Quote:
|
Spurious. The world was totally different then. There WAS no such thing as global politics. There were no superpowers. There was no single nation whose economy and culture was hedgemonically exported worldwide, to the general detriment of other nations. You've compared an apple and a hubcap.
|
Global politics have existed since the first time a person stepped from Africa to Asia, the powers that be back then knew what was going on.
Yes there was a single nation that expected hegemony, it was what remained of the Byzantine Empire. It was only after the 2nd Crusade that the split was permanent between the West and Constantinople. Even the Arabs greatly admired and formed themselves after them.
Quote:
|
which was predicated on a repeating of the british colonial model--generation of strict borders that divide factions (itself a colonial notion) and then a move to play factions off each other.
|
You're giving the British
way too much credit here. While it was true the British divided peoples for easier governance, this is a
very ancient practice used by even the Assyrians who were native to the region.
My point is that if the post-modern thinking of blaming Colonialism was truely the cause, we would have problems in the areas of the world which WERE truely affected by it. Instead the colonialism which existed outside the Maghareb affected almost no one until WWII. If it were such a light touch how can it be the cause of the massive troubles in the region?
There are
many problems in post-colonial countries. But if the post-modernist historical thinking held any weight, we'd have terrorism origionating in Martinique or Australia (some of the most influenced areas) instead of Jordan which suffered under Colonialism mere years instead of centuries.