(Post/Neo) Colonial (Lack of) Guilt

Yeah well its difficult, because obv Europe has totally fucked up so many countries beyond all recognition, but then sending in shit to "fix" those countries, its kind of like "*massive sigh* - wellll if you black people can't sort your own shit out, we better do it for you, cos you can't fit in with us"

I don't know what the solution would be though.

The world is pretty fucked.

THat German thing is pretty fucked though

Watch Niall's new programme on China, he touches on this in a very interesting way in regard to China's incursions into Africa.

Your thread title sounds like an amazing Meatloaf/Brian Eno/David Bryne collaboration, Zhao.

obviously I would never argue against the massive, lasting effect of European colonalism + post-colonialist meddling. however, a point I always make when someone brings this up (about the U.S. as well): every empire ever, w/o exception, has left a trail of misery in its wake + pretty much none of them have ever paid reparations* unless their hand was completely forced, i.e. germany + japan post-WWII. rome never took responsibility for caesar's brutal wars of subjugation against the gauls. the mongol empire (+ its descendants, some of which lasted into the 16th or 17th centuries) never took responsibility for devastating the middle east so thoroughly that it still hasn't fully recovered 800+ years later. arabs ain't paying reparations to northern africa. this idea of apologizing + making amends is very recent. which doesn't make it bad in + of itself but it's still not really done, just talked about. russia didn't pay reparations to former soviet republics. china isn't + will likely never pay reparations to tibetans or any of the other non-han peoples it is literally colonizing. turkey isn't paying reparations to armenia. + so on. even taking symbolic responsibility w/apologies is pretty rare. the west at least pretends to hold itself to a higher standard, but things like the ICC + ICJ are paper tigers that will only ever prosecute individuals whose states will allow/cannot stop them from being prosecuted, i.e. african warlords + some eastern europeans. the geneva conventions are toothless. so is the IAEA. further, they're all creations of the west, as is the UN, the most futile of them all. + realistically, where does anyone expect this $ to come from? a bunch of countries whose economies are in the shitter? you think you've seen riots, just wait. there's also the problem of who this $ would go to + how it would be administered. you're taking about countries with serious corruption problems. it's already a huge problem w/foreign aid. further, there is the difficulty of how to assign blame to individual European citizens who, while certainly benefiting from the legacies of colonialism, didn't exactly have much say in the decisions made by colonial powers ca. 1550-1970 or so (also, will immigrants from former colonies + their descendants pay a share of these reparations)? + what effect would paying reparations have on European economies + by extension the world economy they are a major part of? if it winds up as a net negative for the countries they're paying reparations to it doesn't make much sense.

sorry, I know this is going on + on. basically I'm just telling you it will never happen for 100s of reasons, some of self-interest, some pragmatic, some both.

*an exception actually is the limited reparations the U.S. govt has paid to some native american peoples in the form of $, land +/or recognition of self-govt. however, even in that case the "reparations" come w/a bunch of strings attached + there's debate over whether they're even reparations at all, as well as whether they even have a net positive impact for native peoples. it's a complex issue that I don't know a ton about so I won't go into it further, just wanted to mention it as an anomaly.

+ as far as post-colonial meddling, again, I'm telling you it will continue so long as former colonial powers are strong + former colonies aren't. spain don't meddle in latin america, or least not nearly as much. it just don't have the juice, + a bunch those countries are relatively powerful in their own rights. but russia freaking projects into central asia like crazy, france + belgium into africa. a lot of it just a pissing contest too: superpower (u.s.), former superpower (russia), aspiring superpowers (china, india, pakistan), former empires (france etc) swinging their dicks around, tho obviously there's vast economic benefits to be reaped as well.

anyway, words like "reparations", "human rights", etc are predicated on countries playing by civilized rules of the affluent west. bashar assad (in the former persian then roman then islamic, crusader, mongol, ottoman + lastly french colony of syria), + by extension his backers in russia + china, could give a shit. no one really cares about that stuff. the west just pretends to so long as it's not inconvenient.

^oh absolutely. europe isn't alone in such hypocrisy but it is the worst offender by quite a bit. i'm just saying no one relinquishes power willingly.

modern ideas like international war crime tribunals, just wars, reparations, etc, of national (or racial) guilt in general, are actually fascinating, both in their existence + their general futility. they really boil down to ad victorem spolias, victor's justice, the taint of imperialism or patchwork enforcement motivated largely by self-interest (i.e. rwanda doesn't have any oil, but kuwait does). the ICJ found the U.S. liable for reparations to nicaragua + the U.S. basically said go freak yourself (hilariously, via the U.N. security council). russia carried out a war of extreme brutality in chechnya + minus some useless public scolding no one did nothing. anyway i can only imagine the spartans or northmen (vikings) or mongols laughing themselves silly over "war crimes".

another interesting factor is the rise of huge multinational corporations essentially above any kind of regulation (the list is endless: shell/nigeria, union carbide/bhopal, bechtel/bolivia, the clusterf**k of the eastern congo, illegal fishing off the somalian coast...) that are empires unto themselves. also international regulatory bodies like the IMF + world bank that can impose austerity at will on poor countries. like always + forever, might is right, whether it's the might of the gun or the financier (the two, of course, are linked - velvet glove//iron fist)

Padraig, your posts on this thread are brilliant, but there is nothing wrong with the word "fuck".

what is interesting is the global shift in economic power that is occurring - Brazil overtaking Britain in economic size, etc etc, and the possibility of former colonial power relationships being reversed.

What I'm less clear about is how this interacts with multinationals, as said, and the mobility of capital/the super-rich from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Did anyone ever see the film 'Enjoy Poverty', by that mad Dutch guy, Renzo Martens (it's quite possible Zhao mentioned it on here at some point, and that's how I know about it)? Interview here: http://africasacountry.com/2010/07/16/poverty-for-sale/
I think there's definitely a lot of mileage in the idea that the way people deal with African poverty, or poverty in general, or a whole raft of other uncomfortable issues in life, involves a high degree of cognitive dissonance. but that's how human beings deal with a huge array of things in their lives (from the friend they don't like to the comfortable salary they know they don't really 'earn' in any meaningful sense), so applying it to an international context is almost second nature.

@zhao - tbh, I don't know. it's hard to be against trying to punish genocidaires, but you could argue that these fictions actually facilitate those rights of the powerful by demarcating the violence of petty warlords from the violence of "just" imperialist wars or the pillaging of multinationals, in the same way domestic law demarcates armed robbery from white collar crime. law is + will always be on the side of those who write it, i.e. those with power. are you familiar with concept of the subaltern in post-colonialist theory? either way I think it's a mistake to assume that real justice follows from false justice. just as often it's a tool to legitimize IMF-imposed austerity. or death squads. the konys of the world don't have even a fraction of the power of the exxon mobils or koch brothers. this part marx got right: power flows from control of capital, whether by nation-states, corporations, (western) regulatory bodies, or individuals.

as far as zizek I agree to the extent that africa needs to stop waiting for apologies or handouts from the west that are not forthcoming, especially now. foreign actors in africa will always act on self-interest. meanwhile, guilt is harmful in that it takes the place of useful action.

@craner - I know, use it on here all the time, sometimes I get the idea people are using work computers that block them from sites w/swear words

@baboon - as I said, power in the modern world flows from economic might. but the new bosses will be the same as the old, twas ever thus. as far as multinationals + the ultra-wealthy who can be also considered extra-state entities (there's some overlap), they simply operate on a totally different plane. they're much harder to regulate than nations, basically impossible. they're almost an entirely different race (considering corporations as legal/metaphysical individuals; add also de facto corporations like massive drug cartels). it's one of several central cyberpunk tropes that has largely come true.

+ I know I keep going on about history, but a major theme of human history prior to the rise of the west was horse peoples from the steppe, complete economic have-nots, periodically (huns, seljuks, mongols, ottomans) sweeping in to conquer the sedentary peoples of perisa, asia minor, the middle east + eastern europe. such a thing now - power existing on a purely military level - is utterly impossible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/28/left-to-die-migrants-boat-inquiry

"We can talk as much as we want about human rights and the importance of complying with international obligations, but if at the same time we just leave people to die – perhaps because we don't know their identity or because they come from Africa – it exposes how meaningless those words are," said Strik, a Dutch member of the council's committee on migration, refugees and displaced persons, and the special rapporteur charged with investigating the case.

I'm sure most people here are aware but there's a great Adam Curtis doc on ethnic divisions in Rwanda/Congo etc. and how tribal enmity was stoked, if not entirely created, by Belgian colonial governors. Can't remember what it's called but should be easy to find on youtube - well worth a watch if you haven't seen it, zhao.

Edit: ep3 of 'Machines of Loving Grace', his most recent series.

will give that a watch too.

Also - read anything by Mamdani on the creation of Native Authorities. And, of course, postcolonial African leaders/despots continued the exacerbation of the divisions stoked by the colonials, at least in the Congo (competiton for state access by different perceived ethnic groups, further instantiating these groups as 'realities' etc etc).

Also interesting how the British did similar things with the caste system in India - didn't create it as such, but were highly responsible for the fucked-up way in which it works today.