Statue of Reagan to be Unveiled in London

[scotsgit]

Jul 6, 2011 7:31:50 GMT -5 ltfred said:

Jul 6, 2011 4:36:55 GMT -5 scotsgit said:

Yes I know that, but what I'm saying is if someone did it the way I suggested, would we still find it morally repugnant?

The normal concern with paternalistic policy is that it treats adults as children, which is insulting, creates a needy welfare-dependence and so on.

But is having people dependant on foreign aid any better?

Then there's the Laurence of Arabia contention- anything locals think up will work better than a foreign governor's fiat.

Maybe - look at some of the countries where you've had a war lasting for the length of the average person's life, would colonial rule (if it brought peace) not be an improvement?

My concern is that humans don't work like that. You can't give humans huge power over large numbers of other humans and have good results. In the short-run 'good for them' and 'good for us' will be suspiciously similar. In the long-run, the first will be forgotten.

I'd think it would probably end up like that - one of the (probable) causes of the Indian Mutiny was the way the British people in India were treating the locals. Yet go back to the time India was being conquered and you see a different class of Briton, one who, if not completely embracing the local culture and beliefs, was not someone who was holding it in contempt as was found later.

[CtraK]

Jul 6, 2011 11:15:02 GMT -5 nickiknack said:

This reminds me of the Genesis video with the creepy puppets...

That'd be because the same people worked on it.

[nickiknack]

No wonder...you know that is possibly one of the creepiest videos of all time, scared the shit out of me as a kid, and it still scares the shit out of me now...

[ltfred]

Jul 6, 2011 12:06:24 GMT -5 scotsgit said:

Jul 6, 2011 7:31:50 GMT -5 ltfred said:

The normal concern with paternalistic policy is that it treats adults as children, which is insulting, creates a needy welfare-dependence and so on.

But is having people dependant on foreign aid any better?

I don't think that's happening.

Maybe - look at some of the countries where you've had a war lasting for the length of the average person's life, would colonial rule (if it brought peace) not be an improvement?

With narry an exeption, those wars are the direct result of colonialism. First and Second Congo, the Somalian conflicts, Rwanda, Angola, Ivory Coast, Mosambique, I mean all of them are colonial. Colonialism causes wars, it doesn't prevent them.

The problem is that colonialism implies a war. A nation needs to be conquered for it to be a colony. And that colonialism implies exploitation. And colonialism implies chaos when it ends.

I'd think it would probably end up like that - one of the (probable) causes of the Indian Mutiny was the way the British people in India were treating the locals. Yet go back to the time India was being conquered and you see a different class of Briton, one who, if not completely embracing the local culture and beliefs, was not someone who was holding it in contempt as was found later.

It's not even really a matter of culture, it's a matter of economics. The 'early' British deliberately and systematically destroyed the Indian economy killing millions. They blew up factories, banned production, fired employees, and spread poverty- because the Indians were better at producing some things than the British, and the British didn't want a competitor. They replaced the efficient, productive industrialised India with a third world primary goods producer/secondary goods market. This was official policy, a policy othat might be called econocide. That's basically what Gandhi was complaining about with the whole salt satyagraha, self-sufficiency thing. Any trade with the British would be unfavourable, so you can't trade- you have to produce it yourself.

And this was the British that RESPECTED the Indians.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 6, 2011 7:24:16 GMT -5 ltfred said:

Jul 6, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

You've made this claim before, and I asked you about it...

Sorry. I should have responded. Not sure why not. Maybe I just missed your question.

Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened in November '79, Carter was only President until January '81, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan lasted until February '89... how is the US support of the insurgency leading to eventual Soviet defeat/withdrawal Carter's baby, rather than Reagan's?

A baby is a good way to put it. Carter invented the policy. All the rep for innovation and political leadership goes to Carter. He started the arming of the Mujahideen. Apparently, he armed them even before the Soviets invaded (in order to provoke them) though this is controversial.

It was Carter's policy. All Reagen did was not end it.

Pretty sure the policy expanded considerably under Reagan, actually.