Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Better DEAD than RED
Message-ID: <5712@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 13:38:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5712
Posted: Thu Jun 20 13:38:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 13:38:06 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5710@utzoo.UUCP>, <703@utcs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 27

> Well, apart from that phrase "in the first place", which is a bit of a
> weasel -- we all start at home, after all -- ...
> there's a bad side too, and you can't just dismiss complaints of exploitation
> as "silly".

Who's dismissing them as silly?  If you re-read my past postings, I have
quite explicitly said that the West has abused its dominant position.
My point was that "in the first place" is *not* a weasel -- we started
out at home, and rose a long way under our own steam before we reached
a position where we could start to oppress others.  To repeat a previous
point:  a culture that is *physically capable* of oppressing people on
the other side of the planet is hardly primitive or undeveloped.  It
may be distasteful in certain ways, but it is hardly undeveloped.

> ... it *was* the cotton industry that took off -- and it would have
> been delayed, at least for a couple of decades, if it had been in fair
> commercial competition with the Indian industry.

In other words, the net effect of leaving the Indian industry alone would
have been a modest delay in Western industrialization.  This hardly sounds
to me like a solid case for the idea that our accomplishments fundamentally
depend on the oppression of others.  I have no quarrel with the notion that
the later part of our rise (after, say, 1800) was speeded up moderately
by exploitation of others.  But vitally dependent on it?  No.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry