> You know what the world was like when the developed world acutally intentinoally supressed the under developed world? Slavery and the slaugther of millions, colonizers forcing people to work on their land and not get the benefits of their People getting their hands cut off if they didn't work enough in the slavers mines.

You really ought to look at what France is currently doing in Africa. If you want to disagree with the parent that Africans or those in the developing world are intentionally oppressed, just because millions are no longer slaughtered is no mitigation of their point.

And africans are unable to throw out the french boston tea party style because...?

Because the French military has better weapons to dissuade them from doing that than muskets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion

And you couldn't figure that out for yourself because...?

To banned account AlgorithmicTime:

I'm proposing you read the article I linked to, and notice that the actual link and title of the article itself literally has the word "dissuasion" in it.

>In his book La paix nucléaire (1975), French Navy Admiral Marc de Joybert explained deterrence:

>Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan't prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and causing the devastation that you are familiar with. So, renounce your endeavour and let us remain good friends.

To dtx1:

See Popehat's Law of Goats.

So did the british in india, yet somehow india isn't a british colony anymore. What an impossible thing to have happened, almost as if peaceful revolution is not the same as all out total war against a superior power. But then again, the americans won against the well trained and superiorly armed nuclear super power afghanistan too and now it's just another american colony forever. Oh wait...

So in your opinion as they could theoretically defeat a European military power through revolt, they are not intentionally oppressed?

It's an old strategy, Divide et impera - there's a lot to learn from the thousands of years of history of it.

You don't need to defeat them in open war, as if France would mount an all out war to "save" their colonies from a peaceful revolution. Worked for India but that was impossible too I guess? But thats not what those poor oppressed people want. They get really annoyed when France doesn't help them with their problems [1] but that's just France opressing them by NOT sending enough military. Either way it's always Frances fault

[1] https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210926-mali-accuses-fra...

Not just Mali. Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Benin and Niger.

I would encourage you to read more about Divide and Conquer, the territories mentioned above, French activities there, and resist the temptation to use a single article to generalize what millions of people want.

I think you are hopelessly naive about military affairs, revolt does not work like you think it does and comparing India vs post war Britian and the Boston Tea Party to a much more nuanced contemporary corporatist form of colonialism is ignorant.

So ignorant that I'm surprised he doesn't just admit to being a troll to avoid being seen as and proven to be that ignorant by his own words.

But even then, Popehat's Law Of Goats would still apply:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Popehat%27s%...

>Popehat's Law of Goats

>He who fucks goats, either as part of a performance or to troll those he deems has overly delicate sensibilities is simply, a goatfucker.

>He claimed he was just pretending to be racist to trigger the social justice warriors, but even if he is telling the truth, Popehat's Law of Goats still applies.

> paid from the taxes from OUR WORK

Your work is enabled by the innumerable underdeveloped countrymen that slave away producing everything for you. This is quite obvious if you think hard enough, just actively ignored by most.

> Are people from under developed countries to stupid for democracy? To incompetent to elect good leaders?

Please read more (1)(2) and learn to have some empathy for the developing people that you indirectly exploit everyday, before making such strong accusations.

(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic (2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...

Glad im not american. But I guess we should just stop "exploiting" them. Let's just stop all trade and aid for under developed countries and let them catch up a century or two, maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms. I mean they are where they are just because of us, it's all oir fault. Look at China, whenever I'm buying something I'm oppressing them I suppose. Oh, wait before they became an export nation that governs themselves terribly they were starving end masse because they followed their idiot leader Mao? No that can't be true it must have been the white man oppressing them that killed all those birds.

> Glad im not american

The developing world is supported by the American hegemony’s control over the global market. And like the other commenter showed, Europe has its own share of colonial control. Wherever you’re from, your lifestyle is still enabled by developing countries.

> maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms

Honestly, your talking points are from 1900s colonial racism. Not sure what you’re doing in 2021. Please educate yourself ASAP.

maybe then they are civilised enough to join us on fair terms

I should have marked that as sarcasm I suppose. But it doesn't really matter because the original point stands, if we are suppressing them so badly how come basically every metric for human development had gone up for 20 years straight. How are billions in aid suppressing them? What about the plethora of human rights interventions, international education programs etc. What a sneaky way of supressing people by education and access to clean water. But that idea clashes with leftist dogma therefore it musnt be true.

> What a sneaky way of supressing people by education and access to clean water.

Upliftment is not providing bare essentials to the enslaved. We’ve already seen this happen with British colonies, where they aimed to “tame the savages”, but just enough to make sure they stay enslaved.

This is what is happening now by the developed elites, as well.

Ironically, despite this whole thread focusing on developing countries - we see the same even within developed countries. Whatever labor/tasks/services cannot be outsourced/imported, need to be performed by the “lowest classes” of the developed nation too. They are mistreated, exploited, and prevented from real upliftment. In fact, even moreso to your point, they have “access” to the best education and resources in that developed country - and yet are “lower class”?

Think about that for a while, and why it happens in the modern world.

> Upliftment is not providing bare essentials to the enslaved. We’ve already seen this happen with British colonies, where they aimed to “tame the savages”, but just enough to make sure they stay enslaved.

Yup thats why africa only gets food, water and shelter and no one there gets internet, access to loans, secondary education or else the slaves would revolt i suppose?

What an insane idea, helping them with development aid and causing measurable increases in human developement is somehow opression. What could we possibly have done that's not somehow opression then? Leaving them alone? Opression. Helping them? Opression. Perhaps we should have nuked afrika, the middle east and most of asia when we had the chance, can't opress dead people.

I think you should revisit the history of US (and Western more generally, but the US is the ringleader) NGO and development activity in Africa. I think a case can be made that it has done more harm than good, and I say this knowing full well all the hospitals and schools founded and staffed by various Christian organizations in the 19th and 20th Centuries as well as the activities of the high powered organizations such as the Ford foundation trying to spread liberal values and western-authored constitutions and legal systems throughout Africa, starting in the post-war period until the present.

IMO we should pull the NGOs out and let African nations find their own path forward. The reason why I think this is to look a little more closely at what aid means and how it works.

There are two types of aid:

1. Direct resources. This is the old model of sending in missionaries to start a hospital or university. This can be helpful in some sense but also the aid workers bring their own values with them and evangelize those values, which is something that may not be suitable for Africa. They end up being local power centers on the ground and start managing and administering African governments instead of letting Africans do that. That was one approach used by the Ford foundation to control african governments and guide them into adopting inappopriate governmental structures.

2. Financial aid. Sending dollars to Africa results in those dollars in Swiss bank accounts of local warlords together with an increase in imports which can displace local production.

Trade with Africa is great, but the moment you start giving them aid, that aid comes with strings and we start pressuring Africa to adopt western european standards and structures, which end up creating fragile governments, they stoke ethnic conflict, and they may well impede letting Africa take its own development path and forming its governments according to its own values.

While I disagree with your conclusion due to the measurable increases in human development through our aid, i am somewhat sympathetic to your argument on a philosophical level. That being said, most of the HN Crowd would still cry over the opression from our trade with africa in that scenario because its always the evil capitalist west thats at fault and any disagreement on that point and you are considered a goat fucker (see comments above)

> While I disagree with your conclusion due to the measurable increases in human development through our aid

From 1960 to 2020, real GDP per capita in subsaharan Africa has grown by 0.6% per annum.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDSSF

Whereas real global GDP per capita has increased by 1.7%, or three times the rate of growth as subsaharan Africa.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDWLD

So yes, there has been some measurable human development. But Africa continues to fall farther behind the rest of the world -- e.g. the difference in global development between the rest of the world and Africa in 1960 was much lower than the difference today. We see divergence, not convergence.

I can't see that as a success story.

Well GDP is not the only measure of human development, for example child mortality has more than halved since the 1990s https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT?locations=Z...

I'd call that a sucess story.

That's a very low bar in exchange for Africa continuing to fall farther behind the rest of the world - e.g. during the same period child mortality in the EU fell be a factor of three and in the entire world it declined by a factor of 2.5

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT?locations=Z...

> Your work is enabled by the innumerable underdeveloped countrymen that slave away producing everything for you

Can you establish what "everything" is? A vast amount of stuff is produced in China - are they underdeveloped?