Had you noticed that of those other countries you list, not one of them had been colonised/subjugated by the Spanish?
Now if you look at all of the nations that were colonised/subjugated by the Spanish, how many of them don’t fit into the category of “3rd World” or otherwise categories types such as “developing” or “underdeveloped?”
Practically none of these former Spanish “possession's” have done particularly well. Whether it is corruption, or location, or something in the religion, or something else in the manner of Spanish colonial governance, or possibly all of the above, is unclear. Many, if not most, of the British colonies have done well in comparison. French and Portuguese not as well, but also not as bad. Dutch similar. Belgian, ah, really best not to look at that one too closely.
As for “the worlds,” this is something that came about after the Second World War, as a way of categorising nations with respect to “sphere of influence.” Where “First World” Generally related to the Western sphere and philosophy of Democratic Capitalist developed nations. The “Second World” relating to those under Soviet domination, with generally collective industrial and economic philosophy, with what kind of looked like a form of industrialisation, but lagged significantly. The “Third World” related to those nations that did not fit into the first two and were generally considered to be “undeveloped.” The term “undeveloped” being somewhat derogatory, often also regarded as “primitive”, and it was here that most of the activities of the major players of the other two, with their competing philosophies, tussled.
It is interesting that all of the nations that have succeeded well, excluding China and India, are the ones that followed the philosophies of that “First World!” None of the “Second World,” until they switched to the philosophies of the “First!” China has, in a de facto way, become the successor of the “Second World,” by, interestingly, incorporating many of the “First World” philosophies economically, while retaining the iron grip of governance by a limited few. India, by contrast tried to play off both philosophies, but with an underpinning that ensured, at best, mediocre performance.
The Philippines, first subjugated by Spain, incorporating all of the things that have kept all other former Spanish possessions in a mediocre state, taken over by the “Americans,” who really just could not re-make their “new possession” over in their own image, resorted to a minimal occupation, allowing all of the negative existing factors free play. Rather than trying to impose a form of change that was anathema to them and the philosophy they ascribed to! Bearing in mind the large population base of the Philippines was something the “Americans” really had no experience with, and one for which their particular bent on the “western” philosophy was not well able to handle!
No comments:
Post a Comment