Bird Dog has already commented on the Left's�upside-down understanding of economics in which it is assumed that the rich gain their wealth only through taking from others.� While this "zero-sum" fallacy usually arises in the context of domestic issues, enterprising Leftists have�employed it in an international context as well: see,�for example, any of Bono's or Bob Geldof's�commentary on Africa, or the lovable George Galloway, who�recently remarked that India's economy is growing so rapidly only because it is making up ground that it was "not allowed to occupy" during colonialism.�
Galloway is not worth paying any attention to, of course, but even The Dylanologist's old�political science�professor back in college gave a similar explanation for why the economies of Africa had failed to make any gains in�prosperity since independence (it was because those nasty colonialists�built railroads to serve resource exploitation rather than domestic growth, in case you were wondering.� And no, do not ask how the countries would have been more productive without any railroads at all).
The irony of the views of virulently anti-Western politicians such as Galloway is that they�necessarily must cast the nations of Western Europe as all-powerful entities, capable of holding entire nations hostage to their will, while�India and the nations of Africa are reduced to passive and helpless actors who can only be what the nations of Europe let them�be.�This point of view is hardly less patronizing than anything dreamed up by 19th century colonialists.�
The truth?� As Bird Dog has mentioned, each nation must come to prosperity on its own terms: no poor nation ever grew wealthy through aid alone, nor have war and oppression ever been able to permanantly cripple an economically vigorous country.
Photo: The splendid Masai, who do not welcome Western condescension or pity.
