Anarchist wrote:In lamens terms; They came, they saw, they conquered. They pillaged and burned.They changed native societies into their image, and left.
Leaving nothing but debris behind.
Meaning that while these areas have a hard time adapting to foreign systems, they also werent left with much to work with(in some cases)
making it even harder to adapt to foreign systems, while still being influenced by foreign influences. (Im adding some grey to your black and white analysis of their failure to adapt)
Actually that was during colonialism, it became a problem when the foreign rulers left. Not that things were too spiffy for the natives while they were there.
I've studied colonialism and post-colonialism, focussing especially on India, at university level. I don't meen it in laymans terms thanks. What I'm saying is you are making no specific point. All of these problems are part of colonialism as a whole. I realise I'm portraying a black and white view, but that is only because on an internet forum it is easier and usually more successful to state more simplistic toned down arguments rather than an in depth analyisis with sources and quotes. Did you think I meant that the systems and structuresd in place in where purely a product of native cultures and not both influenced and driven by the colonisers? That was a given...
What I mean is that the structures and organisations forced upon colonised areas by imperialism brought such disasterous consequences in the post-colonial world because the native cultures had not naturally adapted to their function and use, and that this more than anything escalates the problems in human nature - for that Colonialism is entirely at fault. Imperialism accellerates the flaws in human nature. Mr Nate is spot on when he points out that human nature brings us war, violence and unrest, but colonialism does more to accellerate these problems in cultures unable to deal with them on such a level.
...
... ...
...
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
why 
