80
Imperialism Reading Group - How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, by Walter Rodney - Week 1
(hexbear.net)
This is a weekly thread in which we read through books on and related to imperialism and geopolitics. Last week's thread is here.
The book we are currently reading through is How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Please comment or message me directly if you wish to be pinged for this group, or if you no longer wish to be pinged.
This week, we will be reading Chapter 1: Some Questions On Development.
Next week, we will be reading the first section, "A General Overview", of Chapter 2: How Africans Developed Before The Coming Of The Europeans - Up To The Fifteenth Century.
Where did you see this definition? He said "A... component of modern underdevelopment is that it expresses a particular relationship of... exploitation of one country by another"
You have a vast gap of knowledge between your analyses and what Rodney is saying if you read this line as "exploitation of nation by nation" and should humble yourself to that as opposed to dismissing Rodney as "useful as a primer". That's almost offensive to say about such a scholar, theorist, and practician. Especially when you've changed almost every term and its context into something else to support your dismissal.
Nation=/=country first of all, and this distinction is very clearly defined in the way he uses them. But your limited view of nations should be informed by Stalin and now Losurdo if this is your position on nations. I also think you misread Fanon if you conclude that ambivalence to the nation is what Fanon was prescribing instead of national liberation starting at the level of a nation. It seems you flipped that one on its head too? Or would you like to cite in Fanon why you think he said that? Was this in Black Skin White Masks? Or The Wretched of Earth?
And Underdevelopment =/= imperialism. He's pretty clear on the relationship between these.
Wow this is an incredibly hostile and condescending response to a simple disagreement about the text and it makes me less interested in this book club if this is the kind of discourse I can expect
I would've been much more respectful if it wasn't both dismissive and misquoting. That combo doesn't deserve any more than that. Why did the original poster try to dismiss Rodney, a scholar and well respected Marxist, based on a misquoted intro to a book which goes in depth into the topic?Disagreement I will be very respectful and constructive with, but that comment wasn't that. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and asked them to humble themselves instead of jumping to these conclusions, nobody can expect nicer than that in this situation
Imo a theory discussion should be a safe place to be wrong and ignorant because one is showing their willingness to learn. Telling someone that something they misunderstood is "clear" or "obvious" is just insulting without informing. Everyone comes to this shit from their own place and not everyone has done what you consider to be the required prerequisite reading.
I haven't read or even heard of this book until I saw this thread and became curious about it, and this is the only comment chain that isn't "I haven't read it yet", left a bad taste in my mouth.
My stance is that in circles like this one who perceives an information gap should seek to inform before disparaging the viewpoint, it is only going to drive people away. U may take my internet words or leave them
I'll take your words about using "clear" and "obvious" to heart. For third persons not involved that can be very demeaning, and I apologize for that to you, and will adjust them to be more pointed and use terms like "with investigation, it can be found that..."
But directing them at the OP is warranted, because, again, they seemingly willingly lied about the book to dismiss it. The best interpretation I can think of is that they were just super not careful with the reading, in which case scolding for speaking authoritatively without any investigation is warranted. The worst case is willful misinterpretation because they disagree but don't want to pinpoint why (most likely because their disagreement is wrong and they're aware in some way). So I still feel entirely justified for that, but the language would've been better for a personal message, I guess.