Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2016, 08:56 AM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,341

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Which country/ region are you from ?
Does it matter? Where are you from?


Quote:
I am asking because in Europe/Canada/ The US where wood is plentiful we tend to take it for granted.. But if you look at history, humans would probably still be in the stone age if wood were not available on the planet.. Its hard to overstate its importance:

Tools
Weapons
Energy (fire)... Early metallurgy used huge amounts of wood
Construction... Even today in the US houses are largely made of wood... Aside from the buildings themselves, wood is used for scaffolding etc....
Ships and Shipbuilding (to this day)
Furniture
All kinds of early machines (e.g. windmills)
Carriages
Even early cars and aeroplanes were largely made of.... wood up till ww2

If you look up developed countries you'll find that they have plentiful supply of wood ..... when its available in large quantities its a cheap and versatile material which allows you to be competitive in many areas
I phrased the question badly, so let me rephrase it. What is wood necessary and truly essential for in the modern world? Is there something that is relevant to industrialization that uses wood that cannot use something else? At a time when more and more things that used to be made out of wood are no longer made out wood, how is it something essential for industrialization? For example, you have windmills on your list, but how many windmills in use today for harnessing wind energy are made out of wood compared to those not made out of wood? Most wooden windmills today are basically ornamental. I could give numerous other examples of things that don't need to be made out of wood but I think my point is more clear now.
Ighayere is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2016, 08:58 AM   #42

Porter Rockwell's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Outer Deseret
Posts: 357

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
Well, that was not an actual civil war. It was a pretty brutal campaign of violence and suppression though.
Wikipedia thought it was a civil war. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
... I don't really see the things you mentioned as being anywhere near as significant as those issues I highlighted.
That's the thing about opinions. They're like other physiological features. We all have one.
Porter Rockwell is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 09:05 AM   #43

Porter Rockwell's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Outer Deseret
Posts: 357

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
... if you look at history, humans would probably still be in the stone age if wood were not available on the planet.. Its hard to overstate its importance ...
This is way off topic, but I can't resist.

I read a science article recently about space exploration that listed the ability to create a material out of foamed steel with fibers embedded in it -- in other words, artificial wood -- as a top potential industry for a gravity free environment.
Porter Rockwell is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 09:09 AM   #44
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,341

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchyamajiga1846 View Post
They should have waited until they created a vast pool of educated people, built up their economies, made sure that unemployment was low and just had a high standard of living all while being a colony, very similar to Hong Kong, then independence.
I won't speak on Asia, but in Africa, a situation where there was a "vast pool of educated people" in a place with a "built up economy" and low unemployment and with a high standard of living would not have been possible with continuing colonial occupation, when the colonial authorities themselves were doing basically as little as possible to bring about such a situation.

The sort of investment necessary to create a "second Britain" or a "second France" in the areas that they occupied would have been daunting and surely they could not have done that everywhere they occupied. The time and resources for that kind of venture really were not there, nor was the will. The good that they (colonizers) did do was not anything on the level of trying to make all of these places into functioning countries with high employment, education, and standards of living, especially not the places where Europeans themselves did not settle in significant numbers.


Quote:
Also in addition, I read about these before, I don't know if any of these are true but Burma and the Philippines were the richest in SEA back when they were colonies. Majority of Jamaicans regretted independence. I even read that Yemenis are sorry for kicking the british out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Myanmar

We should have stayed with Britain: Shock poll reveals 60% of Jamaicans think they'd be better as a colony | Daily Mail Online

LiveLeak.com - 'We Regret Driving Out the British,' Say Yemenis...
If you seriously believe most Jamaicans or Yemenis want to go back to British colonization because some poll said so. . .maybe you believe Hillary Clinton is president-elect of the U.S.A.?

Last edited by Ighayere; November 24th, 2016 at 09:17 AM.
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 09:16 AM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,341

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter Rockwell View Post
Wikipedia thought it was a civil war. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Well, I've read about the Rhodesian Bush war. I've never heard of this "Zimbabwean civil war" and I doubt most other people have either.

Quote:
That's the thing about opinions. They're like other physiological features. We all have one.
To justify my opinions on such matters in any detail would require book length posts and I wouldn't go to all that trouble over an internet discussion. But sure, we can agree to disagree on that one.
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 09:24 AM   #46

The Cell's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Following the breeze
Posts: 1,528

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
GDP per capita is about $5 000 ... so higher than in many african countries but lower than in south africa or botswana

Remember this is a country of only 2.5 mio people covering over 800 000 sq km (this is 50% larger than the largest european country - bar Russia)... Its basically the population of a mid size city for a huge territory.

And it produces nothing sophisticated.. Some agriculture and lots of mining...

This is not a successful economy by any standard

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter Rockwell View Post
I always like to fact-check unsupported assertions. Namibia is doing OK, but they're not the flowers and butterflies example your statement suggests.

Namibia is just slightly in the bottom half of the Human Development Index at 126 out of 188. They're above the Congo (136) and most other African nations, but below South Africa (116). They're not doing too badly on the political stability front either. The country is under single party rule, but they transitioned from one strong man to the next one without violence -- which is actually fairly rare. .

I think it is important to remember that we are speaking in the context of Africa. Thus you have a point when you mention that not a "successful economy" when compared to other western countries, but in the context of Africa, they are doing well for themselves.

Also, keep in mind that I was referring to the economies stability of the country, which is actually very very good. To give you an idea, the Namibian Dollar is at about 14 Namibian Dollar’s to the US Dollar.
I also think it is very unfair, at points, to compare other African countries to South Africa, as the Development of South Africa was very very different as compared to other African states.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter Rockwell View Post
There was a civil war during the independence struggle, but as these things go, it wasn't as horrific as many are.

Nooooooo! I 100% disagree with you here! Namibia was a “colony” of South Africa, well the official term was a protectorate of South Africa. South Africa inherited the country, as a reward for their contribution during world war I against the German’s, from the Germans.


Thus what you are referring to as a "civil war", was actually a war of independence against South African occupation.


Btw, I am a South African. Like I said I have a lot of first hand and Academic knowledge about this matter!
The Cell is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 09:32 AM   #47

The Cell's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Following the breeze
Posts: 1,528

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter Rockwell View Post
Thanks! I spend some time working on the construction of a message ... especially a theme starter ... in an offline editor before I post it.
It was very thoughtful indeed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter Rockwell View Post
I didn't say the xenophobia was limited to Zimbabwe. I said it was created by the mismanagement in Zimbabwe. The expression of the xenophobia in South Africa is entirely consistent with my point.
As I pointed out before I said anything about this, I was merely adding a correction which I felt was necessary! This wa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter Rockwell View Post
By the way, the Wikipedia article on xenophobia uses South Africa as the ONLY illustrating example!

But some xenophobia also exists in Zimbabwe itself. The Shona people comprise 70% of the Zimbabwe population and the Ndebele are second with 20% of the population. I found one source that claims this is a problem. The CNS news service (admittedly not the most reliable source, but still ...) reported:

For the "cycle of violence, humiliation, oppression and exploitation" in Zimbabwe to stop, the truth about the country's violence needs to be told and the rival between Shona and Ndebele needs to be addressed, said Zimbabwe's Catholic bishops in Cape Town.

The bishops said Zimbabwe "is deeply divided" politically and, besides having conflict between different racial groups, its painful history includes "hurtful memories from ethnic rivalry" between the Shona and Ndebele people.
No, you can disregard this, just because it is actually not a contributing factor to any political issues in Zimbabwe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porter Rockwell View Post
The Wikipedia article on Zimbabwe, under the heading, "UDI and civil war (1965–1979)", states, "... war subsequently ensued when Joshua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) and Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), supported actively by communist powers and neighboring African nations ..."

The "war lord" Mugabe did win the war ... eventually ... although the violence continues.
I think was already put into the correct perspective for you.
The Cell is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 09:33 AM   #48

Porter Rockwell's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: Outer Deseret
Posts: 357

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
If you seriously believe most Jamaicans or Yemenis want to go back to British colonization because some poll said so. . .maybe you believe Hillary Clinton is president-elect of the U.S.A.?
If only ....... But current events are out of bounds here.

There is a case to be made for the apprentice model. If we don't learn from each other, learning becomes much more difficult. Rabid nationalists completely reject the notion that some other country could do anything better than the home team, but sometimes it's the simple truth. I posted earlier that countries that have adopted a socialist control over unfettered capitalism are doing pretty well. My country, the USA, could learn from those countries ... but there is a nationalistic block to that here.
Porter Rockwell is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 09:57 AM   #49
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,850

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
Does it matter? Where are you from?


I phrased the question badly, so let me rephrase it. What is wood necessary and truly essential for in the modern world? Is there something that is relevant to industrialization that uses wood that cannot use something else? At a time when more and more things that used to be made out of wood are no longer made out wood, how is it something essential for industrialization? For example, you have windmills on your list, but how many windmills in use today for harnessing wind energy are made out of wood compared to those not made out of wood? Most wooden windmills today are basically ornamental. I could give numerous other examples of things that don't need to be made out of wood but I think my point is more clear now.
No it does not matter... As I said people who hail from regions with plenty of wood tend to take it for granted....

I think wood still is quite important.. Its a contributing factor to the economy... Take IKEA for example who sell a lot of wood in the form of furniture and have a $30 billion business

Take the US home building industry which relies heavily on wood (yes you can build stone houses too, they are just more expensive to build and to refit, hence you lose productivity)

Granted wood is less important today.. BUT countries have accumulated wealth for centuries based among other things on wood... That wealth still gives them the ability to invest today

And in some countries wood is still a major contributor.. In the US its about 300 billion dollars, in Canada

The agency Canada Wood Council calculates that in the year 2005 in Canada, the forest sector employed 930,000 workers (1 job in every 17), making around $108 billion of value in goods and services. For many years products derived from trees in Canadian forests had been the most important export items of the country. In 2011, exports around the world totaled some $64.3 billion – the single largest contributor to Canadian trade balance




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_e...Canada_.26_USA



The Importance of Wood
tomar is offline  
Old November 24th, 2016, 10:13 AM   #50
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,850

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
I won't speak on Asia, but in Africa, a situation where there was a "vast pool of educated people" in a place with a "built up economy" and low unemployment and with a high standard of living would not have been possible with continuing colonial occupation, when the colonial authorities themselves were doing basically as little as possible to bring about such a situation.

The sort of investment necessary to create a "second Britain" or a "second France" in the areas that they occupied would have been daunting and surely they could not have done that everywhere they occupied. The time and resources for that kind of venture really were not there, nor was the will. The good that they (colonizers) did do was not anything on the level of trying to make all of these places into functioning countries with high employment, education, and standards of living, especially not the places where Europeans themselves did not settle in significant numbers.


If you seriously believe most Jamaicans or Yemenis want to go back to British colonization because some poll said so. . .maybe you believe Hillary Clinton is president-elect of the U.S.A.?
Depends on colonial authorities.. The French did genuily try to educate those they could (usually city dwellers) in the french way, giving them the same school programs they had in France

A second Britain or a second France on the other hand could not exist anywhere in Africa.. .The conditions are simply not there in terms of geography and resources...
No one has really made a definitive calculation, but its highly likely that many colonies, on balance, were loss making... And that is why they were easily let go off.. The most promising ones, or those where investment was high, had to fight.. Most prominently this was the case for Algeria...

I dont know about Jamaicans and Yemenis (though given the hell hole Yemen has become I would not be surprised if yemenis long for the days past) but north africans have voted with their feet with many millions moving to France... and many more wishing to do so.. Which would seem to indicate that, on second thought, after the initial elation of independence, many africans would not have minded to stay under France's rule IF they had been given the same rights as the French.. In fact you have a clear case with the Comoros and Mayotte. Mayotte is French,, The Comoros are independent... Comorans are moving en masse to Mayotte where they now constitute about 30% of the population
tomar is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
colonies, undeveloped, western



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spain tries to keep colonies Joe Freeman Speculative History 9 August 30th, 2015 06:49 AM
Travel between colonies SallyFairfax American History 11 June 25th, 2013 03:24 PM
What colonies could have been kept? WeisSaul Speculative History 16 May 16th, 2012 02:00 AM
Just for former colonies :) sylla1 General History 24 April 12th, 2011 03:08 PM
American Colonies huskerguy77 History Book Reviews 5 June 7th, 2009 08:57 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.