History Why are poor countries poor?

[nut]

Exploitation ......

 

[The_Reaper]

Exploitation ......

In recent times by their domestic elite.

Another factor that hasn't being mentioned is that half of the third world still uses old European colonial boundaries. These nations did not gradually evolve over hundreds and thousands of years like in Europe and Asia. Many of these countries combine many different ethnic groups whose only real point in common was that they had the same colonial master.

 

[bombermick]

Taiwan and Japan have very little natural resources, yet are very rich. Like the contrasting fortunes of Germany and Greece, those countries show it's got more to do with work ethic than it does imperialism or luck.

It's not racial superiority that makes Germany successful and Greece an economic backwater, but cultural factors. Good governance (i.e raising taxes) plays a part in Greece's state, but they're less industrious than the Germans who've funded their lifestyle.

 

[nut]

Have the Aboriginals become poorer or Richer since the poms got here?

 

[The_Reaper]

Have the Aboriginals become poorer or Richer since the poms got here?

Some have some haven't.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Have the Aboriginals become poorer or Richer since the poms got here?

Poorer. Much poorer.

 

[nut]

Some have some haven't.

But before European Settlement they had everything they needed....... You could argue they were the richest race on the planet.

 

[richmonds]

But before European Settlement they had everything they needed....... You could argue they were the richest race on the planet.

im sure you would love to go back and live like they did , pre 1788, it was a wonderful lifestyle, what great comforts they had, how greatly evolved they were , they were world leaders in their technological development

 

[Upton Sinclair]

But before European Settlement they had everything they needed....... You could argue they were the richest race on the planet.

On an unrelated note - new book has just come out that looks quite interesting:

The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia

The author draws on historical accounts that in 1788 Australia was so well managed that the country resembled an English park, with swathes of lush grassland surrounded by pockets of forest with floors free of fuel and undergrowth.

http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/history-under-fire-20121103-28rbw.html

Prior to 1788 Australia was subject to the most sophisticated and elaborate land management system on the planet.

 

[Donners]

But before European Settlement they had everything they needed....... You could argue they were the richest race on the planet.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is the benefit of a small, self-contained and cooperative society. With modern overpopulation, we will only move further from that. Something tells me that the number of people who can be sustained at a good standard of living is a fair way below the world's current population.

 

[Donners]

Enough of the personal bickering, thank you. Feel free to make points on the topic, but do it without the sniping.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

at least i dont bullshit about things and tell it how it was , PRIMITIVE PRIMITIVE PRIMITIVE, not like you who cherry pick things to suit your agenda

Prmitive. In terms of technology and governance systems, sure. Unfortunately, the word primitive is often taken to mean backwards rather than simply undeveloped in a technological sense. It has developed certain connotations which I trust you do not mean.

It was a lifestyle adapted to the environment they were in.
In most of the nation the carrying capacity simply wasn't there for anything other than a low density society. There wasn't, therefore, what many would suggest is the necessary critical mass of humanity to devleop further in terms of technology.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is the benefit of a small, self-contained and cooperative society. With modern overpopulation, we will only move further from that. Something tells me that the number of people who can be sustained at a good standard of living is a fair way below the world's current population.

I think even more so in Australia. We are entirely dependent on our links to the rest of the world to survive in this land as we currently do.

Take agriculture for instance, Australia was always very poor when it comes to soil quality, because for the most part the country is very old and the erosion forces that renew soils have already virtually levelled the land flat, there's not much more to erode. And when European's arrived our farming practices caused the vast majority to dry up and blow away, now our wheatbelt areas crops are essentially planted in a substrate to which we have to add artificial nutrients, produced using petrochemicals.

We call Aboriginal people primitive because they lacked our technology, but they also lived in one of the most hostile human environments on earth and managed an entire continent by way of the most sophisticated land management system ever developed by our species and did so with great success for tens of thousands of years. Whereas it is questionable that Europeans will last more than a few centuries here.

 

[JoondalupJ]

On an unrelated note - new book has just come out that looks quite interesting:

The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia

The author draws on historical accounts that in 1788 Australia was so well managed that the country resembled an English park, with swathes of lush grassland surrounded by pockets of forest with floors free of fuel and undergrowth.

http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/history-under-fire-20121103-28rbw.html

Prior to 1788 Australia was subject to the most sophisticated and elaborate land management system on the planet.

Yes nature ruled, and the people didn,t need to fly , everything was there?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Yes nature ruled,

No. That's about the complete opposite to what that link argues.

 

[radiojake]

Heh..

I love the assumption that western technology and 'progress' is somehow the epitome of what we are supposed to do as a species -

The way the concept is constructed means it is very difficult for alternative cultures/civilisations to be perceieved anything but 'backwards' - An inherently biased way to look at pre-colonial history.

Sure we have air-conditioners now (well, actually I dont, I still just use a pedastool fan) - but I would gladly swap that to work on the land if it meant I didn't have to deal with a boss who exploits my labour for their own personal profit -

 

[cancat]

But before European Settlement they had everything they needed

They didn't quite have everything they needed. They didn't have the ability to defend themselves. That is part of what comes with being a rich country.

 

[nut]

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is the benefit of a small, self-contained and cooperative society. With modern overpopulation, we will only move further from that. Something tells me that the number of people who can be sustained at a good standard of living is a fair way below the world's current population.

Self sustainability is what all civilisations had at one point or else they would have died out, so the ability to defend ones self sustainabilty with out the need for anything else would make a society independantly neutral.

Wanting more that what you have or need makes you in debt to what it is that you want. If you have everything you need that you want, then IMO that makes you rich. In western society there is literally no limit to want a person might want.... and therefore peoples needs change. So labling someone poor or rich is irrelivant unless you know exactly what that person wants or needs.

To go back to the Aboriginals and compare what they needed before white man and compare it to what they "need" now is what makes the majority seem poorer now. Because they have A/C housing and electricity doesnt mean they are richer now....lol.

Western society leans what to much to ones desire to be "Rich" in an economy sence.... which is understandable because you need money to get the things "you" supposibly need. A lot is lost in western societies when ones focus is purely on getting rich.

 

[nut]

im sure you would love to go back and live like they did , pre 1788, it was a wonderful lifestyle, what great comforts they had, how greatly evolved they were , they were world leaders in their technological development

You dont miss what you never had..... so whats your point? I would say that most aboriginals that I have met ... and I have met alot in top end.... would gladly go back to the lifestyle they had before white man came.

 

[nut]

They didn't quite have everything they needed. They didn't have the ability to defend themselves. That is part of what comes with being a rich country.

Yes but before that they didnt.....lol. Good point though. But it goes back to my intitial point about exploitation.....

 

[JoondalupJ]

No. That's about the complete opposite to what that link argues.

Maybe I get the logic back to front. I suppose I mean that pre European times nature in the form of stone age man able to look after him/herself completely, even having the inbuilt genetical knowledge of what fire did and what use it was to replenish the land and make things normal for their existance. An existance I described before as one that didn,t need to develope technology to the point of a vehicle that could run on wheels or one that could fly.
I like the way that fire became a terrible thing after Europeans came . They obviously regarded their buildings and carriages and crops and farm animals as things to be protected from fire and that fire was not looked upon as the aboriginals looked at it. As perhaps a cleanser and protector of the naturally growing forrests and grasses, that sustained them and their prey.

In a way its what I said before, a calmer climate, relatively easier living , no need to built machines not even a wheel. And let nature watch over everything, well they were probably happier than those who invented everything, including swords bulletts and bombs.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Maybe I get the logic back to front. I suppose I mean that pre European times nature in the form of stone age man able to look after him/herself completely, even having the inbuilt genetical knowledge of what fire did and what use it was to replenish the land and make things normal for their existance. An existance I described before as one that didn,t need to develope technology to the point of a vehicle that could run on wheels or one that could fly.
I like the way that fire became a terrible thing after Europeans came . They obviously regarded their buildings and carriages and crops and farm animals as things to be protected from fire and that fire was not looked upon as the aboriginals looked at it. As perhaps a cleanser and protector of the naturally growing forrests and grasses, that sustained them and their prey.

In a way its what I said before, a calmer climate, relatively easier living , no need to built machines not even a wheel. And let nature watch over everything, well they were probably happier than those who invented everything, including swords bulletts and bombs.

And sailing ships!!!

 

[JoondalupJ]

You dont miss what you never had..... so whats your point? I would say that most aboriginals that I have met ... and I have met alot in top end.... would gladly go back to the lifestyle they had before white man came.

Thats really not a point made . That can never ever happen. Europeanised indigenous people are all Mr Inbetweens , well, a lot are.

They couldn,t hunt and gather any more than you or I. Maybe the tribal top enders could easily do it, as some live pretty close to their roots in the bush.

But the ones I know, work and are Aussies, they,d starve in the bush. I bet theres not many that could invent a stick that when you throw it and miss your target , it comes back.

Life for pre historic man wasn,t easy, you don,t just waltz back into pre history again.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

.

In a way its what I said before, a calmer climate, relatively easier living , no need to built machines not even a wheel. And let nature watch over everything, well they were probably happier than those who invented everything, including swords bulletts and bombs.

I disagree with this. The kind of development that occurred in Eurasia was driven by necessity and opportunity. Australia was isolated so didn't benefit from technology transfer, it lacked domesticable species and the land generally couldn't support the population densities to make domestication a necessity - though in areas where population densities did expand in modern day Victoria there is evidence of agriculture (sophisticated eel farming infrastructure) and settled communities. There's no reason to assume that were they to have faced the same pressures of necessity and opportunity aboriginal cultures would not have followed a similar trajectory as other cultures that developed "civilization"

 

[nut]

Whats the mother of invention?