Independence: The Dream?

This may be a touchy subject but this is something that I have been wondering for a while, a lot of countries became independent in the 20th century breaking off from the respective empires, some sooner than others. But what I want to understand is that has any country fully benefited or reached the proclaimed potential of independence.

I know some will argue that independence is also a state of mind, or but that’s not what I’m trying to touch here; more so the physical or animate, measurable aspect.

I will put my opinion down, as this is my opinion that can be changed like anybody/everybody else. My opinion is that I don’t think it these countries have benefited as so much from independence while not dwelling to ‘why’ as of yet, most now independent states have ended worse off (debt, infrastructure, teaching etc) than when they were governed by whatever colonial power, well known corruption, lack of or one sided foreign investment, Constant aid, unstable governments etc

Obviously I’m not saying that these countries are forever incapable of doing what is needed. I remember thinking ’yeah but change doesn’t happen over night’ then I realised that most of these countries were shown the western civilisation (law, order, morals, governance) and under it for centuries, so they ’know how and what’ have the fundamentals there , yet in fact most have reverted backwards.

I was thinking about polling this, but to the point of what exactly especially as this can be seen as a grey area with varying views, half truths and what not.

I would to hear you views, ideals, opinions, theories, reasons why etc

Please note I AM NOT solely blaming anyone/power/country/incident as there’s a number of contributing factors perhaps.

Independence certainly worked against us... Our empire fell and we're no longer a super power.

Just thought I'd look at it from a different perspective to the one you're requesting.

Going by your location I assume you refer to the (former) British Empire?

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Going by your location I assume you refer to the (former) British Empire?

Going off topic a bit (perhaps a thread should be created for it) but yes i agree "Our empire fell and we're no longer a super power".

Empires come and empires go.

Greek, Persian, Roman, Ottomon, Britain etc

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Going off topic a bit (perhaps a thread should be created for it) but yes i agree "Our empire fell and we're no longer a super power".

Empires come and empires go.

Greek, Persian, Roman, Ottomon, Britain etc

so, your question is why are former colonies in Africa, Central and South East Asia not the fully functioning states [sic] they were under colonial rule?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, your question is why are former colonies in Africa, Central and South East Asia not the fully functioning states [sic] they were under colonial rule?

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Easy... No white man keeping them in their place... hmm

oh ya, the failure of former colonies is totally because of the lack of white people's influence

Originally posted by inimalist
so, your question is why are former colonies in Africa, Central and South East Asia not the fully functioning states [sic] they were under colonial rule?

How well did they really function under colonial rule? Mercantile policies at the very least would have completely screwed them over economically.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh ya, the failure of former colonies is totally because of the lack of white people's influence

Touche

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Easy... No white man keeping them in their place... hmm

Is that your serious opinion or was that sarcasm i can't tell?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, your question is why are former colonies in Africa, Central and South East Asia not the fully functioning states [sic] they were under colonial rule?

So you're saying, they are not 'fully functioning states' because they were under colonial rule?

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Is that your serious opinion or was that sarcasm i can't tell?

So you're saying, they are not 'fully functioning states' because they were under colonial rule?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How well did they really function under colonial rule? Mercantile policies at the very least would have completely screwed them over economically.

well, they functioned for exactly the purpose they were created for.

Cheap labour, markets for Colonial goods, military power for campaigns in Kenya and the like.

Did the people have any personal freedom? No, certainly not. Did they have local economy? no, not at all. Their cultures were destroyed, their people were butchered.

Like, there were differences, the British tried to rule more detached than other colonial powers (the french triend to force their culture into africa/south asia). Belgum, on the other hand, mercilessly killed people in the congo in such a way that one could say it has actually gotten better (and for people who don't follow the DRC, that is a hefty statement). But ultimately, even in the best cases, they weren't successful states, but rather succeeded as being places for the generation of revinue for the colonial power.

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
So you're saying, they are not 'fully functioning states' because they were under colonial rule?

no, I'm saying they weren't fully functioning states because, for the most part, the states themselves were incompotent, corrupt and failed, supported by colonial military power for the single reason of resourse/labour exploitation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How well did they really function under colonial rule? Mercantile policies at the very least would have completely screwed them over economically.

hmmmm. I see your point (thoery wise) but wasnt this stance in a way 'dropped' by 18th century?

But i get the impression that your suggesting that their economy would be worse off than it is now? One thing about Mercantilism is that it benefited the imperial nation "more so" than the 'colonies'

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
But i get the impression that your suggesting that their economy would be worse off than it is now? One thing about Mercantilism is that it benefited the imperial nation "more so" than the 'colonies'

that is the exact same logic as saying that slavery is better than freedom, because at least in slavery the white person is getting something back, whereas in freedom we all struggle together.

Only through such a perspective could the idea of "no economy whatsoever because everything you produce is owned by a people you will never meet" is better than "struggle to earn your own bread".

Look to nations like Tanzania, Jordan, post war Viet-Nam. Many of them have economies far superior to times of colonialism.

Yes different empires had their own apprach to ruling. Most did bleed them dry. But what do you mean by local economy exacly. Most colonial nations traded with the countries in the empire establishing their own unique trade (take for instance Nigeria's palm oil as a subsequent for slave labour). Some of these countries GDP grew aswell

But you say their cultures were destroyed? really....destroyed?

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Yes different empires had their own apprach to ruling. Most did bleed them dry. But what do you mean by local economy exacly. Most colonial nations traded with the countries in the empire establishing their own unique trade (take for instance Nigeria's palm oil as a subsequent for slave labour).

yes, they traded colonial goods made in colonial factories, taxed by colonial law with the lion's share of the profits leaving the nation

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Some of these countries GDP grew aswell

by definition they did not. They were not independant nations. That india might have had more trade under British rule (I dont know this, but lets assume) means nothing for the Indians, because it was not their market, and all leavers of the economy were controlled by the colonial power.

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
But you say their cultures were destroyed? really....destroyed?

are you serious? how old are you?

Yes which is why im not saying colonial rule is better, as some have progressed some not so much. Im not looking for a wank compettion on what empire was better, who's ideoligy was superior western, eastern etc. Just as to enlightened views on to why some have and some haven't in a nutshell.

destroyed would imply "To ruin completely; spoil: To do away with; put an end to, To subdue or defeat completely; crush. Please Its not my ignorance, it was your choice of words that caused the response. However if looking to the Native Americans or Aborigines i can see your point with the choice of the word when applied to other places.

Why does KMC get all the weirdos?