The stockholm syndrome of the neo-colonial world

[Lyev]

Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon which is basically where a hostage develops positive feelings towards their captor(s) - using this metaphor was just a way of quickly summing up what I want discuss in this thread. Basically, it seems that the occupants of a lot of countries invaded and/or colonized in the age of imperialist expansion, mainly by European powers in the 19th c., somehow have overwhelmingly positive views towards their former oppressors. How can people think this sort of thing when today the majority of the first-world's poverty is inherently linked to it's colonialist past? What does anyone else think? A few questions and points of discussion then: how widespread are these views? Has anyone notice this phenomenon, or is it just me? And perhaps we could discuss it why many folks don't make the link between the third-worlds current poverty and it's tumultuous past. Thanks. By the way if I am not making much sense please do say.

[bricolage]

I've never read it but I understand what you are talking about is quite similar to what Fanon wrote about in 'Black Skin, White Masks'.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

From what I've seen about this issue there are two major factors behind it; firstly, the misguided belife that the Colonial powers would have made these countries into first world states, and secondly, governmental stablity (especially Africa), the colonial powers did maintain stablity (through an iron grip), and since the decline of the European Empires, much of the neo-colonial world has lurched from civil war to military dictatorship, the Cold War didn't help this, with both sides funding proxies that only surved to distablaize the reigons more.

[M-26-7]

Without evidence/some examples, it is difficult or impossible to discuss this.

What countries have you noticed these "overwhelmingly positive views towards their former oppressors" in? How have these "overwhelmingly positive views" manifested themselves?

[leftace53]

I think I understand what you mean with this, and I completely agree. Its not necessarily that the people of the oppressed country have positive views for their former oppressors, I find it more along the lines of the oppressed striving to become as "powerful" as the oppressors. For instance, I often hear from my parents about how some in India idolize and strive to be "white", through moving to England, and sort of integrating with the "white culture".

To be kind of fair, some of these people weren't necessarily the individuals who were around during the time their country might have been under imperial oppression, so maybe they don't feel that they don't have to hate the imperialists because "it wasn't their war to fight".

[Lyev]

Without evidence/some examples, it is difficult or impossible to discuss this.

What countries have you noticed these "overwhelmingly positive views towards their former oppressors" in? How have these "overwhelmingly positive views" manifested themselves?Well I thought that was something to discuss. I was thinking that a lot of the time when a first-worlder visits any country that has been touched (marginally or greatly) by imperialist expansion in some way or another they will be visiting tourist areas, where the inhabitants of the country will probably speak English and be from a wealthier background. This will account for at least some of the "Stockholm Syndrome" because those higher up in the socio-economic strata will not be as effected by imperialism brutality nearly as much as the poorest of the poor. This topic has been rattling around in my head for a while now, but what prompted me to post was, when I went to Nepal recently, I thought it was rather strange that one person I might was ranting and raving about a celebration of the "fantastic" Anglo-Nepalese relationship that came into fruition after the 1815 war. But as I have said, I think the above explanation will account for this point of view - it won't be the peasants and proletarians that look back to the good old days of the Empire. And it was a good point that Wolfie made about military juntas and whatnot - but, do you think the neo-colonial world is better with these aforementioned authoritarian dictatorships or the age of imperialism (and therefore subordination*) that preceded them?

*having thought about it actually, most third-world countries are still probably very subordinate to the developed west.

EDIT: leftace also cites an example.

[ComradeOm]

For instance, I often hear from my parents about how some in India idolize and strive to be "white", through moving to England, and sort of integrating with the "white culture"Very true and this is something that I've seen myself. I suspect that there's a class basis to it - those Indians most infatuated with England (and who are brought up speaking English at home) tend to be upper class, or at least have pretensions in that regard. Given the colonial history, in which state power was exercised by an English or their collaborators, Anglophilia therefore tends to be a way of reinforcing their class position within Indian society. A theory

[DunyaGongrenKomRevolyutsi]

Very true and this is something that I've seen myself. I suspect that there's a class basis to it - those Indians most infatuated with England (and who are brought up speaking English at home) tend to be upper class, or at least have pretensions in that regard. Given the colonial history, in which state power was exercised by an English or their collaborators, Anglophilia therefore tends to be a way of reinforcing their class position within Indian society. A theory
See thus

I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

And it was a good point that Wolfie made about military juntas and whatnot - but, do you think the neo-colonial world is better with these aforementioned authoritarian dictatorships or the age of imperialism (and therefore subordination*) that preceded them?

*having thought about it actually, most third-world countries are still probably very subordinate to the developed west.

This is a tricky issue, for to come down on the side of the imperialism as 'more stable' can be missinterpreted as suporting imperialism, which I do not, however, in real terms, was the lot of your average pesant/worker better off under European domination; perhaps (the belgian congo aside, that was a special case, being a private domain of Leopold), at least they wernt under fear of ethnic conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide), vicous civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War), or political intervention by the CIA, that lead to civil war, further inflamed by the USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis"). Now, I'm not saying imperialism wasn't bad, or that the people weren't explotied, but it seems that one bunch of foriegn overlords, has been replaced with either puppets, brutal dictators, or fractious 'democracies', overall, the lot of most in the neo-colonial world hasn't really significantly increased following independence, as with most cases of national liberation, all that happens is one set of exploiters is exchanged for another, and under capitalism, the poorest will always suffer the most.




I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

Well, at least they were honast about it, unlike America/China/USSR who when to (and still do) 'liberate' the poor backward 'brown people'..


* I'm mainly refering to Africa, as this is what I know mostly about, feel free to prove me wrong with other examples from Africa, I don't really know enough about India/SE Asia to really comment with any confidence.