[aabeshou]

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?

[mc32]

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.

[aabeshou]

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.

[mc32]

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.

[aabeshou]

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.

[mc32]

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.