[wat0n]

If the argument is that the ANC should be blamed because they have not resolved the ongoing systemic racism created by Apartheid policies, and this is because they have not somehow (against all odds and despite historical context) solved their economic problems, then note that this argument agrees with mine.

It simply adds a way to blame someone.

But it's important. The ANC was the historical alternative to Apartheid, it's Africanist (it's in the name) and - most importantly of all - the current issues didn't really start in the 1990s. Mandela did other mistakes, like handling the HIV epidemic (I think he admitted so himself) but the country seems to have been far better managed under his leadership then than it is now.

Or in other words, it's not simply that some inequalities may or may not remain but that it seems life has gotten worse for everyone who's not connected with the ANC regardless of race, even if it's less bad for some (Whites) than others (Blacks).

[JohnRawls]

Yes, you mentioned that more than once, I believe.

25 years is not very long to address systemic problems. Here in North America, overt legal racism has been illegal far longer than the last 25 years, and we are only starting to address systemic racism.

For a developing country with economic problems to have resolved these problems in far less time than developed countries with more resources seems implausible.

Estonia managed to break the chains of communism, privatise its industry, enter EU, NATO, OECD and so on in 25 years. Grow our gdp per capita nominal and ppp by leaps and bounds.

We started at around 1.5k-3k depending if you take Soviet Union stats or our own stats in 1991. This is what SA had at the very least with about 10-20% above for SA or 2.5 times above if you take our statistics instead of USSR stats. SA is right now at 6.6k, Estonia is at 28k nominal.

[Tainari88]

South Africa and Latin America need to think about Unaligned Movement. That needs to be revived. Because the PRC is going to be pressuring Africa and Latin America for ports, to give out infrastructure and investments. If the USA thinks the PRC is going to ignore the governments of the African continent or Latin America...they are mistaken. It is going to be a fight for influences for a long time into the future.

If the white South Africans never invest in their Black compatriots they will be set up to be pressured out of power forever. That is reality.

[Tainari88]

Estonia managed to break the chains of communism, privatise its industry, enter EU, NATO, OECD and so on in 25 years. Grow our gdp per capita nominal and ppp by leaps and bounds.

We started at around 1.5k-3k depending if you take Soviet Union stats or our own stats in 1991. This is what SA had at the very least with about 10-20% above for SA or 2.5 times above if you take our statistics instead of USSR stats. SA is right now at 6.6k, Estonia is at 28k nominal.

Did Estonia have apartheid for generations, invasions by colonists and forcing people into ghettos who were from Estonia originally. Reproduce what happened to Black South Africans and all that violence, racism and exploitation and then you can say the wonders of throwing off the chains. Lol. Because Estonia never had apartheid.

What about all banks being foreign and the much higher inflation rates of Latin America that is much worse for the economies than the Federal Reserve in the USA?

Keeping all debtor nations in Latin America in deep recessions for a long time. And the high interest rates for us in that scheme? Are you going to deal with this?

The Left is going to Latin America. Why? The poor are the majority. And the reality is that working class people in Latin America live mostly in cities. The Urban Poor in Latin America are the majority. Not a minority. The conservative do not change perspective will never be a political philosophy that reflects what the majority of registered voters are going to identify with that.

Africa and its many nations are similar. They are not seeing the benefits.

Not with the conservative right-wing types.

https://www.youtube.com/live/xP97OFITPxc?feature=share

I kind of like some of the redefinitions of what the Left is about.

Chile got a student activist lefty. As a new President. Lol.

[wat0n]

What about all banks being foreign and the much higher inflation rates of Latin America that is much worse for the economies than the Federal Reserve in the USA?

Keeping all debtor nations in Latin America in deep recessions for a long time. And the high interest rates for us in that scheme? Are you going to deal with this?

The Left is going to Latin America. Why? The poor are the majority. And the reality is that working class people in Latin America live mostly in cities. The Urban Poor in Latin America are the majority. Not a minority. The conservative do not change perspective will never be a political philosophy that reflects what the majority of registered voters are going to identify with that.

Africa and its many nations are similar. They are not seeing the benefits.

Not with the conservative right-wing types.

https://www.youtube.com/live/xP97OFITPxc?feature=share

Why weren't these factors relevant for Estonia?

I kind of like some of the redefinitions of what the Left is about.

Chile got a student activist lefty. As a new President. Lol.

I wonder if he regrets the decision. After losing last year's constitutional referendum, he can't do much

[ckaihatsu]

We should be careful to differentiate between the claim that the ANC has been unable to resolve the problems caused by systemic racism, and the claim that the ANC is to blame because they supposedly cannot get their economic affairs in order.

The first seems like a plausible argument looking at causal chains as limited by socio-economic context, while the latter seems like an attempt to disparage a specific party.

Can you do the former without doing the latter?

No, I saw it as well -- your entire *approach*, wat0n, is around *personnel*, similarly to the apologetics around *police brutality* and killer cops in the U.S.

Since there's indisputably *institutional racism*, carried out by *black cops* (Tyre Nichols), that indicates a *larger agenda*, one not about race so-much as it is about *class* oppression, through policing / PIC.

[Pants-of-dog]

Estonia managed to break the chains of communism, privatise its industry, enter EU, NATO, OECD and so on in 25 years. Grow our gdp per capita nominal and ppp by leaps and bounds.

Yes, and this is because it is far easier to make these kind of economic changes. Especially when these changes are supported by every single country of the western developed world, including financial support after the fall of the Iron Curtain.

We started at around 1.5k-3k depending if you take Soviet Union stats or our own stats in 1991. This is what SA had at the very least with about 10-20% above for SA or 2.5 times above if you take our statistics instead of USSR stats. SA is right now at 6.6k, Estonia is at 28k nominal.

And this contrast provides a clear example of how the ongoing effects of colonialism and capitalist supported racism have significantly more negative economic impact than decades of enforced socialism.

Perhaps the best way would be to compare the length of time Estonia and SA have dealt with foreign powers twisting the economy for their own purposes: Estonia fell under Soviet control in 1940, and this ended in 1991. 51 years.

For SA, it started in 1652, and ended about 1992. 340 years.

Imagine the effect on the Estonian economy and culture if it had been a Soviet vassal for 340 years.

[wat0n]

No, I saw it as well -- your entire *approach*, wat0n, is around *personnel*, similarly to the apologetics around *police brutality* and killer cops in the U.S.

Since there's indisputably *institutional racism*, carried out by *black cops* (Tyre Nichols), that indicates a *larger agenda*, one not about race so-much as it is about *class* oppression, through policing / PIC.

Oh, so police brutality is not primarily driven by race but by class now? Funny, I recalled I argued the issue of police brutality has more (a lot more, in fact) to do with class than race too.

[wat0n]

Perhaps the best way would be to compare the length of time Estonia and SA have dealt with foreign powers twisting the economy for their own purposes: Estonia fell under Soviet control in 1940, and this ended in 1991. 51 years.

For SA, it started in 1652, and ended about 1992. 340 years.

Imagine the effect on the Estonian economy and culture if it had been a Soviet vassal for 340 years.

You do realize Estonia was part of Russia from 1710-1917 and then just went back into being part of its successor state in 1940-1992, right? That's 259 years.

Before 1710, it was contested between the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and Sweden. And prior to that, in the Middle Ages, it was a nominally Danish dominion when it was Christianized (i.e. colonized and the pagan indigenous population being given the choice between the book or the sword).

I don't think you can honestly say Estonia has a long history of being independent.

[ckaihatsu]

Oh, so police brutality is not primarily driven by race but by class now? Funny, I recalled I argued the issue of police brutality has more (a lot more, in fact) to do with class than race too.

---

Amid the outpouring of commentary (the Post editorial and the Charles Blow column are only two examples of many) on the “systemic racism” revealed in the killing of Nichols, there is no mention of the fact that police violence affects workers and poor people of all races.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/0 ... z-j31.html

[JohnRawls]

Yes, and this is because it is far easier to make these kind of economic changes. Especially when these changes are supported by every single country of the western developed world, including financial support after the fall of the Iron Curtain.



And this contrast provides a clear example of how the ongoing effects of colonialism and capitalist supported racism have significantly more negative economic impact than decades of enforced socialism.

Perhaps the best way would be to compare the length of time Estonia and SA have dealt with foreign powers twisting the economy for their own purposes: Estonia fell under Soviet control in 1940, and this ended in 1991. 51 years.

For SA, it started in 1652, and ended about 1992. 340 years.

Imagine the effect on the Estonian economy and culture if it had been a Soviet vassal for 340 years.

First of all, I would argue with you the easiness of the change:

1) We didn't have capitalism nor did we even know what it was.
2) We are small, we don't have economy of scale.
3) We have no natural resources.
4) Expectations are higher in Europe.
5) Starting from a far lower base to grow is FAR FAR easier compared to growing from higher base already.

So if you compare it to in any category perhaps only between overall education of population, our position was far more dire considering it was 1991. The financial aid didn't come for no reason, we joined the EU after all so "getting supported" is kinda weird. We worked for that and everything else is acceptable to SA just as it is/was for Estonia.

As for legacy, who did rule us for the last 800 years? Germans? Danes? Swedish? Russians? We were colonised for 800 years with small streak of independence from 1918 to 1940 that is it. We don't complain about it. If you even look between 1918-1940 it was also good.

[JohnRawls]

Did Estonia have apartheid for generations, invasions by colonists and forcing people into ghettos who were from Estonia originally. Reproduce what happened to Black South Africans and all that violence, racism and exploitation and then you can say the wonders of throwing off the chains. Lol. Because Estonia never had apartheid.

What about all banks being foreign and the much higher inflation rates of Latin America that is much worse for the economies than the Federal Reserve in the USA?

Keeping all debtor nations in Latin America in deep recessions for a long time. And the high interest rates for us in that scheme? Are you going to deal with this?

The Left is going to Latin America. Why? The poor are the majority. And the reality is that working class people in Latin America live mostly in cities. The Urban Poor in Latin America are the majority. Not a minority. The conservative do not change perspective will never be a political philosophy that reflects what the majority of registered voters are going to identify with that.

Africa and its many nations are similar. They are not seeing the benefits.

Not with the conservative right-wing types.

https://www.youtube.com/live/xP97OFITPxc?feature=share

I kind of like some of the redefinitions of what the Left is about.

Chile got a student activist lefty. As a new President. Lol.

Yes we did have apartheid like systems in our history with different variance of cruelty for 800 years.

[Pants-of-dog]

First of all, I would argue with you the easiness of the change:

1) We didn't have capitalism nor did we even know what it was.

That would be odd. What economic system was used before 1940?

2) We are small, we don't have economy of scale.

It was almost certainly larger than what black South Africans had at the end of Apartheid.

3) We have no natural resources.

Black South Africans had no control over resources at the end of Apartheid, and I have no memory of large scale land reform since then.

4) Expectations are higher in Europe.

This seems subjective and unverifiable. I will ignore it.

5) Starting from a far lower base to grow is FAR FAR easier compared to growing from higher base already.

Not necessarily. Someone who is poor will not achieve his first million dollars quicker and more easily than someone who is starting off with half a million in disposable wealth.

So if you compare it to in any category perhaps only between overall education of population, our position was far more dire considering it was 1991. The financial aid didn't come for no reason, we joined the EU after all so "getting supported" is kinda weird. We worked for that and everything else is acceptable to SA just as it is/was for Estonia.

As for legacy, who did rule us for the last 800 years? Germans? Danes? Swedish? Russians? We were colonised for 800 years with small streak of independence from 1918 to 1940 that is it. We don't complain about it. If you even look between 1918-1940 it was also good.

Again, this serves only to highlight the difference between the effects of settler colonialism and economically enforced racism and the effects of the intermittent imperialism of Europe.

[JohnRawls]

That would be odd. What economic system was used before 1940?



It was almost certainly larger than what black South Africans had at the end of Apartheid.



Black South Africans had no control over resources at the end of Apartheid, and I have no memory of large scale land reform since then.



This seems subjective and unverifiable. I will ignore it.



Not necessarily. Someone who is poor will not achieve his first million dollars quicker and more easily than someone who is starting off with half a million in disposable wealth.



Again, this serves only to highlight the difference between the effects of settler colonialism and economically enforced racism and the effects of the intermittent imperialism of Europe.

1) Before 1940 we were capitalist but that was exterminated by Soviet Gulags, emigration, law and so on. In 51 years you don't expect anybody being in power while remembering anything from 1940 really or before. That is a very weird argument.

2) What? How can Estonia economy be larger by any stretch with 1.5 million people to 40 million in SA.

3) Resources help with growth if used properly. And I am not talking about farms here which usually are not that profitable but sure, they had 25 years to do it. I am more talking about gas, oil, coal, insert x minerals that is easy to export to the global market. SA has plenty of a lot of things while Estonia has may be oil shale which we barely use anymore. We stopped using a lot of it even before oil shale revolution.

4) Growing for societies with 1000 gdp per capita is not hard. You just need to create a functioning system and you will grow 10-20-30% per year. Growing from 30-40-50-60-70k is a whole different matter since you can't be a cheap labour source anymore and have to focus in high value add whatever you might decide it to be. No developed country grows by 10-20-30% on average. This is the real long term challange but it needs a different topic. TLDR: Even if your argument is that SA black community was a burden due to apartheid history then it should have been taken care like any other country taken care of it from Asia to Europe to Latin America. Look at Asia as an example: build factories -> export goods -> grow gdp -> educate population. This steps are pretty common way to get from being a poor economy to somewhere middle or high-middle income economies until you reach the middle income gap. This is not rocket science. Half of the world did this by now.

5) What intermittent colonialism. We were colonised for 800 years then by your own logic. We had a freedom period between 1918-1940 but that is it. Here is a simplified graph:



Ancient Estonia: We raided stuff like vikings. Burn down Swedish capital. Basically tribal society and independance. I don't remember much about this period from history. We basically didn't do anything relevant in this period beside being independent and minding our own business while raiding stuff like vikings did.

Estonia to Denmark/Terra Mariana: Crusades, German overlordship with Danish overlordship. Estonians are peasants and can barely do anything while Germans and Danes are land owners. Cities develop which are part of Hanseatic league.

Swedish empire: So the Swedes come and sweep up the place. Swedish overlords with agreement with the Germans. Germans still the land owner with some Swedish new rulers and increase in education which was a Swedish thing. So the Swedes are remembered more fondly as more benevolent overlords.

Russian Empire: So now Peter comes and sweeps up the place. Again, deal with the Germans and the land still belongs to the Germans now with some Russian overlords mixed in it. Huge devasation after the war but again nothing much changes serfdom, somebody else rules, at points of time Russification due to Russian empire policies. Just depends what was going on in Russia the time. At some point serfdom is abolished but it doesn't change the fact that Germans still own the land. Russification of education institutions that belong to the Germans before.

Independence: Lenin fucks up Russia so Estonians manage to fight their way to independence. Development of democracy that eventually degraded in to soft autocracy. Finally German legal status was fully abolished and now Estonians can finally own more land. German population still remains and integrated in to society at large without descrimination

Soviet occupation 1: Soviets arrive with the military. Create a fake vote and their soldiers vote so we loose independence. Enterpreneurs get prosecuted and businesses get closed. Tens of thousands of intelegencia and enterpreneurs go to the Siberian gulag. Some flee.

Nazi occupation: Nazis come and kick out the Soviet and take over. Nazis kill Soviet sympathisers and take over once again for us to be integrated in to the German state directly. We weren't supposed to be an independent state but basically part of Germany proper due to our legacy.

Soviet occupation 2: Soviets come back and kick out the Nazis. Soviets kill Nazi sympathisers and send German overlords to the gulag along with the remaining resisters to the gulag. Capitalism is killed alltogether. Estonian can now only be communist and allowed to "rule" themselves starting from around the late 60s-70s. But besides that, main positions are for Russians. Obviously russification of culture and language.

Independence 2: Well I wrote about it.

[Tainari88]

Yes we did have apartheid like systems in our history with different variance of cruelty for 800 years.

John, the truth is that you have a very hard time admitting just the slightest possibility that the US Empire is really unjust with the nations and governments in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

It is very easy to blame the poor for being poor. People do that all the time. But part of being analytical is to dig deep there.

What is it that is true?

Why did the Europeans arrive to the African continent? They were looking for something right? What were they looking for?

What are the results of the decolonization of Africa since the 20th century? You study each nation that was decolonized in the African continent it was because the colonized were not benefiting them enough to have a sustainable society. Not for them. The natives of all those nations. South Africa either.

They were not benefiting from the policies in place. If they were benefiting enough? They would still be in the colonial relationship with England, France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Germany, etc. They are not. That is a fact John Rawls.

What is the prescription for South Africa. Mandela was controversial. He was highly criticized for fraternizing with known socialists and known Communists. Including Fidel Castro, Raul Castro and the Cuban government sent Cuban troops to fight the military of the South African government. Kissinger, Henry Kissinger, the super Anti Communist extraordinaire war criminal did state that Castro's actions in South Africa surprised him. Because he said that the only reason a foreign nation sends troops to die in a foreign land in the African continent has always been to make sure the resources and profits and interests were secure for that invading army. And that he did not see any benefit for Castro to spend his time and money there unless it was to support Mandela's ANC and their fight for racial and political equality. Castro always knew that Cuba is a nation with a lot of African cultures, African people, and African solidarity in terms of the racism of the past and the colonial element. There was identification. And the ANC had a strong communist element present.

Che Guevara knew Patrice Lamumba and his fight for freedom as well. Anti-colonial. All of Latin America has struggled with that problem. Trying to get out of the problem of being set up as extraction-only economies and nations ruled by a very wealthy elite while the vast masses always live in poverty, squalor, and deprivation. That is the point of identification. The USA and other wealthy nations of the Northern sphere have not done much to alleviate poverty or do good diplomatic or economic ties in that region. It has always been beating the other side and manipulating it to enrich itself. The truth is that policy is going to fail spectacularly in a world with limited ability to recover from climate issues. That is reality.

Africa and Latin America are not Estonia John. The far-right has been bloody, violent, oppressive, exploitative and huge failures at bringing decent jobs, decent salaries, and decent standards of living to most of our nations. And they are capitalist and full of promising things that never materialized. That is reality. The pro-capitalist crowd in Latin America are not trusted, and not responding to the working class. Most people don't know that Latin America is 80% urban. City dwellers. This means that urban development is what should be happening alongside of protecting the rural parts of the South American and Central American nations and Mexico. John Perkins in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman talks about what happens when Washington DC sends people like he was to go and negotiate with the US government. They need to comply or risk being deposed or ousted. That is not democracy at all. It is blackmail.

That is what they do. I really think you only are concerned with Estonian context. You should be acknowledging what is true to the context of the South Africans and the Latin Americans. It is a very difficult history. As Eduardo Galeano stated long ago in his book, the Open Veins of Latin America. Everyone differs about the solutions or policies on how to fix the problems. What is not really in contention is that the region has enormous resources and they should be living a decent existence. But they are not. Why? It has to do with systemic obstacles for a long time. And unless you realize it has to do with being set up as extraction economies and not allowed to be independent in thought and in political government leadership and not allowed to reflect what the working class want in Latin America...nothing will improve. Period.

Who showed up for that Mandela funeral? Cuban leaders, American US diplomats and many others. All who respected what he had tried to accomplish in his lifetime.

[Pants-of-dog]

1) Before 1940 we were capitalist but that was exterminated by Soviet Gulags, emigration, law and so on. In 51 years you don't expect anybody being in power while remembering anything from 1940 really or before. That is a very weird argument.

You had claimed that Estonia did not know what capitalism was. I pointed out that this is incorrect.

2) What? How can Estonia economy be larger by any stretch with 1.5 million people to 40 million in SA.

The amount of people does not make the size of the economy. Black S. Africans had almost no wealth at the end of Apartheid.

3) Resources help with growth if used properly. And I am not talking about farms here which usually are not that profitable but sure, they had 25 years to do it. I am more talking about gas, oil, coal, insert x minerals that is easy to export to the global market. SA has plenty of a lot of things while Estonia has may be oil shale which we barely use anymore. We stopped using a lot of it even before oil shale revolution.

And this would be a good argument if SA was not systemically built to funnel the wealth of natural resources away from SA. But since it is a colonial country, that is how the economy was structured for 340 years, and is still built like that today in large part.

4) Growing for societies with 1000 gdp per capita is not hard. You just need to create a functioning system and you will grow 10-20-30% per year. Growing from 30-40-50-60-70k is a whole different matter since you can't be a cheap labour source anymore and have to focus in high value add whatever you might decide it to be. No developed country grows by 10-20-30% on average. This is the real long term challange but it needs a different topic. TLDR: Even if your argument is that SA black community was a burden due to apartheid history then it should have been taken care like any other country taken care of it from Asia to Europe to Latin America. Look at Asia as an example: build factories -> export goods -> grow gdp -> educate population. This steps are pretty common way to get from being a poor economy to somewhere middle or high-middle income economies until you reach the middle income gap. This is not rocket science. Half of the world did this by now.

This is a new argument.

How does this hew argument tie into how racism is still a problem in SA?

5) What intermittent colonialism. We were colonised for 800 years then by your own logic. We had a freedom period between 1918-1940 but that is it. Here is a simplified graph:



Ancient Estonia: We raided stuff like vikings. Burn down Swedish capital. Basically tribal society and independance. I don't remember much about this period from history. We basically didn't do anything relevant in this period beside being independent and minding our own business while raiding stuff like vikings did.

Estonia to Denmark/Terra Mariana: Crusades, German overlordship with Danish overlordship. Estonians are peasants and can barely do anything while Germans and Danes are land owners. Cities develop which are part of Hanseatic league.

Swedish empire: So the Swedes come and sweep up the place. Swedish overlords with agreement with the Germans. Germans still the land owner with some Swedish new rulers and increase in education which was a Swedish thing. So the Swedes are remembered more fondly as more benevolent overlords.

Russian Empire: So now Peter comes and sweeps up the place. Again, deal with the Germans and the land still belongs to the Germans now with some Russian overlords mixed in it. Huge devasation after the war but again nothing much changes serfdom, somebody else rules, at points of time Russification due to Russian empire policies. Just depends what was going on in Russia the time. At some point serfdom is abolished but it doesn't change the fact that Germans still own the land. Russification of education institutions that belong to the Germans before.

Independence: Lenin fucks up Russia so Estonians manage to fight their way to independence. Development of democracy that eventually degraded in to soft autocracy. Finally German legal status was fully abolished and now Estonians can finally own more land. German population still remains and integrated in to society at large without descrimination

Soviet occupation 1: Soviets arrive with the military. Create a fake vote and their soldiers vote so we loose independence. Enterpreneurs get prosecuted and businesses get closed. Tens of thousands of intelegencia and enterpreneurs go to the Siberian gulag. Some flee.

Nazi occupation: Nazis come and kick out the Soviet and take over. Nazis kill Soviet sympathisers and take over once again for us to be integrated in to the German state directly. We weren't supposed to be an independent state but basically part of Germany proper due to our legacy.

Soviet occupation 2: Soviets come back and kick out the Nazis. Soviets kill Nazi sympathisers and send German overlords to the gulag along with the remaining resisters to the gulag. Capitalism is killed alltogether. Estonian can now only be communist and allowed to "rule" themselves starting from around the late 60s-70s. But besides that, main positions are for Russians. Obviously russification of culture and language.

Independence 2: Well I wrote about it.

This is not colonialism.

It is imperialism, maybe.

Colonialism is a specific economic model that only began in the mid 1400s..

[JohnRawls]

You had claimed that Estonia did not know what capitalism was. I pointed out that this is incorrect.



The amount of people does not make the size of the economy. Black S. Africans had almost no wealth at the end of Apartheid.



And this would be a good argument if SA was not systemically built to funnel the wealth of natural resources away from SA. But since it is a colonial country, that is how the economy was structured for 340 years, and is still built like that today in large part.



This is a new argument.

How does this hew argument tie into how racism is still a problem in SA?



This is not colonialism.

It is imperialism, maybe.

Colonialism is a specific economic model that only began in the mid 1400s..

1) Yes, because the Soviets were communist so we were communist. Hard to build a system you know nothing about. How hard is it to understand? That is the reason why many post soviet systems degraded and failed. We also had problems for like 5 years since relatively few in the population itself knew what to do. SA had knowledge and active capitalism. This was not even a problem for them. So SA had a huge advantage in this regard.

2) The size of economy is directly proportional to your population on what you have or could build. Even if you take just white South Africans there are more of them than total Estonians. So arguing that SA has a smaller economy of scale compared to Estonia is total non-argument. So SA had a huge advantage in this regard.

3) Vast majority of the developed world does not nationalise resource extraction. It taxes it while capitalism figures out the rest. The simply fact that you have them means you are already in a far more advantageous position compared to people/countries who do not. That was my point.

4) You said that it was harder to grow for SA. Your argument is that black africans had 0 wealth and 0 gdp basically. Growing from 0 to 10k is much easier than growing from 10k to 30k. It was much easier for SA to generate the gdp per capita but they didn't.

5) Since when are you this dishonest? So now, Estonia was not colonised/imperialised because it serves your argument. Did we rule ourselves? No? Did we control the economy? No? Were our people basically used as a resource to farm the land, mine resource, manufacture etc? Yes? Did we own the land or those plants or had access to education? No?

[MadMonk]

Colonialism is a specific economic model that only began in the mid 1400s..

Colonialism, and more specifically settler colonialism, can also mean moving ethnic groups from one place to another in order to reshape the demographic composition in a contested area. Like Northern Ireland, Palestine, Cyprus or Crimea.

Settler colonialism is an ongoing system of power that perpetuates the genocide and repression of indigenous peoples and cultures. Essentially hegemonic in scope, settler colonialism normalizes the continuous settler occupation, exploiting lands and resources to which indigenous peoples have genealogical relationships.

Settler Colonialism

[wat0n]

I actually agree with @Pants-of-dog, Estonia was more like a Northern Ireland than India if one were to draw an analogy with the British Empire. But it is also true it wasn't independent either.

South Africa was also already independent from the UK when Apartheid began in 1948.

[JohnRawls]

John, the truth is that you have a very hard time admitting just the slightest possibility that the US Empire is really unjust with the nations and governments in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

It is very easy to blame the poor for being poor. People do that all the time. But part of being analytical is to dig deep there.

What is it that is true?

Why did the Europeans arrive to the African continent? They were looking for something right? What were they looking for?

What are the results of the decolonization of Africa since the 20th century? You study each nation that was decolonized in the African continent it was because the colonized were not benefiting them enough to have a sustainable society. Not for them. The natives of all those nations. South Africa either.

They were not benefiting from the policies in place. If they were benefiting enough? They would still be in the colonial relationship with England, France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Germany, etc. They are not. That is a fact John Rawls.

What is the prescription for South Africa. Mandela was controversial. He was highly criticized for fraternizing with known socialists and known Communists. Including Fidel Castro, Raul Castro and the Cuban government sent Cuban troops to fight the military of the South African government. Kissinger, Henry Kissinger, the super Anti Communist extraordinaire war criminal did state that Castro's actions in South Africa surprised him. Because he said that the only reason a foreign nation sends troops to die in a foreign land in the African continent has always been to make sure the resources and profits and interests were secure for that invading army. And that he did not see any benefit for Castro to spend his time and money there unless it was to support Mandela's ANC and their fight for racial and political equality. Castro always knew that Cuba is a nation with a lot of African cultures, African people, and African solidarity in terms of the racism of the past and the colonial element. There was identification. And the ANC had a strong communist element present.

Che Guevara knew Patrice Lamumba and his fight for freedom as well. Anti-colonial. All of Latin America has struggled with that problem. Trying to get out of the problem of being set up as extraction-only economies and nations ruled by a very wealthy elite while the vast masses always live in poverty, squalor, and deprivation. That is the point of identification. The USA and other wealthy nations of the Northern sphere have not done much to alleviate poverty or do good diplomatic or economic ties in that region. It has always been beating the other side and manipulating it to enrich itself. The truth is that policy is going to fail spectacularly in a world with limited ability to recover from climate issues. That is reality.

Africa and Latin America are not Estonia John. The far-right has been bloody, violent, oppressive, exploitative and huge failures at bringing decent jobs, decent salaries, and decent standards of living to most of our nations. And they are capitalist and full of promising things that never materialized. That is reality. The pro-capitalist crowd in Latin America are not trusted, and not responding to the working class. Most people don't know that Latin America is 80% urban. City dwellers. This means that urban development is what should be happening alongside of protecting the rural parts of the South American and Central American nations and Mexico. John Perkins in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman talks about what happens when Washington DC sends people like he was to go and negotiate with the US government. They need to comply or risk being deposed or ousted. That is not democracy at all. It is blackmail.

That is what they do. I really think you only are concerned with Estonian context. You should be acknowledging what is true to the context of the South Africans and the Latin Americans. It is a very difficult history. As Eduardo Galeano stated long ago in his book, the Open Veins of Latin America. Everyone differs about the solutions or policies on how to fix the problems. What is not really in contention is that the region has enormous resources and they should be living a decent existence. But they are not. Why? It has to do with systemic obstacles for a long time. And unless you realize it has to do with being set up as extraction economies and not allowed to be independent in thought and in political government leadership and not allowed to reflect what the working class want in Latin America...nothing will improve. Period.

Who showed up for that Mandela funeral? Cuban leaders, American US diplomats and many others. All who respected what he had tried to accomplish in his lifetime.

What does US have to do with anything right now? Or the Europeans?

We are talking about SA which basically overthrew the chains of apartheid but had little relative success after that economic, socially and so on. Partly it is due to apartheid, legacy of which still remain. Partly it is due to the corruption and mismanagement of the ANC. Not sure what are we discussing right now?

That it is all US/European fault? US has nothing to do with SA almost at all. SA was independent for a long time now so European also have very little to do with it unless you consider SA white South Africans as Europeans which they are not, they are South Africans.