Raising Children and Foreign Policy
What is the relationship between raising children and raising (not razing) a nation? We tend to believe we know what is best for others less blessed than we. If the primary goal of raising children is to help them reach a point where they are fully functional independent adults; is it possible that this principle could also provide a model around which we develop foreign policy?
I recently read a historical novel about the colonizing of Zambezi (now Zimbabwe and Zambia) by Cecil Rhodes and England. Rhodes was not presented in a good light. In fairness, those opposed to Rhodes felt that colonizing was inevitable and that England’s colonizing the Africa would be a lesser evil than any of the other European nations striving for the same goal.
I don’t know African or English history well enough to know how much truth was in the novel, but I was left to speculate about how things might have been done differently. The Darwinian hypothesis of evolution so pervasive at the time allowed for a scientific justification of a common belief that it is the responsibility of the ‘civilized’ nations to bring the benefits of civilization to the African continent.
Cecil Rhodes carved out a nation (Rhodesia) that in some ways still benefits from his efforts; however the current status of the nation (Zimbabwe) is one of poverty, famine, corruption, and disease with the distinction of having the highest level of inflation in the world - currently greater than 1000% and anticipated to increase to something between 2000 and 4000 percent.
If we accept that England was correct in believing that they needed to have a stronghold in Southern Africa to protect the sea lanes to the Orient; what could they have done to prevent the debacle we see in many African nations today?
The difficulty seems to me to be in the original goals. The European nations primary goals in their colonization efforts seemed to be Empire building and getting rich. This strategy has almost universally failed, both in building a sustainable empire and getting rich. Poverty seems to be the result in the African colonies and many of the Empire building nations are currently floundering under the load of refugees and immigrants from the former destitute colonies. The colonies did not become fully functional independent and mature nations.
In hindsight, it would appear that the old nations would now be better off if they had determined that their fundamental responsibility was to help the colonies to become mature, successful, and independent nations.
Is it possible that the best training for a politician is successful parenting?
I recently read a historical novel about the colonizing of Zambezi (now Zimbabwe and Zambia) by Cecil Rhodes and England. Rhodes was not presented in a good light. In fairness, those opposed to Rhodes felt that colonizing was inevitable and that England’s colonizing the Africa would be a lesser evil than any of the other European nations striving for the same goal.
I don’t know African or English history well enough to know how much truth was in the novel, but I was left to speculate about how things might have been done differently. The Darwinian hypothesis of evolution so pervasive at the time allowed for a scientific justification of a common belief that it is the responsibility of the ‘civilized’ nations to bring the benefits of civilization to the African continent.
Cecil Rhodes carved out a nation (Rhodesia) that in some ways still benefits from his efforts; however the current status of the nation (Zimbabwe) is one of poverty, famine, corruption, and disease with the distinction of having the highest level of inflation in the world - currently greater than 1000% and anticipated to increase to something between 2000 and 4000 percent.
If we accept that England was correct in believing that they needed to have a stronghold in Southern Africa to protect the sea lanes to the Orient; what could they have done to prevent the debacle we see in many African nations today?
The difficulty seems to me to be in the original goals. The European nations primary goals in their colonization efforts seemed to be Empire building and getting rich. This strategy has almost universally failed, both in building a sustainable empire and getting rich. Poverty seems to be the result in the African colonies and many of the Empire building nations are currently floundering under the load of refugees and immigrants from the former destitute colonies. The colonies did not become fully functional independent and mature nations.
In hindsight, it would appear that the old nations would now be better off if they had determined that their fundamental responsibility was to help the colonies to become mature, successful, and independent nations.
Is it possible that the best training for a politician is successful parenting?
posted by complexspecificity | 10:41 PM
2 Comments:
so...what does that say about the we (the US) are relating to the world in 2006? Iraq, non-feeding of the many in Africa, etc, while throwing away tons of food...The so called "greatest generation" raised this generation of politicians and leaders. What's the state of the nation?
Great comment. See my latest post for one response. Do you have answers? Do you have a blog where you discuss the issues? If not, please keep posting comments and we can carry on a group dialog. I believe there is a workable solution if we can create or identify a network of concerned people, but it seems that currently, the risks of aid to Africa outweigh the benefits. I don't see much hope for Africa and am saddened. I really liked the people I went to Zimbabwe to help; I got to know about a dozen guys fairly well. I went there 5 years ago and if I wait another 5 years to go again, I will be only a little older, but the people I knew will likely have died of old age or disease.
Post a Comment
<< Home