The wonders of Nature

[Did67]

When we see that one man (Gandhi) has undermined the most powerful empire in the world, we can continue to dream of a "gentle" but effective revolution.

I find the story of Mandela more meaningful ... He did not finish murdered. Colonial empires have all fallen, arriving at a historical moment, at their limits. South Africa was not exactly of the same nature, with the apartheid system.

That said, there too the brothel begins anyway!

Regarding the "dreams" of young people, and their possibility of changing the world, let us note all the same, in the examples that we invoke, that they were "charismatic leaders", who all, in one form or another, have paid for in person (sometimes by death- putting Martin Luther King in the package; by 27 years in prison in the case of Mandela, who at the Rivonia trial believed they were going through it, hence his plea with "even if I die ..."). It is not the rebellious youths (even if for South Africa, the fundamental role of Steve Biko should not be dismissed too quickly!). These are the following peoples of charismatic leaders set up as icons, even guru. And in the case of South Africa, also international pressure and the embargo. Shade.

Curious thing in the story: Gandhi was gone ... from South Africa!

[Ahmed]

Did, you write:

I find the story of Mandela more meaningful ... He did not finish murdered. Colonial empires have all fallen, arriving at a historical moment, at their limits. South Africa was not exactly of the same nature, with the apartheid system.

Apartheid was a kind of internal colonialism, and it had also reached its historical limits, with a strong external protest not without consequences. Yes Mandela succeeded, it is thanks to the political intelligence of From klerk who understood that to preserve the interests of the white ruling classes, it was necessary to make concessions at the political level and thus maintain the control over the economic power (hence the subsequent troubles, since nothing was settled of the essential ).
This is also seen in Martinique where the local oligarchy does not deal directly with politics (and left Aimé Césaire become mayor of the "capital") in order to seize the productive and commercial apparatus.

[Did67]

I agree.

Where there is a difference: in a "simple" colonial system, this results in the withdrawal of the colonizer (even if a lot of things remain, from infrastructures to the economy via education and therefore the conditioning of minds, culture, art ...) ... In the case of South Africa, we had to move towards cohabitation ... A little more difficult in my opinion.

Of course, economic power is superimposed - still largely in the hands of whites but no longer only ... There are now "rich blacks", even ostentatiously rich blacks. What progress!

And is it even more the question of the cleavage rich / poor, which exists in any capitalist system, whatever it is (and probably in another form - worse? - in the systems other than capitalist but actually existing - royalties, socialism , communism ...).

[Ahmed]

You make a particularly relevant point by not sticking to purely "racial" considerations: the real cleavage operates through economic power. In the case under consideration, at the outset, the roles are determined by ethnicity, but, on the merits and the continuation proves it, what counts is the belonging to the minority which controls the company by holding the economic power; What does it matter then that a certain number of blacks are part of it *? Of course, the related boundaries are less clear (white / black), but remain clear ** (rich / poor).
When Obama was elected, many commented on the fact that a "black" could reach the supreme position and drew hasty conclusions on the democratic aspect, which would have been more convincing if he came from Harlem, but in reality it was a (forgive the expression which is not pejorative here, but pedagogical) "negro-white", ie above all a member of the ruling class, regardless of his color of skin.
Regarding your last remark, there are no more non-capitalist civilizations, only a few pockets of refractories ... so, your distinction does not apply.

At a certain systemic stage, on the contrary, it becomes necessary to integrate certain blacks within the process of domination to maximize the contribution of efficient agents in order to maintain this structure. This had already been mentioned in the case of Saudi Arabia, with a certain tendency towards the emancipation of women ...
** As this joke points out:
What is the difference between a poor Arab and a rich Arab?
Well, a poor Arab is an Arab and the rich Arab is a rich man!

[Grelinette]

We are moving away from the basic subject ("The wonders of Nature") but the debate is interesting. It deserves the opening of another thread!
What title to give him: "Who can save us?", "What to do to avoid the collapse of humanity?", "Are young people the saviors of tomorrow?", Etc ...

To come back to the young, certainly history, as you recall, is littered with great youth movements that have not changed much, but there was not the urgency that concerns us today and that is globally the unanimity of all (citizens, politicians, scientists, etc.). There are hardly any businessmen, big CEOs, politicars, financiers, traders and other billionaires who seem to think they are perched safe from the collapse announced ...

The question I ask myself concerning young people is why and at what time of their development, of their arrival in society, of their transition from "student" (in the sense of learning to live) to as an actor, will a young person switch to "I don't care about the rest as soon as I get out of it" or "We must act for the good of all"?

I imagine that the children of Mrs. Bernard Arnaud, Vincent Bollore, Carlos Ghosn, Donald Trump or Mittal (Arcelor) are conditioned to continue the mission bulimic and destructive of their father, whatever the consequences, but I I have the idea that they are a minority and that the rest of the young people who are beginning to realize a very compromised future for themselves and for the planet, will want to change the rules of the game and act, and they are more numerous. ..

[sen-no-sen]

Without wishing to minimize the merit of GhandiI notice that his action comes at a time when the stage of pure colonialism was becoming obsolete as a system of exploitation and would give way to neo-colonialism ...

Colonization as decolonization are historical-social terms to designate the expansion / contraction phase of a kingdom, empire, state etc.
The genius of Ghandi was to understand that no one used to violently oppose (ie dissipate energy) to this force, from where are insistence on the nonviolent struggle, the accomplishing time are work. This notion is also found in Tibetan Buddhists, the application of Eastern philosophies.
What would one think of a person who will seek to empty a beach when low tide is announced?
Our thermo-industrial company would have a lot to learn from its philosophies ... well no! That would mean the end of the business!

[Ahmed]

Grelinette, we must be wary of apparent unanimity, while behind it lie various and non-consensual content * ... It is the circumstances that bring this or that set of same to the fore. Much of this "awareness" is directed toward business goals or, more broadly, power. This does not prevent the majority from being sincere, but for the most part they are intended to be instrumentalized by the precedents ...

* It is a truism that to observe that nobody is favorable to the evil (do you know a single war which would be recognized unjust by its initiators?) And that when some are engaged there, it is always with the pretext of a superior or subsequent good to this harm caused. From this point of view, everything is easily justifiable ...

[GuyGadebois]

(Do you know of one war that would be unfair to its initiators?)

The Gulf War.

[Ahmed]

You really believe that Bush sorry?

[Grelinette]

Grelinettewe must be wary of apparent unanimity, while behind it are hidden various and non-consensual contents * ...

It is true that humans are complex, especially in the messages they send, in groups or individually.
In humans, the messages are particularly difficult to decipher:
Between what we think,
what do we mean,
what we believe to say,
what we say,
what we want to hear,
what we hear,
what we understand,
what we want to understand,
and what we understand ...
therefore, there are at least nine possibilities for the apparent message to be difficult to interpret.
Especially since after (and even before) one must take into account the conscious, the unconscious, the subconscious, the preconscious, the superconscious, etc., the individual, all remodeled by the group.
As many nuances or angles to observe and understand appearances.

Much of this "awareness" is directed toward business goals or, more broadly, power. This does not prevent the majority from being sincere, but for the most part they are intended to be instrumentalized by the precedents ...

I do not understand the meaning of your sentence! ...
The group would be instrumentalised by a few individuals for commercial purposes and power?
More simply, I think there are individual but common expectations and anxieties that drive individuals to form a group that will disagree with one voice about a situation. This situation is felt and understood differently by each individual forming the group.

This is a bit what we witnessed with the "Yellow Vests" (a wonder of Nature), where individuals united while keeping their individuality, and violently refusing a common representative: we protest together, to the same voice, to express our individual distress, but without a common voice or representative!