Jerry wrote:
> Paula:
> <shaking head back and forth and throwing up hands>
Female hysteria in cyberspace, no doubt.
> Some may articulate that division without a lot of
> sophistication (e.g. between "poor countries" and "rich
> countries") but it is understood as a reality by all but a
> handful of people in the world, I think.
People will agree that some nations are richer than others, at least in some
respects. But 'rich' and 'poor' are relative terms, not absolute categories
as you assume. You won't be able to identify a cut-off point between them
any more than between 'advanced' and 'less advanced' - though it would be
quite 'hysterical' to see you try. Therefore your assumption is just a blank
check for labeling nations according to one's political prejudices.
By a similar method in the 1930s the Japanese national-socialist Kita Ikki
labeled Britain and Russia 'landlord' nations and Japan a 'proletarian'
nation.
To take a contemporary case, is Iceland in 2010 'rich' or 'poor'? 'Advanced'
or 'less advanced'? 'Imperialist' or 'imperialized'? I did hear one
Icelander on the radio the other day complaining that Britain and Denmark
are trying to 'colonize' his country. What do you think?
>That's what they said about Brazil in the 1960s [that it was a rising
>power].
>That's what was said about Indonesia during much of Sukharto's tenure.
And that's what was said about Japan in the 1930s and in the 1980s.
Today, Brazil is rising again, while Japan is declining. Such changes in
relative strength are normal in the imperialist epoch.
Looking forward to your answers to Dave's questions, too.
Paula
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Jan 14 19:35:24 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST