Joelcool7 said:
pariz said:
Man, I thought you knew what you were talking about. After some statements you made, now I seriously doubt it.
You can take my piece of advice, or not, but reality is not what a specific group of people say to legetimize their doings. I recommend, if you are really interested on this subject, to read material from "the opposite shelve" (I know this might not be clear - that's the literal translation of a spanish idiom which means sources which are ideologically different or opposite).
Maybe we use a different dictionary, but colonialism is a form of abuse: is the violation of a country's sovereignty.
This is not a matter of settlers going from one country to a different land (which was never not populated). This is a matter of powerful entities (foreing goverments and multinational companies which exploit minerals, oils, forest for medicines and drugs, etc.) making a huge use of their power, in alliance with rich elites in this countries, to set politics which help them to get REAL rich as the local country gets more economically dependent and regular people gets poorer.
I think you don't get it. You don't know what is like to see how international monsters with no face rip your country and your pride in two. How they buy wills. And resources. How they empty all the natural richness of your country, and how they come and do whatever they want.
That's the pride of south americans. That's the main reason why anti - whatever exists, regardless of what you've been told.
I am descendent of europeans. That doesn't change a single fact.
|
Seriously thats not exactly the text book definition of colonization. Colonial powers invade another place moving citizens in and taking over an area. They start colonies and over time take over a countries soverienty. Now you have it part right, but just because someone violates your soveriegnty that doesn't make them a colonial power.
Also your definition is mostly about foreign companies taking over. International Monsters with no face rip your country apart. Now I know in South America their is alot of logging companies, fuel companies , factories , mines etc...etc... that are run by foreigners.
You call that colonization, that isn't colonization that is globalization. You don't think I understand that, here in Canada their isn't a single department store that is Canadian. Walmart , Zellers(Used to be Canadian) Sears, The Bay (Used to be Canadian). Our coffee joints..... Now you talk about raping the land... so lets talk about the foreign oil companies from Britain , USA etc...etc...pumping oil out of the oil sands in Alberta which is killing all the fish and birds. Or how about all the Japanese , American , British lumber companies cutting down our forests and shipping the lumber to other countries. Or how about the big french and British mining companies currently mining the crap out of our mineral deposits.
This is globalization not colonization. In a globalized community all countries use one another to advance their ways of life.
So yes I know what your talking about, also I know in South America employees are paid poorly and the resources are being raped especially the rainforests. But you know what the rest of the world is being raped in the same way. I'm sure in other countries their are Canadian companies, Columbian companies , Argentinian companies , Venezuelen companies , Brazilian companies raping some other country up the ____.
Thats what free trade is, and I know many South American countries are opposed to free trade. But free trade does often benefit most countries. Now yes the US benefits way more then anyone else but we also benefit.
Now if you still don't think I know what I'm talking about then feel free to educate me.
P.S - How did we go from helping Mexico end its drug war to talking about how I apparently don't know what colonialization is?
|
I am in no position to educate you and as I may have sounded as if I was saying that, I politely apologize. I just wanted to point out that reality is not something given, but created my people and therefore influentiated by personal interests. Therefore, the need to try to understand how "the others" see and feel the world and why they do what they do.
You pointed out a particular definition of colonization, which could be consider more "technical" or cientific than mine, which I don't. My definition, which is the definition some people in the southern region of the globe use, says that colonization can be held in many ways: politicaly, economicaly, culturaly, military, etc. Colonization in my book is that process in which a stronger state guarantees the resources of a weaker one, by itself or by others which do it for it, regardless of it achieves that with military power or other means. This, in most cases, includes abuses such as different standards for foreigners which are representative of the "metropolis", disrespect of rights of the locals, low standards of quality for workers, etc.
By this definition, regardless of the fact that lots of countries in the world are romanticaly and legaly refered as independent countries, they are not.
Now, it is true that even if I want to keep my definition, you are right about globalization. It is really hard to identify a country as a colonizator over other one which is being colonized, just because multinational enterprises are just, multinational and not necesarily representative of their countries.
But when countries as USA, China, Rusia, France or whichever make a use of international organizations as the UN or NATO which coincidentialy help (and not slightly) of the international coorporations which are flagged with their flag, well then, shouldn't we be suspicious?
One last thing: free trade is advantegeous for those countries which are in a similar level of developtment. That would be the case of a south american free trade union. The problem for northern countries? They loose markets and the goods they were receiving from those countries suddenly become more expensive. That's why always, in the shadows, they try to negotiate individualy with each country, as they did with Chile.
When countries are not in the same level, then this free trade unions are just advantegoeus for the more powerful ones and the others are just providing those with cheap raw materials. Yes, that's right. My definition of colonization again.
I want to thank you for your very civil and educated approach to this discussion and I want to insist on my apologize if I was rude.