Tribes that successfully defended themselves against imperialists?

[Kingpin]

I have to analyze the clash of global capitalism and indigenous cultures through the lens of the movie Avatar,

and I was wondering if there were any tribes that were larger successful at defending themselves and keeping their way of life through most of the imperialist eras.

I heard something about the Lakota, which I will research further.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Seminoles are the most successful native american tribe that I can think of in terms of successfully resisting encroachment (at least for a time). I can't think of any tribe that was successful in the long run against imperialism, though.

[Agnapostate]

It's not necessarily a matter of "tribes," but Menelik II of Ethiopia repelled Italian imperialism, and Somalia was never successfully systematically colonized, I believe.

[Hiero]

The Pashtun people, especially in modern north-west Pakistan have repelled numerous imperialist invasion from ancient times to modern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATA

You can look at these places in the terms of Foucault's sovereign power as opposed to discipline/panoptic power. So world government's try to incorporate them into international institutions like international law, high and supreme courts of the dominant nation. Modern imperialism tries to incorporate them into the modern state. Yet these independent areas work on soverign power, that is local courts, local run militia's and public and private corporal punishment.

But remember that Avatar is a coloniser fantasy. It is a way to imagine best of the both worlds. The Navi are almost perfect, there is nothing "dirty" about them, they don't live in poverty, they don't live in violence, they don't live in famine. As opposed to real indigenous struggle, where alot of indigenous people and oppressed nations live in the worst conditions of that nation-state.

It is better to analyse Avatar through the lense of say the Naxalite movement. If analyse modern indigenous struggle through the lense of Avatar, you would only distort real life struggle through fantasy.

Here is Zizek's analyse of Avatar. http://www.newstatesman.com/film/2010/03/avatar-reality-love-couple-sex

[Raúl Duke]

The Seminoles I've heard, and perhaps the Lakota Sioux (and other "plain indians") which were victorious against Custer. Also maybe the Zulu as well resisted well British Imperialism.

But I don't know much of long term success.

[Adi Shankara]

You see, the reason why there was so little success in tribes defending themselves from predatory nations, is that Imperialist powers often exploited the already established tribal differences between peoples in their own land; hence, why the Belgians pitted the Hutu against the Tutsis, the French pitted the Vietnamese against the Khmer, etc. this was a divide and conquer technique that made it seem as if these people were easily conquered, when in fact, the tribes were often fighting two wars at once: the war against their traditional adversaries, and another war against the Colonial power.

so look at what happened when a European power attempted to fight a unified African country: they lost! completely annihilated, was the Italian army. so it just goes to show, it was more about compromising conditions than the Europeans being superior on any level.

oh, and to answer your original question: many tribes were never subdued; amongst them, the Tuareg, the Hmong, the Dogon, and, while conquered by China, the Tibetans (they had the British plant a flag, but it didn't mean much), the Bhutanese, the Alaskan Inuit, the Tuvans (not until the Soviet period were they brought under control by outside powers), etc. etc.

so yeah, there are many accounts of unsubdued tribes, but the historians don't really like talking about such humilating European exploits:laugh:

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

There are some Triqui communities in Oaxaca that have declared themselves autonomous since 2006. Paramilitaries recently killed an aid worker and a Finnish observer there. I think it's wrong to phrase this question in the past tense though. There is a rich history of indigenous resistance to imperialism and the resistance is of course ongoing because imperialism is an active, ongoing process.

Also, the Cuban revolution was at least partially the legacy of indigenous resistance to Spanish (and later US) imperialism. The natives were the first guerrillas. They were eventually joined by immigrants from Europe, Africa, and Asia in a movement of all sorts of people against imperialism. Jose Marti recognized race as a social construct used to divide people as native, black, mulatto, and white for the benefit of a few imperialists already in the late 19th century; in the sense of social consciousness, Cuba is basically centuries more advanced than the USA.

[Dimentio]

There are some Triqui communities in Oaxaca that have declared themselves autonomous since 2006. Paramilitaries recently killed an aid worker and a Finnish observer there. I think it's wrong to phrase this question in the past tense though. There is a rich history of indigenous resistance to imperialism and the resistance is of course ongoing because imperialism is an active, ongoing process.

Also, the Cuban revolution was at least partially the legacy of indigenous resistance to Spanish (and later US) imperialism. The natives were the first guerrillas. They were eventually joined by immigrants from Europe, Africa, and Asia in a movement of all sorts of people against imperialism. Jose Marti recognized race as a social construct used to divide people as native, black, mulatto, and white for the benefit of a few imperialists already in the late 19th century; in the sense of social consciousness, Cuba is basically centuries more advanced than the USA.

Before the invention of gunpowder, indigenous tribes could often defend themselves against "civilised powers" and even attack and conquer the largest civilised empires. The Germans of the first century were about as advanced as Native Americans meeting the English in the 17th century, and they managed to not only wipe out three Roman legions, but also to eventually overtake the western part of the Roman Empire.

[Agnapostate]

I don't see gunpowder as nearly as significant as that, in part because of the shortage of firearms and in part simply because of the abysmal quality and accuracy of the arquebus and musket. In essentially every case, infectious viral disease and division between ethnic groups was the basis for European "conquest" of Indians.

[Raúl Duke]

If you want to talk about military specifics in terms of America, I heard military historians put the main disadvantage factor on horses which provided "shock troops" that could punch through infantry lines. Native Americans did not have horses initially (they later appropriated it) since horses are not native to America.


They were eventually joined by immigrants from Europe, Africa, and Asia in a movement of all sorts of people against imperialism. Jose Marti recognized race as a social construct used to divide people as native, black, mulatto, and white for the benefit of a few imperialists already in the late 19th century; in the sense of social consciousness, Cuba is basically centuries more advanced than the USA. Nationalist (National Liberation) movements in PR and Cuba tended to have many radicals (at the time) who supported Marti's analysis. However, Cuba society has had a degree of racism (in the past, certainty. Now? Probably not) during and after Marti's time (also Cuban exiles demonstrate partially this racism, however racism is more nuance among Hispanics of PR and Cuba due to a history of accepting inter-mix people. In fact, when the Cubans moved to Florida they found segregation slightly odd, perhaps because it may have been non-existent or different in Cuba, and I don't think there was segregation in PR either)

[Vanguard1917]

As an aside, i think it's worth pointing out that the modern focus on 'indegenous resistance' (e.g. in Avatar) is more often than not reactionary, middle-class liberal romanticism. It is motivated by the Western cultural elite's dissillusionment with modernity and life in the West rather than by any real solidarity with the oppressed.

Historically, the most progressive and fruitful challenges to imperialism came not from this or that tribe, but from workers and poor peasants, who aspired not to forever live in rural backwardness (as what many Westerners imagine 'third world' people want), but to freedom and economic developmnent through self-determination.

Of course, such struggles less frequently enjoyed the support of middle-class Western liberals...

[The Ben G]

Maybe the Celts back in Roman Times, or the ones that participated in the sack of Rome, but I can't think of any American Natives that successfully defeated the Imperialists.

[Pavlov's House Party]

German tribes under Arminius completely destroyed 3 Roman legions in Teutoberg forest in 9 AD. Varus, give me back my legions!

[Dimentio]

Maybe the Celts back in Roman Times, or the ones that participated in the sack of Rome, but I can't think of any American Natives that successfully defeated the Imperialists.

The Celts had an organised society with roads, towns and city-states. Only because they built in wood they weren't backward. The Germans though at the first century were living in an almost purely tribal society though, where they owned and worked the land together.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't see gunpowder as nearly as significant as that, in part because of the shortage of firearms and in part simply because of the abysmal quality and accuracy of the arquebus and musket. In essentially every case, infectious viral disease and division between ethnic groups was the basis for European "conquest" of Indians.

Maybe for the New World, due to Atlantic effectively isolating the two populations; but in Africa, which is much more accessible from Europe and Asia, I would think that gunpowder would be a contributory effect.


If you want to talk about military specifics in terms of America, I heard military historians put the main disadvantage factor on horses which provided "shock troops" that could punch through infantry lines. Native Americans did not have horses initially (they later appropriated it) since horses are not native to America.

Actually, horses originally evolved in North America, but became extinct there, while migrant populations, which crossed into Asia through what is now the Bering Strait, survived.

[Raurast]

The Zulu resisted successfully to some extent, crushing the British at Isandlwana, although they later capitulated. A lot of Zulu never bent the knee, however, and remained largely autonomous.

The Ethiopians stayed free of European rule until the 1930s. They defeated a large-scale Italian invasion in 1896.

Other than that, not many come to mind. The Europeans always had the technology and usually had a numerical advantage too (different tribes weren't often successful at unifying against a common enemy)

[GracchusBabeuf]

Historically, the most progressive and fruitful challenges to imperialism came not from this or that tribe, but from workers and poor peasants
This is racism, not class analysis. A tribe is not a class. There are peasants, workers and capitalists among tribes too. I support the peasants and working class members of the tribes in their struggles against the imperialists and the tribe's own capitalists and land-owners. You advocate the genocide of these tribes. Big difference.

[Dimentio]

This is racism, not class analysis. A tribe is not a class. There are peasants, workers and capitalists among tribes too. I support the peasants and working class members of the tribes in their struggles against the imperialists and the tribe's own capitalists and land-owners. You advocate the genocide of these tribes. Big difference.

Capitalism or other such relationships in tribal communities only tend to emerge after a tribal community or a group of tribal communities have had a continuing relationship with a more advanced social organism which is starting to have an effect on their own society.

One example of a tribal community living border in border with a more advanced civilisation is once again the Germanic tribes in today's Central Europe, who for centuries lived in symbiosis with the Roman Empire. The Germans in the first century were basically less advanced than the Native American tribes in North America had been when the Europeans arrived, but in the third and forth centuries, they had formed complex political organisms.

The same tendencies could be seen with Native Americans vs Europeans and later on white Americans in North America, where the Native American communities developed themselves by imitating the newcomers in order to more successfully being able to resist.

[Adi Shankara]

Historically, the most progressive and fruitful challenges to imperialism came not from this or that tribe, but from workers and poor peasants, who aspired not to forever live in rural backwardness (as what many Westerners imagine 'third world' people want), but to freedom and economic developmnent through self-determination.

Now see, I'd disagree with that completely because there are many many peoples who want nothing to do with what they see in "Modernity", because often times, Modernity is a synonym for "abandon your culture in favor of ours", and most people vehemently oppose that. it's why, even in Malaysia, a relatively wealthy country, there are still original Orang (means forest dweller, has nothing to do with monkeys) living in Borneo, when they could easily assimilate and "join" Modernity. same goes for Mexico, where the Huichol are actually actively fighting against modernity and assimilation. Also, amongst the Dogon in Mali, The native Hawaiians on the island of Niihau, the Laplander Saami people of Finland, etc.

[Adi Shankara]

So the present-day tribes in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere are living in classless societies? Most of them today, work as workers. The more backward tribes live on agriculture or hunting. In any case there is a class structure in their societies.

What you must remember of many of these small societies, is that the class system isn't exploitational; with the exception of a few powerful Chieftains, most people's work are treated equally with equal outcome (they remain a part of the tribe, they receive the benefits of tribal membership). It's not the same, and in many ways, this class stratification is strictly the stuff of larger nations.

[Dimentio]

Now see, I'd disagree with that completely because there are many many peoples who want nothing to do with what they see in "Modernity", because often times, Modernity is a synonym for "abandon your culture in favor of ours", and most people vehemently oppose that. it's why, even in Malaysia, a relatively wealthy country, there are still original Orang (means forest dweller, has nothing to do with monkeys) living in Borneo, when they could easily assimilate and "join" Modernity. same goes for Mexico, where the Huichol are actually actively fighting against modernity and assimilation. Also, amongst the Dogon in Mali, The native Hawaiians on the island of Niihau, the Laplander Saami people of Finland, etc.

The Laplander Sami of Finland and Sweden are a bad example of that behaviour, since they receive money from the governments in order to keep their traditional lifestyle. The reindeer nomads are also a minority of the general Sami population.

While the Sami in Sweden were terribly oppressed in the 1930's and the 1940's (the Swedish government was afraid that they would be "lured over to modernity" so they forced them to go to so-called "nomad schools" where they were forced to sleep on the bare ground and eat soup infested with rats), nowadays they are privilegied in comparison with the general population in northern Sweden. For example, they get money so they could acquire helicopters, snowmobiles and everything they want in terms of machinery in order to attend to their herds.

A couple of years ago, they managed to destroy the local economy of a town dependent on tourism by insisting that their reindeers would be moved to the main snowmobile route during the tourist season. Everything closed down, but not one reindeer was seen in the area. :lol: That is IRL trolling.

As for people don't wanting to take part in modernity, that is fine for me and doesn't disturb me at all. Let them live that lifestyle they choose, as long as they aren't forcing anyone to live it or trying to violate basic human rights.

[Raúl Duke]

The reason why some tribes "resist modernity" is because 1) They're resisting being forced into a "shock intro" with modernity. 2) Are resisting its less desirable traits, such as being forced into the capitalist class system (and usually when they're they fall under the lowest rungs of society). It's not that they're against "modernity" per se but that they should be able to control how they're being introduced to it instead of being enforced, by society or circumstances, to it.

At least this is what I learned in my cultural anthropology class. We compared the Dobe Ju and the Baikairi. While I wouldn't say the Baikairi were "rich" or living the best of Brazilian living standards, they had a relatively stable society that was slowly eased into modern Brazilian society/culture/economy due to help by the government (some policies were good, other were misguided/euro-centric, but overall it didn't lead to a disaster. Later on members of the Baikairi were able to be part of the government organization and thus have more control on these "modernizing" policies).

The Dobe Ju however lived their usual mostly traditional existence (their wasn't much of government outside assistance or oppression or much larger overall cultural influence towards them with the exception of being introduced to cattle-raising by other cultures/populations like Herero, etc) until decolonization which resulted in their lands being "cut in" between 2 new independent countries. One of the Dobe Ju populations just could not continue their old lifestyle and thus received a shock intro to "modernity" and especially towards it's undesirable element (i.e. they quickly became very very destitute as they fell to the bottom rungs of capitalist class system) and due to this had a rapid change/death of their culture and instability among the Dobe Ju society.

Perhaps we should be accommodating to them...but to a reasonable extant. I surely don't want to see this:


A couple of years ago, they managed to destroy the local economy of a town dependent on tourism by insisting that their reindeers would be moved to the main snowmobile route during the tourist season. Everything closed down, but not one reindeer was seen in the area. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif That is IRL trolling.

being repeated.

[Yazman]

Besides those that have already been mentioned, I think its worth mentioning that Thailand was never actually colonised and all attempts to do so were repelled.

[danyboy27]

the vietnamese repelled inperialism, 4 times, japanese, french, american and chinese.


they should receive a trophy or something.

[Dimentio]

Besides those that have already been mentioned, I think its worth mentioning that Thailand was never actually colonised and all attempts to do so were repelled.

Thailand and Ethiopia were not tribal societies, though they had their own pockets of smaller tribal societies within their borders. I would dare say they were pretty advanced societies.

[Vanguard1917]

Now see, I'd disagree with that completely because there are many many peoples who want nothing to do with what they see in "Modernity", because often times, Modernity is a synonym for "abandon your culture in favor of ours",

I don't think that is true. The vast majority of people in the 'third world' want economic development. They want what those in the West have. It's only a degraded Western fantasy that people in the 'third world' are somehow happy with their impoverishment. The key reason why imperialism was fought in the first place was that it was correctly seen as holding back progress and advancement in oppressed countries.

And wanting modernity does not necessarily mean 'abandoning' your culture. It means demanding access to the best of what human society has to offer (in industry, agriculture, education, health care and so on). The great crime of imperialism is that it denies those in the 'third world' the right to develop their societies.

[bailey_187]

even in Malaysia, a relatively wealthy country, there are still original Orang (means forest dweller, has nothing to do with monkeys) living in Borneo, when they could easily assimilate and "join" Modernity..

I remember having to study the Orang Asli in Human Geography last year. We had to read some report from some westerner (i assume from the sound of him name) from the "Centre of Orang Asli Concerns" who was moaning about how Orang Asli kids would rather try to "get nike trainers and go to discos" than wear the traditional clothing and learn to hunt with blow pipes. So basicaly the do-gooder westerner, who probably did get to wear nike trainers and go to discos or whatever as a kid was scorning the Orang Asli kids for doing it as it was "diluting their culture/traditional way of life".

[Eastside Revolt]

The Mapuche people of Chile were never fully conquered....

http://mapucheinternationalsolidaritynetwork.blogspot.com/ (http://http://mapucheinternationalsolidaritynetwork.blogspot.com/)

[Adi Shankara]

I don't think that is true. The vast majority of people in the 'third world' want economic development. They want what those in the West have. It's only a degraded Western fantasy that people in the 'third world' are somehow happy with their impoverishment. The key reason why imperialism was fought in the first place was that it was correctly seen as holding back progress and advancement in oppressed countries.

And wanting modernity does not necessarily mean 'abandoning' your culture. It means demanding access to the best of what human society has to offer (in industry, agriculture, education, health care and so on). The great crime of imperialism is that it denies those in the 'third world' the right to develop their societies.

they want economic development, but that doesn't mean they wish to live a consumerist capitalist lifestyle. In my opinion there is a difference between "human development" which is self-explanatory, and "modernity" which as become a terrible euphemism for neo-colonialism.

meanwhile, many peoples in places like Brazil, Peru, Indonesia, etc. still choose themselves to live away from the electricity grid, choose to shun consumerist/capitalist culture, and they deserve to be commended for that...yet, I still hope their opportunities for education and healthcare could be increased, without destroying their traditional way of life (many do want to keep it, many still want to live in stilt huts or Kelong houses, often times, without electricity (though this isn't certainly the norm), even if they still want access to the best of healthcare and education.

all I'm saying is, there are peoples out there who don't want to live on the electricity grid (the Andaman people in India are another example), even if they still want healthcare or education, and that's alright by me.

[Adi Shankara]

I remember having to study the Orang Asli in Human Geography last year. We had to read some report from some westerner (i assume from the sound of him name) from the "Centre of Orang Asli Concerns" who was moaning about how Orang Asli kids would rather try to "get nike trainers and go to discos" than wear the traditional clothing and learn to hunt with blow pipes. So basicaly the do-gooder westerner, who probably did get to wear nike trainers and go to discos or whatever as a kid was scorning the Orang Asli kids for doing it as it was "diluting their culture/traditional way of life".

that Westerner is imposing imperialist attitudes, in a sense, over those Orang Asli youth. My personal prerogative, is just to see them having a choice whether they want to have nikes or not, instead of seeing nikes forced upon them (as has been done so many times in the past)

http://www.sacredearth.com/ethnobotany/ik.php

http://bbs.52voe.com/ShowPost.asp?ThreadID=21229&ViewMode=1 and yet another tribe that doesn't want to be "modernized", that live in relatively wealthy Nigeria, that don't want nikes, Television, etc. (P.S: I REALLY disagree with people labelling them "primative", but that's what the chinese translation listed them as)

[Vanguard1917]

meanwhile, many peoples in places like Brazil, Peru, Indonesia, etc. still choose themselves to live away from the electricity grid, choose to shun consumerist/capitalist culture, and they deserve to be commended for that...yet, I still hope their opportunities for education and healthcare could be increased, without destroying their traditional way of life (many do want to keep it, many still want to live in stilt huts or Kelong houses, often times, without electricity (though this isn't certainly the norm), even if they still want access to the best of healthcare and education.

all I'm saying is, there are peoples out there who don't want to live on the electricity grid (the Andaman people in India are another example), even if they still want healthcare or education, and that's alright by me.

Are there? I think that you're being highly selective here. Such people are a tiny minority, if they exist at all in the way that you think. As i mentioned above, the vast majority of people in poor countries desperately want economic development and modernisation. Why? Because they know that the alternative is continued poverty.

And you cannot have good education and healthcare under conditions of general economic backwardness.



and "modernity" which as become a terrible euphemism for neo-colonialism.



Yes, that's sometimes the case. But those of us who know better know that the problem with imperialism and 'neo-colonialism' is precisely that it has stood in the way of poor countries modernising.

[Vanguard1917]

I remember having to study the Orang Asli in Human Geography last year. We had to read some report from some westerner (i assume from the sound of him name) from the "Centre of Orang Asli Concerns" who was moaning about how Orang Asli kids would rather try to "get nike trainers and go to discos" than wear the traditional clothing and learn to hunt with blow pipes. So basicaly the do-gooder westerner, who probably did get to wear nike trainers and go to discos or whatever as a kid was scorning the Orang Asli kids for doing it as it was "diluting their culture/traditional way of life".

Such attitudes are very common especially with Western NGOs. They seem to see such people as some kind of endangered species of animal whose "way of life" needs to be protected for the enjoyment of future generations of Westerners. Protected for the poor, of course -- no middle-class Westerner would permit themselves or their children to live under such conditions of poverty, no matter how much they romanticise such poverty from afar.

[bailey_187]

they want economic development, but that doesn't mean they wish to live a consumerist capitalist lifestyle. In my opinion there is a difference between "human development" which is self-explanatory, and "modernity" which as become a terrible euphemism for neo-colonialism.

meanwhile, many peoples in places like Brazil, Peru, Indonesia, etc. still choose themselves to live away from the electricity grid, choose to shun consumerist/capitalist culture, and they deserve to be commended for that...yet, I still hope their opportunities for education and healthcare could be increased, without destroying their traditional way of life (many do want to keep it, many still want to live in stilt huts or Kelong houses, often times, without electricity (though this isn't certainly the norm), even if they still want access to the best of healthcare and education.

all I'm saying is, there are peoples out there who don't want to live on the electricity grid (the Andaman people in India are another example), even if they still want healthcare or education, and that's alright by me.

What is "consumerism" and what is wrong with it (other than the obvious fact of capitalist relations of production)?

[Sir Comradical]

The Pashtun people, especially in modern north-west Pakistan have repelled numerous imperialist invasion from ancient times to modern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATA

You can look at these places in the terms of Foucault's sovereign power as opposed to discipline/panoptic power. So world government's try to incorporate them into international institutions like international law, high and supreme courts of the dominant nation. Modern imperialism tries to incorporate them into the modern state. Yet these independent areas work on soverign power, that is local courts, local run militia's and public and private corporal punishment.

But remember that Avatar is a coloniser fantasy. It is a way to imagine best of the both worlds. The Navi are almost perfect, there is nothing "dirty" about them, they don't live in poverty, they don't live in violence, they don't live in famine. As opposed to real indigenous struggle, where alot of indigenous people and oppressed nations live in the worst conditions of that nation-state.

It is better to analyse Avatar through the lense of say the Naxalite movement. If analyse modern indigenous struggle through the lense of Avatar, you would only distort real life struggle through fantasy.

Here is Zizek's analyse of Avatar. http://www.newstatesman.com/film/2010/03/avatar-reality-love-couple-sex

"The film enables us to practise a typical ideological division: sympathising with the idealised aborigines while rejecting their actual struggle. The same people who enjoy the film and admire its aboriginal rebels would in all probability turn away in horror from the Naxalites, dismissing them as murderous terrorists. The true avatar is thus Avatar itself - the film substituting for reality."

I like SZ's conclusion.

[Raúl Duke]

I remember having to study the Orang Asli in Human Geography last year. We had to read some report from some westerner (i assume from the sound of him name) from the "Centre of Orang Asli Concerns" who was moaning about how Orang Asli kids would rather try to "get nike trainers and go to discos" than wear the traditional clothing and learn to hunt with blow pipes. So basicaly the do-gooder westerner, who probably did get to wear nike trainers and go to discos or whatever as a kid was scorning the Orang Asli kids for doing it as it was "diluting their culture/traditional way of life".

That's interesting...

I'm not sure if I have seen this exact/out-right attitude per se but I've probably seen certain expressions of it.

It's a problematic attitude due to despite the intentions it's a chauvinistic "This is what's better for you" attitude which seeks to limit a person's/group's independence of action. A variant of this attitude colored the rationale for U.S. imperialism in Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines; at least if you look at period propaganda you can see it.

All I'm saying, is that these groups should be allowed to freely choose whether they want aspects of modernity or not and we should help them acquire them if they wish. We should not impose modernity on them coercively nor should we force them to stay as they are.

In the example of the Baikairi, this culture wanted a particular aspect of a modern (Brazilian) culture (agriculture tech/knowledge) so to make their economic lives, which depended mostly on agriculture, easier.


Such attitudes are very common especially with Western NGOs. They seem to see such people as some kind of endangered species of animal whose "way of life" needs to be protected for the enjoyment of future generations of Westerners. Protected for the poor, of course -- no middle-class Westerner would permit themselves or their children to live under such conditions of poverty, no matter how much they romanticise such poverty from afar.

Although, to be honest, I do not know of any specific group/etc who is holding back a specific nation/culture from progressing/"modernizing"/etc (specific incidents) per se (i.e. as a explicit agenda; although we all should know that imperialism in a way implicitly does this)

I'm really curious about this that you say, Vanguard, and I would seriously like to hear some specifics.

[Vanguard1917]

Although, to be honest, I do not know of any specific group/etc who is holding back a specific nation/culture from progressing/"modernizing"/etc (specific incidents) per se (i.e. as a explicit agenda; although we all should know that imperialism in a way implicitly does this)

I'm really curious about this that you say, Vanguard, and I would seriously like to hear some specifics.

They would not say that they are 'holding back' anyone from modernising, but there is the idea that the 'way of life' of 'tribal people' needs to be preserved and celebrated. Look at the group Survival International as an example (link (http://www.survivalinternational.org/)). According to them, 'tribal people' 'may be poor in monetary terms but are rich in many other ways'. In other words, it is possible to be materially impoverished and be perfectly well off.

Meanwhile, if you want to holiday with a tribe, you can 'experience authentic tribal cultures' with responsibletravel.com (along with a number of other travel agencies on the internet nowadays).

[Raúl Duke]

They would not say that they are 'holding back' anyone from modernising, but there is the idea that the 'way of life' of 'tribal people' needs to be preserved and celebrated. Look at the group Survival International as an example (link (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.survivalinternational.org/)). According to them, 'tribal people' 'may be poor in monetary terms but are rich in many other ways'. In other words, it is possible to be materially impoverished and be perfectly well off.

Meanwhile, if you want to holiday with a tribe, you can 'experience authentic tribal cultures' with responsibletravel.com (along with a number of other travel agencies on the internet nowadays).

I see...

What about the environmentalists (although, I agree with you concerning this group since I've heard of similar views in my own university, I just don't know any specifics that are online about their alleged "we need to stop 3rd world development" views)?

[Vanguard1917]

I see...

What about the environmentalists (although, I agree with you concerning this group since I've heard of similar views in my own university, I just don't know any specifics that are online about their alleged "we need to stop 3rd world development" views)?

It is extremely widespread. It's summed up nicely by their statement: "For the developing world to have living standards as high as in the West, we would need four planet earths!"

Apparently, according to environmentalists, the best that the 'developing world' can hope for is 'sustainable development', by which they mean small-scaled and localised development projects -- in other words, what is keeping the 'developing world' poor in the first place.

[Yazman]

Thailand and Ethiopia were not tribal societies, though they had their own pockets of smaller tribal societies within their borders. I would dare say they were pretty advanced societies.

I never claimed that Thailand was a tribal society. Thailand was well developed and had strong leadership that manipulated the animosity between France and the UK.

[Hiero]

Vangaurd1917, the biggest unnerving part of your productive-forces centred arguement, is your use of the terms "modernity", "progress" and development as abstract states of living.

It's not that they don't want progress or development of their productive forces, but they don't want and cannot achieve "modernity". Your modernity is a Western imperialist image of what is modern. Modernity is a cultural image, what you are doing is projecting Western desires onto the desires of people in non-Western societies.

A real claim that I can agree is that most want improvements to their lifes, they want things to be easier, cleaner and effortless. Socialism seeks to improve people's lives not just by increasing and changing productive forces, but by changing relations of production. Only when relations of production are changed can people harness their desires for improving their life and do this on their cultural plain. And of course culture will change through revolutionary practice.

You will find what ever is on offer for development is actually opposed. Such is the case in West Bengal when the CPI(M) tried to sell off peasant owned land to multinational company under the guise of "development". The peasants apparantly accepted the money but refused to move (so a CPI(M) member told me, and in his case this made it fair to remove them by use of the army). Their ties to the land are stronger then ties to national development. Thess people were forced off the land to whatever pittyfull life landless poor in India live.

What you constantly seem to offer is not that far from international capital. If the environmentalists are one side of the middle class than your narrow focus on productive forces is the otherside of middle class imperialism.


Let them live that lifestyle they choose, as long as they aren't forcing anyone to live it or trying to violate basic human rights.

When has any indigenous group every tried to impose their lifestyles on non-indigenous people?

Western governments constantly violate basic human rights, what should "we" do with them?

And isn't using modern equipment like helicopters and snowmobiles modern enough for your culturally racist standards?

[Vanguard1917]

Vangaurd1917, the biggest unnerving part of your productive-forces centred arguement, is your use of the terms "modernity", "progress" and development as abstract states of living.


I don't view those things abstractly at all. The progress which people in the 'third world' want is actually usually expressed in very concrete terms: jobs, better infrastructure, improved healthcare, greater educational opportunities, etc.

Of course there are differing political ideas as to how to achieve this development, and some of those ideas are better than others. But the need for development and modernisation is not on the whole disputed by the world's poor. It is disputed mainly by Western middle-class people, who tell the world's poor that they ought not to aspire to radical improvements to their living standards and material wealth and that they should make do with small-scaled, 'sustainable' improvements.

Once the very need for development is put in question, political confrontation over how development should be brought about becomes superfluous. After all, why would anyone fight for something that they do not believe they need?

[Dimentio]

It is extremely widespread. It's summed up nicely by their statement: "For the developing world to have living standards as high as in the West, we would need four planet earths!"

Apparently, according to environmentalists, the best that the 'developing world' can hope for is 'sustainable development', by which they mean small-scaled and localised development projects -- in other words, what is keeping the 'developing world' poor in the first place.

Environmentalism in Europe began as a largely conservative movement in the 1960's and 1970's. I think the most consequential person within that brand is Pentii Linkola. Even the World Wildlife Fund could be accounted to that faction of environmentalism, which is largely consisting of either raving misanthropes (Linkola) or people who have been brought up in an environment with absolutely zero risk for ever getting poor (Prince Philip).

If we would utilise resources as we do today for all the world, then clearly the world's ecosystems would collapse. The global civilisation is already using 133% of the planetary biomass regeneration capacity. But one should have in mind that resources today are not produced solely for the sake of consumption. A lot of what is produced is wasted without ever being consumed, other products are made to deliberately fail in order for people to buy new ones.

Two words: Factor four.

[Hiero]

But the need for development and modernisation is not on the whole disputed by the world's poor.


But what is modernisation?

Where are these political movements that so coherently make these demands?

In actually fact many peasant movements main emphasis is on the relations of production. The contradiction is between mutlinaitonals and peasant and within peasant between land owning peasants and landless peasants. It is about ownership, not technology. They know (or atleast they think they know) they can reproduce their standards of living and beyond by simply owning the land and paying less tax.

Your empahsis on criticising middle class support for imperialism leads you to empty words about "modernisation". What people want is vaired based on the situaton they find themselves in. Some indigenous peasants only want indepence on the land their labour is invested in. Others are more involved in politics and they do want access to advanced technology as well.

There is no coherent movement for modernisation, you just making it up. There is no either/or of modernisation, everyone is in a dialectical relationship with modern capitalism, depending on the conditions of that relationship determines at what point of struggle they are in and what they desire/need.

The other interesting thing to look at is the class strata of peasants, such as Kulaks. In Ukraine this strata of the peasants opposed the advances of technology proposed by the Soviety Union because it would destroy them as a class. Classical Marx stands here as they were proved to be reactionary towards progressive change that technology brought and revolution brought. If your theory was universal, as individuals they would have brought on the change so as to participate in the advacement by complying with the USSR. Instead they acted as a class and sabotaged the changes.

[ComradeOm]

The other interesting thing to look at is the class strata of peasants, such as Kulaks. In Ukraine this strata of the peasants opposed the advances of technology proposed by the Soviety Union because it would destroy them as a class. Classical Marx stands here as they were proved to be reactionary towards progressive change that technology brought and revolution brought. If your theory was universal, as individuals they would have brought on the change so as to participate in the advacement by complying with the USSR. Instead they acted as a class and sabotaged the changes.That's a new charge. I've made enough posts on kulaks recently (see here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-your-perspective-t136051/index.html?p=1761699&highlight=kulak#post1761699) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalins-net-gain-t137155/index.html?p=1777194&highlight=kulak#post1777194)) that I'm not eager to derail a thread. Safe to say however that there are very weak grounds for portraying the kulaks as some sort of luddites. They, if they existed as a class/caste, opposed the programme of the Soviet state on the rather more prosaic grounds of resisting the restructuring of agriculture - particularly the breakup of the commune structure - and not simply the introduction of mechanisation. Indeed, if anything had marked the kulaks prior to the Stalinist reforms it was that their farms/plots were more mechanised than that of their peers amongst the peasantry

[Devrim]

I don't think that is true. The vast majority of people in the 'third world' want economic development. They want what those in the West have. It's only a degraded Western fantasy that people in the 'third world' are somehow happy with their impoverishment. The key reason why imperialism was fought in the first place was that it was correctly seen as holding back progress and advancement in oppressed countries.


I think that the problem with your arguments is here. Of course you are right in that people in the so-called 'third world' want better lives. When you say that imperialism is 'holding them back though, it implies that impeialism is a policy of a few 'evil states' that are holding back 'normal' capitalist development. The point is, however, that capitalism can't 'develop' these countries, and that the entire economic system is now a fetter on the means of production.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

All I'm saying, is that these groups should be allowed to freely choose whether they want aspects of modernity or not and we should help them acquire them if they wish. We should not impose modernity on them coercively nor should we force them to stay as they are.


This is an idealistic and naive wish, however. No one under global capitalism is free to choose the path of their modernisation.

The point is that global capitalism is an inexorable system which, as Marx and Engels graphically describe in the Communist Manifesto, impels all nations to adapt or to die.

In terms of how far any community can preserve its culture and way of life in the face of capitalism's modernising force, is a question of struggle. However, the uprooting of traditional modes of existence and its replacement by capitalist relations, including free labour and consumer markets, is a precondition of modernisation under capitalism. It cannot be avoided. This does not mean that traditional indigenous culture cannot survive, but it can only survive either as a cultural industry, i.e. commodified and frozen in time; or as an underground resource of resistance to capital. As real, living culture, however, as the dominant social force which orders the social relations of the citizen, it will be supplanted by the necessities of capital accumulation.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not speaking under the context of capitalism, but post-revolution.

Obviously, under capitalism, they're fucked unless they resist.

[Adi Shankara]

:thumbup1:
Are there? I think that you're being highly selective here. Such people are a tiny minority, if they exist at all in the way that you think. As i mentioned above, the vast majority of people in poor countries desperately want economic development and modernisation. Why? Because they know that the alternative is continued poverty.

I believe people should have a choice to choose their own destiny. let people do whatever they want if it doesn't hurt others economically or socially.

but otherwise...good question from a few other users: what is "modernization"? it sounds like another code word for "if you don't join our civilization, practice our way of life, and wear nikes, you are backwards"

that in itself, is a form of imperialism. god forbid someone saying they dont' want to see the rest of the world's societies destroyed by capitalism the way our own has been. god forbid someone is against the expropriation of our culture to the rest of the world, after it has destroyed so much here.

BTW: wanting medicine and education, in my opinion isn't modernization: that's a basic human want/need. "modernization", to me, is another patronizing euphemism for "Western ways of thinking.

they want economic development, yes; they don't want Western civilization. Look at the last 500 years of indigenous resistance for proof of that matter.

[Vanguard1917]

I think that the problem with your arguments is here. Of course you are right in that people in the so-called 'third world' want better lives. When you say that imperialism is 'holding them back though, it implies that impeialism is a policy of a few 'evil states' that are holding back 'normal' capitalist development. The point is, however, that capitalism can't 'develop' these countries, and that the entire economic system is now a fetter on the means of production.

That's not the implication at all. I said (in opposition to those who seem to be suggesting that poor countries do not 'want' development) that imperialism's key problem is that it stands in the way of poor countries' development. I didn't say that it holds back capitalist development: that wouldn't make sense, since imperialism, of course, is capitalism at a certain stage in its historical development.

[Lampang]

Besides those that have already been mentioned, I think its worth mentioning that Thailand was never actually colonised and all attempts to do so were repelled.

Yes and no. Prior to the French arrival in Indochina, Thailand had a form of colonial control over what became Laos and Cambodia - these were lost to the French, as were parts of the far south which were bitten off by the British to join Malaysia. There's also a pretty good argument that Thailand has experienced - and continues to experience - internal colonization, as central Thai has marginalised and displaced other variants. This is one way of characterising the recent red shirt conflicts with the state. Thailand also has significant tribal populations who've really been handed the shit end of the stick by the Bangkok and local administrations so it's not really a shinning example of resistance.

[Hiero]

That's a new charge. I've made enough posts on kulaks recently (see here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-your-perspective-t136051/index.html?p=1761699&highlight=kulak#post1761699) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalins-net-gain-t137155/index.html?p=1777194&highlight=kulak#post1777194)) that I'm not eager to derail a thread. Safe to say however that there are very weak grounds for portraying the kulaks as some sort of luddites. They, if they existed as a class/caste, opposed the programme of the Soviet state on the rather more prosaic grounds of resisting the restructuring of agriculture - particularly the breakup of the commune structure - and not simply the introduction of mechanisation. Indeed, if anything had marked the kulaks prior to the Stalinist reforms it was that their farms/plots were more mechanised than that of their peers amongst the peasantry

Point conceded, I took a stab at something I am under educated in.

Note: I still stand by my opposition to Vanguard1917.