resources and expand markets for their goods. If the local population resisted, they were subdued.
As well as hindering political development, colonialism inflicts deep wounds in the psyche of a nation. Most people are at least somewhat proud of where they're from, imagine being constantly reminded that your community is subservient to another. Why do you think there is so much nationalism and religious fundamentalism in the arab world? They've been ruled over for so long (under the Ottomans, the British, and US/Soviet puppet dictators), that all they have to fall back on is a sense of national and religious pride. Of course their political development will be slow, they've never been given a chance.

US aid to developing nations (former colonies) went to the people who were strong enough to maintain the free-market system. Corrupt dictatiors? Brutal autocrats? Sure, as long as they ain't commies. US hostility towards any leftist government, democratically elected or violently installed, is what drove so many to the Soveits (who were almost as exploitative with their bitch-nations as US multinationals were with ours).
However, the empires did provide economic and political support, though it wasn't enough to all areas. They should've, for example, focused on industrializing these nations, and at the same time, liberalizing their economies. It would've both developed the nations, and preserve the market for the mother country's goods. Any nationalist yearnings would barely exist, especially if they were granted a degree of autonomy. Many colonies do well if all they really have to with their mother countries are to pay them taxes and send troops, but are left alone for their own internal political affairs. And of course, most of the European empires did permit freedom of religion.
And btw, why would the Arabs hate the Ottomans? They were only a stonethrow away from them, and were part of their empire for centuries. The Middle East would be a better place if the Ottoman Empire wasn't broken up. Even if it was broken up internally, at least the Middle East would develop at their own pace, not being bounced between fundementalists, superpowers, etc.

Those of you who lament the end of Europe's empires: The Colony/Mother country relationship was not mutual symbiosis, it was exploitative and often brutal. European nations took colonies to gain natural resources and expand markets for their goods. If the local population resisted, they were subdued.
As well as hindering political development, colonialism inflicts deep wounds in the psyche of a nation. Most people are at least somewhat proud of where they're from, imagine being constantly reminded that your community is subservient to another. Why do you think there is so much nationalism and religious fundamentalism in the arab world? They've been ruled over for so long (under the Ottomans, the British, and US/Soviet puppet dictators), that all they have to fall back on is a sense of national and religious pride. Of course their political development will be slow, they've never been given a chance.

US aid to developing nations (former colonies) went to the people who were strong enough to maintain the free-market system. Corrupt dictatiors? Brutal autocrats? Sure, as long as they ain't commies. US hostility towards any leftist government, democratically elected or violently installed, is what drove so many to the Soveits (who were almost as exploitative with their bitch-nations as US multinationals were with ours).
However, the empires did provide economic and political support, though it wasn't enough to all areas. They should've, for example, focused on industrializing these nations, and at the same time, liberalizing their economies. It would've both developed the nations, and preserve the market for the mother country's goods. Any nationalist yearnings would barely exist, especially if they were granted a degree of autonomy. Many colonies do well if all they really have to with their mother countries are to pay them taxes and send troops, but are left alone for their own internal political affairs. And of course, most of the European empires did permit freedom of religion.
And btw, why would the Arabs hate the Ottomans? They were only a stonethrow away from them, and were part of their empire for centuries. The Middle East would be a better place if the Ottoman Empire wasn't broken up. Even if it was broken up internally, at least the Middle East would develop at their own pace, not being bounced between fundementalists, superpowers, etc.