Well, this time it will work, I can feel it. Thank you !
Remundo, I think I answered you about profit, even if it is elliptical, I'm sure you can understand (yes, if you can do it!).
Let's focus on other points, for example this extract where you joyfully practice telescoping and approximations:
… This puddle of malnutrition, misery and ignorance of third world people, which was always chronic well before the European expansion at their place. Moreover, some studies show that the standard of living has dropped since decolonization.
It is clear that you want to show that these originally deprived countries would have "benefited" from a relative well-being with colonization before falling back into their almost "native" misery.
The first statement is a historical nonsense, because during the European Middle Ages there existed very advanced African civilizations (except to consider the use of the automobile or the telephone as the yardstick which must measure evolution). In particular, and this is important in relation to the subject of this thread, food self-sufficiency existed there long before it appeared in the countries of the north.
Let us examine the last proposition before returning to the central affirmation. There, I give you entirely right with regard to the raw facts.
However the facts are just facts, what is important is to understand their meaning. Having already analyzed above, I would not come back to this, I would simply like to draw a parallel (even if it remains approximate) which seems to me to be enlightening between two chronological series: colonialism and neo-colonialism on the one hand, and slavery and period "After-slave" on the other hand.
The slave situation was perfectly ethically unacceptable, of course; on a material level, the conditions were very variable, generally very harsh. After their release, the material condition of the slaves deteriorated overall, except on an ethical level. Why ?
As long as they were slaves they represented a certain market value for their owners who had an interest in feeding them enough and ensuring that the work was as intense as possible without however exceeding their physical capacities. Once "free", nothing had changed from the previous mentality, but the former slaves were forced to work for their former masters to survive. Become workers, their individual survival became indifferent to their bosses who could then play the law of the market to impose the most derisory possible remunerations, without taking into account any other consideration. And, it is a fairly similar development which followed the colonial period.
The results of colonization have been debated recently, the least we can say is that it is very mixed! To put it simply: a little positive and a lot of negative, in the proportion of the famous pate of horse and lark.
Well, the sequel to the next issue!
What do you (do you) think of my signature? Damned! It still does not work! Here it is anyway:
"Above all, don't believe what I'm telling you"
)
Uh ... i correct myself
?
in more than 25 countries because there are up to 6 pickups per year !!! 1 only with us.
