Some historians believe that independence may not be the best alternative for some nations, and that colonialism, where another more powerful, more experienced nation makes decisions for them, is a better alternative. What do you think and why?
- Robert Dallin
---
Bob -
In my opinion, it's imperative that every nation be allowed to take a stab at independence, no matter how alien its approach to politics, economics or religion might appear to more experienced, powerful and successful governments like our own.
So long as a nation observes basic principles of human rights and remains non-aggressive to foreign powers, its people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves and govern in whatever fashion proves most successful and conducive to its native culture(s).

Government is a business of leadership, timing and trial & error. Are we so egotistical as to think that, despite its inherent reliance on exploitation of the environment and the poor, our way of doing things is somehow ordained by God as the best and only means to an end?

With the possible exception of mass starvation, the problems of over-population, corruption and violence continue to plague superpowers and third-world nations alike. In the long term, imperialism creates yet another hierarchy - this time of wealthy, powerful foreigners - to compete with a subservient nation's indigenous military, bureaucratic and clerical leaders. The difficulty in feeding millions seems to have stumped everyone.

Take Africa, for instance.

If you'll pardon some vaguely bigoted stereotypes (supported by William J. Duiker's "Twentieth-Century World History", no less), it would seem that the model of united "negritude" (apparently a French term meaning "blackness") as set forth by the pan-African movement of c. 1963 supports my belief that native peoples should be largely left to their own devices.

One of the great strengths of African culture has long been, to quote Duiker's text, "emotional expression and a common sense of humanity."

Having worked and lived among a great many individuals of African descent, I can attest to the pride with which they continue to adhere so doggedly to both principals. In what other culture do people commonly congregate in worship for hours on end only to reconvene shortly after the service in a purely social fashion (most often over barbecue, intoxicants and a radio)?

Just as African forms have survived to the point of influencing virtually every type of popular music over the past century, so too has the peculiarly African sense of community persisted and managed to blossom. Not only is the continent the birthplace of civilization, but apparently the Golden Rule. If John Brown (the former Georgia slave-turned-author, not the caucasian abolitionist), Bob Marley and Oprah Winfrey have one thing in common (besides the color of their skin), its a sense of duty to their community.

Perhaps inevitably, this negritude points to more than a couple negatives as well.

An integral part of Africa's failure to escape neo-colonial exploitation has been a seeming inability to maintain its limited natural resources (often the sole source of income), squandering them on a combination of empty "bling" (consumer goods) and self-destructive "glocks" (munitions).

As the struggle to survive intensifies, rival gangs - whether united by tribe or geographic region - increasingly do battle among themselves, undermining their own call for unification. What if we simply continued to send humanitarian aid and left them otherwise alone? With imperialists no longer around to point the finger at, the African nation may finally come around to assessing and correcting their problems from a clear-headed, objective and less defensive point of view.

As Duiker so deftly summarizes: "The nation-state system is not particularly well suited to the African continent. Africans must find better ways to cooperate with each other and to protect and promote their own interests."

I can't find fault with his assessment.
---
I do not believe colonialism is the best thing for smaller nations even though some of the smaller nations may benefit in some ways. Freedom is the one thing that these colonies gave up for the benefits they received from being colonized. History has taught us that freedom to make your own decisions far out way any material possessions or false sense of security that the larger nations provided to the smaller nations. The war we are fighting right now is a prime example of how much freedom means to a lot of people. If you look at our nation’s history and Iraq’s current situation to see how many people have given their life for the right to vote, that tells you how important freedom is. On a large scale, looking at how many people have died to be able to cast their one vote out of millions of votes, speaks volumes on how important freedom is to large and small nations.
- Tremayne Taylor
---
Tremayne -
Though I admire your sincerity, far as I know we're not in Iraq to guarantee anyone's right to vote. Here in Florida, votes have become something akin to bingo cards and lottery tickets - the stuff of pipe dreams or the coming apocalypse, but not really worth a whole lot once you turn them in.

In the case of the war in Iraq, it is we, the US of A, who are the aggressive, imperialist nation here, threatening to put everyone through community college and to work managing Wal-Marts for two gallons an hour.
And that's if things turn out well.

And that's why folk like me have put up such a stink from day one. If it weren't for the precious oil and economic interests, we wouldn't pay Iraq any more mind than we did Kosovo (a war of Noble Purpose if ever one was). What happened to all the electric cars?

Let's say we've invaded. We've destroyed their ancestral Mesopotamian culture with Disney and Belushi and Will Smith. We've persecuted the Muslims, ignoring the fact that they worship the same God and view Jesus as a prophet. We've lumped their radical psychopaths in with their law-abiding citizens, just as they might view the late Pope and cross-bearing Klansman with equal disdain.

Applying what we've learned about the neo-colonial exploitation of ecological and human resources, it becomes more increasingly clear just who the bully remains.
And if I remember right, he's usually the first one to leave the playground in a mess.
- DCd