Baby fever solutions?

[Nacho]

I agree that the brits are the worst de-colonialists ever... But I mean, it was not like one day they awoke and said "Man, I feel cool today, I think I am going to de-coloniate this country".

No.

Some of those countries took the colonialistic countries to their limits to gain that independence. As you know a bit of history there' s no need of me to quote what the independists made in the middle orient, Africa and Orient to become "free". You must be aware of that.

As you are a sensible person, you' ll agree with that it was logical that those colonists countries didn' t want to know anything about those "new countries" that showed such levels of hate to them. Again, that doesn't explain why they are still poor... They still have the rest of the world to commerce with.

To put it in a simply (and excessive simplist) example: You are in your parents home, and if they treat you reasonbly well. You decide that you want to be independent, and you start to behave as a complete dickhead, so some day, they, tired of your attitude, they give you what you want. Independence.

What you claim those parents should have done, Becky, is them to go on visiting their rebel kid house, clean it, make the beds, pay the butane, buy the food, cook, pay the electricity, pay the contibution to the building owners, buy the food and look for a job in his place.

No... Sorry. Independence is Independence, with full letters.

And Tuomas, you just gotta take a look to the map of communist/socialist/countries of lower economy freedom of the world and you' ll easilly detect that they are also corrupted and/or dictadures. Because Socialism is not the cool "Money is not a factor" sentence that you said, but "directing every aspect of the Country from the government".

[Babar]

Fortunatelly this is changing, and the Peace Nobel has gone this year to someone who has become inmenselly rich giving micro credits in India (but also helping millions of people to start a business and get a life, becoming wealthy enough to pay that micro credits back)

Bangladesh.

I...don't have anything else to add. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that we went from "Don't make babies!" to "Colonialism, Capitalism and Communism".

[Nacho]

Ouch... yeah, thanks. I was looking for the article, and quoted by memory.

[Becky]

Yes, I have been extensively studying the decolonisation processes of many countries this year.  I had an exam three hours ago on it.  I have to say that you really do not understand the situations at all, expecially if you think that the British were somehow so much worse than the French (Algeria anyone?) or the Belgians (leaving 30 graduates to fill 3,000 administrative positions - nice one!).  I'm not going to continue this conversation, because the whole process of decolonisation and the interaction between the independence movements and the colonising powers is so much more complicated than "rebel teenager and his parents" and for you to insist that upping sticks and just leaving somehow rids the ex-imperial powers of all responsibility for their current situation, you are very misguided.

FYI, this is the bit where you have it all wrong:

To put it in a simply (and excessive simplist) example: You are in your parents home, and if they treat you reasonbly well.

[Nacho]

Better to how they treated themselves, that' s for sure...

Oh, one thing... What is the contrary to "reasonable well" in your oppinion? Do you agree with me that an option could be "irrationally bad"? Do you really think that live in colonies was "irrationally bad". I don' t think so, sorry. We can' t really see a clear example, because colonies were over lot of decades before, but the situation in colonies was not like in the "Uncle Tom' s cabin" panorama you want to paint, but more of a Hong Kong compared to London. A

[SSH]

Aye, I'm sure that the Incas saw the Spanish taking their gold just like their mum and dad...

In many countries, the leaving colonials did they best they could. Not very good, but hard to see how they could have done otherwise given the fact that they were already an occupying power. Mountbatten was a prime chump but its also hard to see how the whole India process could have gone any other way than it did.

Nacho, to take your bakery analogy. The baker tries to sell his bread to the manor house, who have their own bakery. They only want their own bread, and always have loads left over which they sell off for less than cost to the villagers. So not only can't the baker sell to the Manor, but the price of bread in the village is forced so low that his bakery isn't viable.

[Nacho]

Oh, a joke about a the history of a Country that I don' t feel as mine and the wink emoticon, I was missing it.

Again, for 100th time... Spanish american conquest was made by Castileans, Andalucians and Extremenians. My origins are Basque and Catalan which were not Spain in that period.

And I was born in a city that was Islamic in that time...

So, go on making jokes about Spain, those bullets will miss if I am the target.

About the "baker"... Do you have data about a massive ban from ALL the countries of the Fist world to a certain product? I think you are not going to find them, since it does not exist. Tariffs and subsides make the A product of the First world county to be "protected" from the B product of the "third world" country, so the first world country population consumes A product in spite of "B", but the protective procedures do not affect the "B" product towards third countries, since the protectionism is made into deficitary products that wouldn' t surive without the protectionism. "I won' t allow the neighbourhood ' s baker to sell bread in my home, because my bread is shit and his is awesome, and if my children taste it they won' t ever eat mine".  What does those actions affect to the possibility of that baker to sell that bread in OTHER homes? In nothing, except if those other houses make a common league not to buy bread to the neighbourhood' s baker.

You are not putting examples of an "A" product that is better and cheaper than "B" product, not of protectionism.

[Tuomas]

I must say to this, that if you, Nacho, really wish to be on that side, you will see it's a lonely side to take in the long run. But as much as were all agreed against you, this is really not the place or the thread to discuss and argue this as it's not directly connected. And I'd wish we'd keep in the topic as long as it's alive.

[Nacho]

I don' t really agree 100% with what I posted,  but fearing that, AGAIN in this forums, the "we suck" opinion was going to be the only one to be told I had to show the other side of the coin (That the Third World had something to see with where they are now)

I think my opinion is quite clear, and I will allow this thread back to topic, Tuomas.

[Nikolas]

Back to topic. I won't even go to what half the thread is about, but stick to the original topic, sorry.

I somehow fail to see how having a kid is selfish. Or rather for the reasons that Tuomas mentions. I have 2 children which I hope I'm raising right! (I'm teaching them spelling early, so they won't be like me later on in life, first of all! ) At least I try to. I hope that my kids will do good. I hope that my income later on in life will be possible to support more than me and my family. I won't get into the idea that I should not have children in order to do more "good". I am doing "good" as I stand today!

All of Europe is suffering from lack of births. At least the uk, the whole of scandinavia, Greece and other countries are (so maybe not "all of europe", ok... :p) I would argue that it's better to start educating India and China to stop having children (and btw, China is having the law of 1 child, still, I know for a fact. What is not widely known perhaps is that the law does not "kill" the 2nd child, but the family (parents) get a penalty. Further what is also not known is that abortions are illegal in China, but everyone favours a boy in the family. Ergo they won't tell you the sex of the baby before birth, because of the chance of having an illegal abortion anyway (and a dangerous one at that), because you know the baby is having the wrong sex!!!!

As far as I'm concerned: I can handle my family, I won't have them suffer. Above that I can also offer to the society and make sure (as much as possible) that my kids will do that as well. I'm lucky, I know that and I never forget it. But at least I feel responsible enough to have kids. Someone with Aids having a kid, someone who is suffering from famine having a kid, someone who can't support having a kid feels... irisponsible rather than selfish. Then again there is always the chance of adoption, which should be considered. But this applies to organised societies rather than some famine and war hit country somewhere in Africa for example...

[Becky]

I'm apparently selfish for not wanting children, other people are selfish for wanting children!  I guess we're all selfish because we want what makes us happy, right?

[SSH]

Oh, a joke about a the history of a Country that I don' t feel as mine and the wink emoticon, I was missing it.

Again, for 100th time... Spanish american conquest was made by Castileans, Andalucians and Extremenians. My origins are Basque and Catalan which were not Spain in that period.

Err, most of the boats the Spanish used to GET to South America were crewed and built by the best seamen of the age... the Basques. Columbus and Magellan are well documented as having loads of Basques with them and it was a Basque who was actually in charge of the boats that completed the first circumnavigation at the end, as Magellan had died in the Pacific.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Basque_explorers_and_conquistadores
Catalonians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pere_Fages_i_Beleta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspar_de_Portolà_i_Rovira
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pere_d%27Albern%C3%AD_i_Teixidor

[Nacho]

Probably, but you were talking about gold stealing (And probably tried to introduce to the reader the genocide concept as well, which is quite serious thing to garnish it with a wink emoticon)

Apparently you fix it all with that... I don' t know if if works with everybody, personally, I think it' s quite tiring.



Gold stealing, conquest, genocide and anything related with any aspect of management in the new world did not involve Basques or Catalans at any level.

Unless you think that the lumberjack wich cuts wood which finally works for making the butts of a Kalashnikov is guilty of the deaths caused by that weapon (Basques made boats, the ones Pizarro used to cross the Atlantic, ergo Basques killed the Incas!!!) That's a, let' s say it softly, "dubious" argument.

[SSH]

Nacho, you said that the natives conquered by colonials saw them as parents. I mocked that, with the smilie. How you can read that as me belittling genocide, I have no idea. Enough non-sequitirs, please.

As for Basques and Catalans not being in charge, here's a few quotes from Wikipedia:

Don Pedro Fages Beleta (Catalan: Pere Fages i Beleta) (1734â€"1794), nicknamed El Oso, was a soldier, explorer, and the second Spanish military Governor of New California from 1770 to 1774, and Governor of the Californias from 1782 to 1791.

Fages was born in Guissona, Lleida province, Catalonia

Gaspar de Portolà i Rovira (1716 â€" 1784), a soldier, governor of Baja and Alta California (1767â€"1770), explorer and founder of San Diego and Monterey. He was born in Os de Balaguer, province of Lleida, in Catalonia

Pere d'Alberní i Teixidor (January 30, 1747 â€" March 11, 1802) was a Catalan soldier who served the Spanish Crown for almost all his life. He developed the major part of his military career in the Viceroyalty of New Spain. It is especially remarkable his role in the military history of New Spain, in the Spanish conquest and colonization of the Pacific Northwest in the 1790s, and his later proclamation as interim governor of California in 1800.

Lope de Aguirre (c. 1510 â€" 27 October 1561) was a Spanish Basque conquistador in South America.

Juan de Garay (1528 â€" 1583) was a Spanish conquistador. Garay was born in Orduña, in the Basque Country. He worked and fought for the Spanish Empire, first in the Viceroyalty of Peru, and then at the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. He was governor of Asunción

Miguel López de Legazpi (1502 - August 20, 1572, Manila), also known as El Adelantado (The Governor) and El Viejo (The Elder), was a Spanish conquistador who established the first colony in the Philippine Islands in 1565. Born in 1502, Miguel López de Legazpi was the youngest son of Don Juan Martínez López de Legazpi and Elvira de Gurruchátegui. He was born to a noble family and lived in the small town of Zumárraga, in the Basque province of Guipúzcoa

The whole "Basques and Catalonians were innocent" line sounds like Nationalist propaganda. You get exactly the same thing here in Scotland "Oh yes, it was the English who went and killed natives and built the empire" despite the fact its a load of codswallop.

[Nacho]

Curiously, no one of those had something to see Cortés and the Aztecs, which was what you mentioned on first place...

Some of them are "only a few centuries" away of the facts, some others "only a few thousand of miles" away of the facts.

You do what in Spanish is called "move sticks"... Basically replying with something that has nothing to see with the original debate in an attempt to divert the attention. I say that protectionism in "A" countries can' t affect the whole economy of a "C" country because protectorism is just a pack of measures to avoid foreign competence inside of the "A" contry and it' s not overall price determinant for the rest of the world, and you change and say that "Goods produced in A countries are chaper, so products produced in C countries can' t compeate with them"... which has nothing to see with protectionism.

I say "Catalans and Basques had nothing to see with Spanish policies in the New World"

And you told me that "Basques made boats"

After some hours, you realise how "weak" that argument is, and google for some catalans and basques that, effectivelly, were, fought of lived there... It' s impossible to discuss with you.

So, I am going to try to make a short brief, and reply:

A) Can protectionist measures from an A country avoid the products of a C country to be sold in the rest of the world?
B) Had Catalonia or the Basque Country as nations had something to see in the conquest of America?

[miguel]

Hi to all,
it's been a great thread so far, baby killing, Bush is the Devil, Globalization, America 1420, wow!
Well I have to say that I agree on most of Nacho conclusions.
Here is my opinion on the last post:

A- yes, it is called an embargo;
B- no, there was a Spanish king back then, and he was a mean dude;

[Nacho]

Hi to all,
it's been a great thread so far, baby killing, Bush is the Devil, Globalization, America 1420, wow!
Well I have to say that I agree on most of Nacho conclusions.
Here is my opinion on the last post:

A- yes, it is called an embargo;
B- no, there was a Spanish king back then, and he was a mean dude;

Embargo... a word that has never been quoted by SSH, but will probably be adopted by him because of the weakness of his arguments.

Now, can you quote an example of one (or severall) countries of the First World forcing all the countries in the rest of the world not to buy a certain good produced in a country of the Third World? (For example, America forcing ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD not to buy a certain item or commerce with Cuba)

Was the weight of that good so important in the overal economy of the third world so important that this economy has been struggled till poverty?

Thanks.

[SSH]

Gold stealing, conquest, genocide and anything related with any aspect of management in the new world did not involve Basques or Catalans at any level.

Curiously, no one of those had something to see Cortés and the Aztecs, which was what you mentioned on first place...

Some of them are "only a few centuries" away of the facts, some others "only a few thousand of miles" away of the facts.

You do what in Spanish is called "move sticks"... Basically replying with something that has nothing to see with the original debate in an attempt to divert the attention.

*cough*

Every time I prove something you say wrong, you try and claim that it wasn't what you are trying to say. Tell you what, let pretend I agree with everything you say, because I can't argue with someone who can't even admit when he's been blatanly proved wrong

[Nacho]

Me neither... And, whereas I replied your questions one by one, you are still moving sticks not to reply to the first one I made 20 posts above.

[Tuomas]

Ah, it's over, time to vote!

Vote A if you feel like SSH has won the argument.

Vote B if you think, that Nacho lost the fight.



Personally I vote B