Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: White greed
Message-ID: <316@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 09:24:23 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.316
Posted: Fri Feb 15 09:24:23 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 04:39:47 EST
References: <293@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA> <80@spar.UUCP> <311@cadre.ARPA> <314@cadre.ARPA>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Distribution: net
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 63
Xref: watmath net.flame:8396 net.politics:7626
Summary: 

>Interesting line of thinking.  The "master" gets every last measure out
>of his "slave", and then decides the "slave" should be paid ridiculously
>low wages.  The "slave" thru generations is driven to poverty, and then
>is blamed for being a "burden on the (master's?) national resources"!

You impute to my comments things that aren't there.  How can slaves
be blamed for their condition?  The blame lies with the slavers.
However you seem to be implying that all "white" people are the slavers.
Many fought long and hard against slavery, most never had any slaves.
Throughout history there have been slavers and I am sure if we go
back far enough, we ALL have some ancestors who were slavers and some
who were slaves.  So finger pointing won't help anything.  We can't
rectify past injustice by introducing more injustice in the form
of discrimination.  Injustice occurs only to individuals not to
groups.  Racism is the doctrine that people can be judged and dealt
with according to what racial group they belong to, rather than
as individuals.  Thus affirmative action is racist.  Your theory
that all white people share the guilt for slavery is racist.  If
the shoe fits wear it.

>Of course, one shouldn't forget the military dictatorships being
>supported by "Capitalist" countries too: Pakistan, countries in
>Latin America, etc.  One of the major "underdeveloped" countries
>happens to be a democracy: India (in fact, the largest democracy in
>the world) 

I haven't forgotten.  Support of dictatorships is not a function
of economic systems, but of great powers politics.  I don't
support any of it.  Reagan is as bad as the Russians in this regard.
At least the dictators the US supports are honest about self
interest and don't hide behind some phoney theory of 
dictatorship of the proletariat.  They also seem to be a 
hell of a lot easier to overthrow.

>Development is a self-supporting process.  The developed
>countries that have gained mileage have done it at the initial expense
>of those less developed ones.  "Culture" and "technology" exist
>in those countries too, but they simply can't penetrate into the 
>competitive economies of developed countries and their cartels.
>
Certainly they have gained mileage, but if all the underdeveloped
countries were on another planet, I don't think it would make
all that much difference to the developed ones.  They would have
to scale down some, but they have alternative means of manufacturing
almost everything through technology.

Sure there have been injustices, and they will continue.  I hope
the third world countries will soon realize the utter futility
of crying about "moral responsibility" and how the developed
countries should give them a lot of aid.  Charity has never in
been very popular in the "community" (jungle) of nations, and things aren't
about to change now.  Such anomalies as the Marshall Plan are quite 
unlikely to recur in our lifetime.  The best policy for the third
world is to distance themselves from the great powers..."when
elephants fight, the grass gets trampled."  Cozying up to the
U.S. or USSR will only give them a bloody nose in the end, or worse.

"Do not ask for pity,
 Build yourself a city."
		-Eric Hoffer