Talk:David Fieldhouse

Colonialism/Imperialism v "Democratizing" non-Western Societies
I would offer that there may be some who would say that what "we" - the "Western nations" - are doing today / during the last 3-4 decades, in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East in general, very closely resembles what the European leading nations were doing in the mid to late 1700s and well into the 1800s; what we so easily designated as 'colonialism' or "imperialism" What is the difference between colonialism and democratizing another nstionstate ?

I maintain that the underlying tenant in "colonialism" is that the colonizing state's intention is to 'stay in charge'; to direct the government, if not usurp it all together. That the national treasure of the colony belongs to the colonizing state.

Whereas, in democratization, the expectation from the outset that any occupation by either civil or military from outside nations, is focused on establishing a peaceful, secure environment for the occupied state, fostering economic growth and the establishsment of an internationally acceptable approach to human rights and the Rule of Law. From the outset it is understood that the failing state, once stabilized and possessing the capacity to rule effectively, and in a manner acceptable across the international community, that the state will reclaim its primacy and that any and all 'occupying' elements will remain only at the behest of the Host Nation.

Albeit achiving expectations and acknowledging when they are met seems to be a very obscure target; but, for the most part I believe we would have to agree that the international political activity we are seeing today is not colonialism / imperialism in its original sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.99.8.10 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)