That's right, but here goes the question: colonialism provided a way to "export" safe, stable and reliable societies. And people rejected it. Was it a mistake?

> colonialism provided a way to "export" safe, stable and reliable societies.

I had to read this a few times to be sure this really was the point you were trying to make.

One of many examples on how this is absolutely abhorrently untrue:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free...

Colonialism certainly liked to think it was "civilizing the savages" but that was far from its true intended purpose or effect.

I think most people would say colonialism did a poor job of explaining safety at least. Instead it was often powered by racism and subjugation. We do desperately need to find a way to help countries develop, but on the balance colonialism doesn’t seem to be it

> We do desperately need to find a way to help countries develop.

Hold our currencies.

In that the solution is to give them money? Because they doesn't seem to have worked so well either? Or do you mean that really foreign policy is just about keeping the dollar dominate

It means that every midlle-clas person, and every foreign and local company in the developing world is obsessed with "getting their money out".

And this rational fear is becuase our currencies continue to devalue.

You did ask.

No that's interesting and seems possible. I'm not sure which way the causality works. I think I haven't really seen great examples of isolationism working for development, but maybe some combination of capital controls and confidence in the countries trajectory are helpful

That's another fun conversation of governance, rights and nation building.

Which, ironically has plagued South America for quite a while - The reason Colombia and Venezuela have similar flags is they had the same wars and fight for freedom. They freed themselves from Spain and then became the institutions we know today. Corrupt, semi corrupt nation states, not on a national level but influence can be bought.

Africa no idea, but that's the thing, was it fully rejection?

Not every country can be the United States in terms of fighting for freedom, gaining independence and being successful. You can still go into many parts of New England and see lots of British influence.

Also Florida, and see much Spanish influence.

It isn't as much as "export" but building, having a plan and the problem then (and possibly event today) is that the people who are successful, ethical, moral and such are living comfortable lives.

Prisoners were most of the people that were on the Spanish ships that sailed to Venezuela and Colombia and built much of that, alongside prisoners were political refugees such as Jewish people and people who were destitute. Religious political refugees too, bad enough stuff but not exactly criminal.

You can kinda align it today with the people who are ground on troops with USA in AFghanistan, where we exported our way of life for 20 years.

Overnight, erased. The people there didn't want it, we didn't leave anyone part of the military behind and whomever had some influence slid into power or fled for their life.

--

I don't even know where to begin w/ Africa, I'm not up to date on their History or such besides some/much used to belong to the French.

Algeria and Guinea rejected it.