Historic Forces

[Tawasakm]

I've seen the argument on many occasions that the past is given too much weight when considering situations in the present. I wonder if this is a valid assertion. I will throw in the following example for debate.

I recently read an interesting PDF (I'll provide the source after the last quote) discussing the question of why people can't feed themselves. It postulated that such problems cannot be understood in static terms but rather as the result of a historic process.

Colonialism destroyed the cultural patterns of production and exchange by which traditional societies in "underdeveloped" countries previously had met the needs of the people. Many precolonial social structures, while dominated by exploitative elites, had evolved a system of mutual obligation among the classes that helped to ensure at least a minimum diet for all.

It contends that nations which are now unable to resource their own agriculture are deficient in resources due to colonial impact. Agricultural needs were determined by colonial powers on the basis of their economic needs. For example production of staple foods might be replaces by increased production of sugar, coffee or rubber etc. Some of these crops change soil conditions in such a way as to render it useless for any other crops in future. People were forced to work in these new plantations by such means as introduction of a cash economy. A cash economy means taxes, failure to pay taxes means loss of land, cash can only be gained by working for the colonial power. The argument continues with instances of colonial powers protecting their own interests above those of the native population thus establishing a process whereby food must now be imported to the nation and creates a dependency cycle.

There are further arguments as to how declarations of independence can't alter the effect on infrastructure etc but I guess I may posting something too large here. I'll add more on request. I will include some (well most) of the second last paragraph however.

If, however, we describe underdevelopment as a

process and understand it's colonial roots, we know that the traditional and the modern sectors do not stand side by side by mere chance.  This history of underdevelopment shows that the economic decline of the backward sector was the direct product of the formation of the other, commercial sector, tied into the international economy. once colonialism has raked over a country, there is no such thing as a "traditional" left for economic planners to push into the present.

sources:

Lappé, F.M., Collins, J., and Fowler, C. (1977), Why can’t people feed themselves?, in Food First:

Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, [Online], Houghton Mifflin, Boston, U.S.A., pp. 75-85., Available

from: University of Western Australia Library E-Reserve.

Lappé, F.M., Collins, J., and Fowler, C. (1977), Isn’t colonialism dead?, in Food First: Beyond the

Myth of Scarcity, [Online], Houghton Mifflin, Boston, U.S.A., pp. 86-90., Available from:

University of Western Australia Library E-Reserve.

(Yes I currently reside in Australia)

Now an addendum to this kind of question is the question of responsibility. If historic factors contribute materially to poverty and famine in underdeveloped nations then do we, as beneficiaries of that process, owe a debt to these people?

[The Terrible Sweal]

All the evidence of day to day experience suggests that the past flows causationally into the future. If you throw a frisbee onto the roof one day, it will likely still be there the next when you borrow the ladder to retrieve it. And your neighbor will eventually come asking after the ladder if you don't return it.

However, most historical analyses are, because of the nature and limitations of human endevour, incomplete in the sense of capturing all the elements of causation in even any single historical event, let alone a trend or movement. Worse yet, some analyses are driven not by the desire for discovery, but rather to persuade.

[KrustyKidd]

Na, too phisophical. Main point is historicly, populations try their best to increase. it is testament to the peacefulness of the past couple of centuries in comparisson to the rest of history that they have grown faster and faster. You need peace and civilization to feed and develop medicine and technology as well as maximize food harvesting and production. If we left the middle east and never went back they would starve on a huge scale. If we left Europe to Europe, they too would hurt in a severe way. I mean, there is a good reason why there are no oil rigs in Hamilton Ontario, same as there are no computor chip factories in a corn feild in kansas. Nor do we manufacture car parts on a Herring boat in the Berring Sea. You can't go back to the old ways when the sons of Abraham are as many as the stars in the sky.

In short, you find a beautiful Island in the Pacific where a hundred fifty years ago, the people were self sufficient. Give them all a part of the modern world and then build a beautiful resort there so that oil workers from kuwait can go on vacation and rub shoulders with a wheat farmer from Saskatchewan. Unless of course, people figure that Moosomin Sask is a prefferable vacation spot, in which case my argument has a flaw and the Polynesians will starve.

[Tawasakm]

In short, you find a beautiful Island in the Pacific where a hundred fifty years ago, the people were self sufficient. Give them all a part of the modern world and then build a beautiful resort there so that oil workers from kuwait can go on vacation and rub shoulders with a wheat farmer from Saskatchewan. Unless of course, people figure that Moosomin Sask is a prefferable vacation spot, in which case my argument has a flaw and the Polynesians will starve.

OK. Using this example:

1) Was the change forced on them by the process of colonialism?

2) In the process of being tied into the international economy have they lost the ability to revert to a more preferred state even after regaining independence. (For example Aboriginal Australians can never live in a full traditional manner because the water tables have been altered too drastically - even were such an option available)

3) If the resort doesn't bring in enough money and the polynesians are starving do the descendants of imperialists who may still be beneficiaries of that process owe them assistance?

I've read enough posts here to know there are some very knowledgable people on this forum - is there an issue of culpability existent here? If so, in what form? I'd like to bring a bit more to this if the discussion proves interesting for people and discussion is generated.

[Tawasakm]

However, most historical analyses are, because of the nature and limitations of human endevour, incomplete in the sense of capturing all the elements of causation in even any single historical event, let alone a trend or movement. Worse yet, some analyses are driven not by the desire for discovery, but rather to persuade.

You seem to be saying that nothing concrete can be gained from the past. Is this true? What do you think is required in the process of analysis to justify a confident conclusion and resultant action?

I understand the limitations but surely analysis can't be so irrelevant.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Tawasakm,

If historic factors contribute materially to poverty and famine in underdeveloped nations then do we, as beneficiaries of that process, owe a debt to these people?

That depends on what your 'cause' is. Neither religious nor free enterprise proponents are willing to accept responsibility for their actions when Mammon is the only God they answer to. Power and wealth are the only things that matter, for them, 'today'. Responsibility, yesterday and tomorrow are for the suckers.

No debt need be owed if 'all' are included as 'beneficiaries of the process', but as it stands, one must have power, of some type, to 'collect' any debt. As for acknowledging said 'debt', one must also first have a conscience and moral values. These are things that religion and 'free enterprise' do not inherently possess.