Remember how white people made all those nations poor by interfering?
Like Mongolia and southeastern Europe, it can never be their own fault for running their nations into the ground.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
@SatanBurger The blame for why nations exist economically as they do today. I doubt it was a result of the involvement of outsiders.
Aside from the people we are still blowing their houses apart currently
Aside from the people we are still blowing their houses apart currently
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@Jackaloftheazuresand I think it did for sure. This link sums up my views pretty well but the interesting part is related to metacolonization towards the end. There's a part that explained about Africa being a shanty town because of a combination of them being a toxic waste dump for western countries.
https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/143/139
https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/143/139
Jackaloftheazuresand · 26-30, M
@SatanBurger I love his dig at globalism.
His stance seems to be that because colonialism gave way to production and innovations for the colonizers that in turn made their society idolized and continues their power. It does but that's the fault of his countrymen. It's indirect and I don't usually deal in that.
His stance seems to be that because colonialism gave way to production and innovations for the colonizers that in turn made their society idolized and continues their power. It does but that's the fault of his countrymen. It's indirect and I don't usually deal in that.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@Jackaloftheazuresand Well I believe in cause and effect consequences to everything we do so direct and indirect are part of the same problem, just in my opinion. I like the article because it focuses on who gets the power and who benefits from it. That's important when deciding how much harm colonization actually did or didn't do when put in that perspective.