[csee]

I dislike these sweeping and 1-dimensional viewpoints, both because they're bait for extremist thinking and because they're high-bias statements despite reflecting the ghost of a truth.

The reality is that there's not a clean picture to be painted, and like a Rorschach test different narratives (i.e., abstractions) can fit the identical ground truth.

The underdeveloped world has been significantly harmed by the developed world in a number of concrete ways. Colonialism, historically, obviously, with some still dodgy things going on in geopolitical interference that could be considered "neocolonialism".

But the underdeveloped world has also been benefited by the developed world. Trade, aid and openness with the developed world undeniably lifts them up. South Korea is a miracle. You can enter the developed club despite having a long history of brutal actual oppression. If we built a wall around some poor country 500 years ago and made a rule that zero contact was allowed - no colonialism, no nothing - would they be better off now or worse? The answer in most cases is they'd be worse off. They'd have a life expectancy of 40 and die often from violence. So this is reason to think that this oppression viewpoint is correct in a gross sense but false in a net sense and is ignoring some real, tangible benefits that the developed world gives to the underdeveloped.

[yunohn]

> But the underdeveloped world has also been benefited by the developed world.

Nobody is arguing that there aren’t potential benefits to the oppressed side. Slaves in the colonial days were also kept alive, housed, and fed.

But, since you’re talking about the knowledge and industrial revolutions, do consider that the former is a mutual exchange of ideas which has benefited all (not purely from the developed to the developing) and for the latter, it’s mostly the developing manufacturing for the developed, to this day!

Asia and Africa both had very advanced medical tools, machine, and philosophical and societal structures, which the West adopted innumerable ideas from. The developing countries have had civilisations that benefited their populace, and have had others that resulted in violence and death (just like the West).

I think the main problem with your viewpoint, like the other commenter said, is the false dichotomy you present between colonial oppression and no-contact outcomes.

Moreover, your understanding of world history reeks of “white saviour” principle. Hope you educate yourself one day!

[csee]

  "Slaves in the colonial days were also kept alive, housed, and fed."

You misunderstand. I'm talking about net benefit, not gross benefits.

  "it’s mostly the developing manufacturing for the developed, to this day!"

You sarcastically told me to educate myself, but maybe you should go and read about comparative advantage.

  "which the West adopted innumerable ideas from."

I didn't say otherwise.

  "is the false dichotomy you present between colonial oppression and no-contact outcomes."

Again, this is not a dichotomy in the sense of a false dichotomy. A hypothetical is categorically and definitionally different.

[yunohn]

> I'm talking about net benefit, not gross benefits.

What is the net benefit? How are you measuring the relative +/- to the colonised? You can imagine that the colonised would disagree with your colonising assessment.

> you should go and read about comparative advantage.

How is the ability to provide poverty wage manufacturing to the developed countries, a comparative advantage for the colonised people? I’m dumbfounded. You can feel happy that they’re being paid something more than enslavement, but they don’t feel the same way. They are forced to participate in a global extractive economy designed to ensure they are never richer than the developed countries.

> I didn't say otherwise.

But, you keep claiming that the oppression has led to a net benefit, and I fail to see any measured examples in your replies that prove this upliftment that the West has so generously provided as a “benefit”.

> hypothetical is categorically and definitionally different.

What is your hypothetical, exactly? “Imagine the (guaranteed) horrific future for the colonies, had they not been colonised and uplifted by the West”? That’s your opinion, not a hypothesis.

[eliasmacpherson]

I realise that you are trying to present this as 'balanced' 'two sided' debate, but I really hate this sort of apologist approach. You create a false dichotomy between a star trek prime directive no contact world and then say in a net sense it was of benefit. Using the likes of Singapore or South Korea as a counter example is also typical.

Take a look here at life expectancy and when exactly it started to rise above 40.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/life-expect...

Take a look at the correlation between post colonialism and death from violence, in one example:

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

This isn't a case of 'what have the Romans ever done for us', and few will accept that it's not oppression in a net sense.

[csee]

I'm not trying to present a 'two sides' story in the sense that it's exactly 50/50, since I think the viewpoint I was countering is quite a bit more false than it is true, which is why I flatly asserted that developed countries provided a net benefit to underdeveloped countries. My opinion here doesn't stop me from admitting that there's facts that underlie the narrative that are true, even if I believe the subsequent conclusions to be false.

An underdeveloped country can be suffering from the consequences of colonialism, while still benefiting significantly on net from technology, trade, and so forth, with the ratio between the former and the latter expected to decline over time. This can all be true simultaneously.

> You create a false dichotomy between a star trek prime directive no contact world and then say in a net sense it was of benefit.

That's not an example of a false dichotomy. It's a hypothetical, or a thought experiment.

> Using the likes of Singapore or South Korea as a counter example is also typical.

Typical != incorrect.

> Take a look here at life expectancy and when exactly it started to rise above 40.

Having the boot of colonialism being lifted is one of many reasons for this graph.

> Take a look at the correlation between post colonialism and death from violence.

Which is confounded by poverty/education/etc, the main drivers of death from violence.

[eliasmacpherson]

Then I would encourage you to think of all the infinite options in between hundreds of years of colonialism being a 'net benefit' and the 'prime directive, no contact'/South Korea/Singapore extremes as a thought experiment.

> Having the boot of colonialism being lifted is one of many reasons for this graph.

Here we agree, it's a shame it was ever inserted.

[csee]

I never said that colonialism was a net benefit. I said that developed countries have been a net benefit for underdeveloped countries. That's an important difference, and it's a claim that my thought experiment supports.

On South Korea; it was valid to bring that up, not only because it shows the positive benefits that the developed world brings to underdeveloped countries, but because it's the counterexample that exposes the incorrectness of the claim that the underdeveloped world is intentionally oppressed in order to maintain our way of living. We in the rich world have benefited from South Korea's, and China's, rise. They make us richer, as we them. This is basic comparative advantage. It's absurd to think that we benefit from Africa's poverty. To put it bluntly, Africa of all places is where we obtain the least benefit. We make more money from Europe and Asia. If they could raise up to $15,000 GDP/annum, we in the rich world would be more rich as a result.

They could maybe argue that underdeveloped countries have been oppressed intentionally for the benefit of the military industrial complex, but that's very distinct to arguing that that happened in order to maintain our lifestyle. As it stands, their statement is factually incorrect, and South Korea shows why.

I believe the truth of that statement may have been different 100-200 years ago, where colonialism was done to pillage resources. No longer so in the modern globalized world.

[eliasmacpherson]

Your argument here is again premised on the benefits of colonialism & post colonialism outweighing the costs of colonialism, but exceptions like South Korea and e.g. Singapore do not prove the rule. It's completely unrealistic to compare these success stories, and the idea of 'no contact'. The reality is far grimmer. The comparison is to be made between what could have happened, and what did. The 'net' benefit then becomes very clear.

South Korea & Co are no longer intentionally oppressed. There are many other countries besides them that continue to be.

It's absurd to argue that because the developed countries could benefit more from Africa than they already do, that Africa is not oppressed. South America also.

> They could maybe argue that underdeveloped countries have been oppressed intentionally for the benefit of the military industrial complex, but that's very distinct to arguing that that happened in order to maintain our lifestyle

Every industrial complex besides that too. Raw materials are vitally important. Every act of Foreign Policy is done in order to maintain a lifestyle, to protect national interests. I don't know how you can argue that it is not.

> I believe the truth of that statement may have been different 100-200 years ago, where colonialism was done to pillage resources. No longer so in the modern globalized world.

I think you should really look at what resources are being exracted from Africa and South America, by whom and for what level of profit.

[csee]

  "The comparison is to be made between what could have happened, and what did."

Disagree. If the question we are asking is whether developed countries have provided a net benefit, the hypothetical has to be with them never having interacted with the country in question at all.

  "South Korea & Co are no longer intentionally oppressed."

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

  "Every act of Foreign Policy is done in order to maintain a lifestyle, to protect national interests. I don't know how you can argue that it is not."

I already provided my argument. In the modern world we are richer when they are richer due to comparative advantage. Afghanistan made us much poorer, not richer, besides one or two special interests. More countries like SK means more wealth for us.

[cyber_kinetist]

There's a very subtle insidiousness in saying that the efforts of the developed world "helped" others into becoming the same as them. Yes, South Korea is a miracle to many Westerners as an advanced capitalist nation, probably it's doing capitalism even ruthlessly better than what the US is doing. But if you've lived inside this nation for some time you will notice that people aren't happy, with overheated competitions for education and jobs, exploitation of factory and service workers, widespread alienation, depression, and suicide. It's one of the unhappiest advanced capitalist nations in the world, and you should wonder why works like Parasite and Squid Game are being created here.

Colonialism covers a wide array of things, but it also includes robbing the people of its narrative. And that is precisely what happened to the two Koreas. Our country was occupied by fascist Imperial Japan in the first half of the 20th century, Korean culture and political participation were severely oppressed, and economic exploitation of the people (to fuel their war economy) was rampant. In this oppressive atmosphere an strange thing happened: Marxists (the far left) and the nationalists (the liberals), finding their common enemy, were able to resolve their differences and cooperate with each other to fight for independence. And after Japan's loss and subsequent independence, most of these two were willing to reconcile their positions through democratic means, and people were generally excited for a new independent democratic nation to be established. Instead, the Soviet influence from the North deliberately gave support to Kim Il-sung and its constituents to push Soviet-style dictator communism in the North, while the US from the South gave overwhelming political and military support for Syngman Ryee and his followers (who was "voted" to become president via manipulated elections) to create an equivalent capitalist dictatorship. After that the rest is history, communist dictatorship hellhole in the North, capitalist dictatorship hellhole in the South. It's only been about 30 years since our country was regarded as a liberal democracy, but even then I question if the country is really a democracy now when the whole system blocks ordinary people from actually participating and having a stake in political issues.

So our history is a fable of crushed potential narratives, the inevitability of both Western authoritarian communism and Western authoritarian capitalism imposed on us with guns and bombs. Maybe without foreign intervention, our place could have been an experimental testbed for a new kind of Asian democratic socialism? Maybe we would have succeeded in creating a more enriching egalitarian nation, or maybe we would have failed, who knows? But regardless of what the outcome would have hypothetically been, this was all robbed of its possibility by Western superpower interests. And being robbed from the people of their self-organization is a dehumanizing experience that I'm sure many colonized countries will empathize with.