And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed. Frederic Bastiat was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before — and immediately following — the Revolution of February This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism.
At whatever level we study it--relationships between individuals, new names for sports clubs, the human admixture at cocktail parties, in the police, on the directing boards of national or private banks--decolonization is quite simply the replacing of a certain "species" of men by another "species" of men.
Without any period of transition, there is a total, complete, and absolute substitution. It is true that we could equally well stress the rise of a new nation, the setting up of a new state, its diplomatic relations, and its economic and political trends.
But we have precisely chosen to speak of that kind of tabula rasa which characterizes at the outset all decolonization. Its unusual importance is that it constitutes, from the very first day, the minimum demands of the colonized. To tell the truth, the proof of success lies in a whole social structure being changed from the bottom up.
The extraordinary importance of this change is that it is willed, called for, demanded. The need for this change exists in its crude state, impetuous and compelling, in the consciousness and in the lives of the men and women who are colonized.
But the possibility of this change is equally experienced in the form of a terrifying future in the consciousness of another "species" of men and women: Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder.
But it cannot come as a result of magical practices, nor of a natural shock, nor of a friendly understanding. Decolonization, as we know, is a historical process: Decolonization is the meeting of two forces, opposed to each other by their very nature, which in fact owe their originality to that sort of substantification which results from and is nourished by the situation in the colonies.
Their first encounter was marked by violence and their existence together--that is to say the exploitation of the native by the settler--was carried on by dint of a great Democratic regime and peoples interests essay of bayonets and cannons.
The settler and the native are old acquaintances. In fact, the settler is right when he speaks of knowing "them" well. For it is the settler who has brought the native into existence and who perpetuates his existence.
The settler owes the fact of his very existence, that is to say, his property, to the colonial system. Decolonization never takes place unnoticed, for it influences individuals and modifies them fundamentally.
It transforms spectators crushed with their inessentiality into privileged actors, with the grandiose glare of history's floodlights upon them.
It brings a natural rhythm into existence, introduced by new men, and with it a new language and a new humanity. Decolonization is the veritable creation of new men.
But this creation owes nothing of its legitimacy to any supernatural power; the "thing" which has been colonized becomes man during the same process by which it frees itself. In decolonization, there is therefore the need of a complete calling in question of the colonial situation.
If we wish to describe it precisely, we might find it in the wellknown words: That is why, if we try to describe it, all decolonization is successful.
The naked truth of decolonization evokes for us the searing bullets and bloodstained knives which emanate from it. For if the last shall be first, this will only come to pass after a murderous and decisive struggle between the two protagonists.
That affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things, and to make them climb at a pace too quickly, some say the well-known steps which characterize an organized society, can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence. You do not turn any society, however primitive it may be, upside down with such a program if you have not decided from the very beginning, that is to say from the actual formulation of that program, to overcome all the obstacles that you will come across in so doing.
The native who decides to put the program into practice, and to become its moving force, is ready for violence at all times. From birth it is clear to him that this narrow world, strewn with prohibitions, can only be called in question by absolute violence.
The colonial world is a world divided into compartments. It is probably unnecessary to recall the existence of native quarters and European quarters, of schools for natives and schools for Europeans; in the same way we need not recall apartheid in South Africa.
Yet, if we examine closely this system of compartments, we will at least be able to reveal the lines of force it implies. This approach to the colonial world, its ordering and its geographical layout will allow us to mark out the lines on which a decolonized society will be reorganized.
The colonial world is a world cut in two. The dividing line, the frontiers are shown by barracks and police stations. In the colonies it is the policeman and the soldier who are the official, instituted go-betweens, the spokesmen of the settler and his rule of oppression.
In capitalist societies the educational system, whether lay or clerical, the structure of moral reflexes handed down from father to son, the exemplary honesty of workers who are given a medal after fifty years of good and loyal service, and the affection which springs from harmonious relations and good behavior--all these aesthetic expressions of respect for the established order serve to create around the exploited person an atmosphere of submission and of inhibition which lightens the task of policing considerably.
In the capitalist countries a multitude of moral teachers, counselors and "bewilderers" separate the exploited from those in power. In the colonial countries, on the contrary, the policeman and the soldier, by their immediate presence and their frequent and direct action maintain contact with the native and advise him by means of rifle butts and napalm not to budge.The progress seen in the late 20th century has stalled in the 21st.
Even though around 40% of the world’s population, more people than ever before, live in countries that will hold free and fair.
Howard Zinn shares his thoughts on the election and the newly published graphic/comic A People’s History of American Empire. Michael Watkins and Susan Rosegrant--a Harvard Business School professor and a Kennedy School case writer respectively--have written a book that succeeds on several levels but that is ultimately less powerful than it might have been, probably as a result of trying to serve too many masters.
What is a Non-Democratic Government? Non- democratic governments do not have democracy but have other ruling methods.
For example, dictatorships, aristocratic ruling, socialism, communism, authoritarianism, military power and so heartoftexashop.com these types of non-democratic ruling systems, the interests of the general public are not taken into .
Pol Pot (UK: / p ɒ l p ɒ t /, US: / p oʊ l /; Khmer: ប៉ុល ពត born Saloth Sar 19 May – 15 April ) was a Cambodian communist revolutionary and politician who served as the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea from to Ideologically a Marxist–Leninist and Khmer nationalist, he led the Khmer Rouge group from until This is the backdrop to this study, which briefly surveys the history of the status quo on the Temple Mount, presents the reasons for its establishment, details the many substantive changes it has undergone, and explains the reasons behind these changes.