Hacker News Reader

Comment by aabeshou | Hacker News Reader

how about the history of imperialism where some countries came in, exploited the local population and their natural resources, and reaped the benefits of historical, compounding wealth?

how about the history of how those wealthy countries then turned around and squashed democratic uprisings in order to install oppressive, right-wing regimes that were more friendly to their interests?

how about the history of trade sanctions which further cripple countries which are already disempowered and exploited?

these social darwinist explanations always seem to miss the simple facts of history

View on HN

So Cuba must very rich having sent its armies and advisors throughout the world fomenting revolution, overthrowing governments and installing puppet governments.

My comment describes the damage that imperialism has done and the consequences it's had for global wealth distribution.

You say that Cuba has done bad things too.

Therefore imperialism doesn't have consequences?

Can you fill in the blanks for me in your nonsequitur?

My point is imperialism is a distraction. The Koreas, Taiwan even Singapore were under Japanese imperial rule and were destitute countries —one of them isn’t even officially recognized as such, yet have prospered. And the Koreas provide a “twins study”. SKorea even went through military rule (arguably Taiwan too) yet they’ve prospered.

The imperialism that has transpired in Latin America and Africa is different from that in Asia, so the consequences have been different. Some areas of difference include: the degree of plunder and destruction; how the occupying country treats the colonies; the degree of future exclusion in global trade; which dominant powers it finds among its allies.

If we don't consider a country's history of being exploited and oppressed, then we are in danger of creating an ignorant and bigoted explanation for the differences in outcomes.

Japan colonized areas of northeast Asia and Southeast Asia pretty brutally over the course of 50 years or so. In addition they forced some of the population to learn Japanese. It wasn’t a kid gloves colonization.

For that matter the US was a colony of the British Empire and yet came to do well. Russia had suitors attempt colonization a few times but as history tells us that failed, they have vast resources, they have had some great minds yet have come up short. I think imperialism is a distraction. From your POV Korea should be dump. It was colonized by Japan and later had US approved military dictators -a big no no in your books. But see where they are today.

Disparities in wealth in Latin America and Africa can be traced directly to their history of exploitation and colonization. That there are other countries that have had brutal occupations and have prospered more is irrelevant to this fact. Myriad historical factors, including the other ones that I cited in my comment (such as treatment in global trade, ongoing exploitation, allyships with dominant powers, etc), still distinguish these countries and their histories. There is no checklist approach to history, the details matter and when you look at the history of impoverished areas in Latin America and Africa, it is plain to see the connection to their present circumstances.

Vestiges of feudalism is a big factor in all those examples, including Russia and Ukraine. China was very feudal too, till the republic --and then became a satellite to Japan and back to a Communist feudal system and back out. Chile, Uruguay not so feudal.

Systems that retained vestiges of feudalism and were late to adopt industrialization suffer. But things can turn around quickly, if the countries pursue a strategy that works for them.

Myanmar/Burma is one such place. They could quickly industrialize or they could waste their opportunity --it's up to them. We'll see.

Have you tested this hypothesis? It seems that South Africa is wealthier than neighbors, for instance.

South Africa has the single worst inequality in the world [0], and up until very recently there was apartheid ruled by the descendents of dutch colonizers. This still fits the pattern of imperialists coming in, and enriching themselves at the expense of local populations. It's just that in this case the occupying population hung around permanently. But they're still hoarding the wealth.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/07/africa/south-africa-elections...

By hording the wealth you mean drastically increasing GDP?

Because South Africa and its neighbors were not all colonized?

I’m not sure what SA being relatively wealthier is supposed to tell us.

Which of South Africa's neighbors was not colonized?

The cape was literally a restocking hub for the global trade hegemon (Dutch) and later served similar purposes for the following hegemon (British). Of course it had higher rates of capital accumulation. This was seen even into the 60s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com