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.
Tired of missing out, I’m joining this one
If other instances can be pinged (I dont know how this website works) then I would appreciate being added as well. It’s well past time that I continue this voyage.
Say I wanna ping yer name
-
@
-
picayune@lemmy.zip (this will automatically show, like autocorrect)
Hey, cool, thanks! The more I know
-
fuck yeah i’ve been meaning to pick this up and just finished what i was reading. give me pings pls
Imperialism Reading Group ping!
We begin with the first chapter of How Europe Underdeveloped Africa!
The two weeks afterwards will each be on Chapter 2 - next week on the “A General Overview” section, and the week after on the “Some Concrete Examples” section. After that, Chapter 3 is short enough to not need subdivision.
@RedDawn@hexbear.net @Cowbee@hexbear.net @kittin@hexbear.net @Sebrof@hexbear.net @TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml @OrionsMask@hexbear.net @0__0@hexbear.net @SummerIsTooWarm@hexbear.net @mbt2402@hexbear.net @BanjoBolshevik@hexbear.net @BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net @NinjaGinga@hexbear.net @Test_Tickles@hexbear.net @luddybuddy@hexbear.net @Coca_Cola_but_Commie@hexbear.net @niph@hexbear.net @redline@lemmygrad.ml @glimmer_twin@hexbear.net @MF_COOM@hexbear.net @MiraculousMM@hexbear.net @StarkWolf@hexbear.net @StillNoLeftLeft@hexbear.net @BGDelirium@hexbear.net @THEPH0NECOMPANY@hexbear.net @devils_dust@hexbear.net @Ehrmantrout@hexbear.net @quarrk@hexbear.net @RaisedFistJoker@hexbear.net @Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net @darkmode@hexbear.net @PaulSmackage@hexbear.net @FunkyStuff@hexbear.net @IceWallowCum@hexbear.net @Babs@hexbear.net @PerryGirl@hexbear.net @Rojo27@hexbear.net @OgdenTO@hexbear.net @iie@hexbear.net @Wertheimer@hexbear.net @Blobber@hexbear.net @MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net @XxFemboy_Stalin_420_69xX@chapo.chat @CARCOSA@hexbear.net @cosmosaucer@hexbear.net
I’d like to be taken out for now 😔 no time for reading atm
I picked it up and couldn’t take my eyes off the page. Maybe others here are better acquainted with this development framework, but Rodney put it so eloquently, I’m still awed.
The book is obviously focused on Africa but IMHO the framework from chapter 1 applies (in different degrees) to anywhere in the imperial periphery.
He is both concise and then detailed in a way that is very legible, agreed.
I’m interested! I’ll try to get started on it, and I’d appreciate a ping too.
I gotta hop on this one, doll!
Oh, could I be tagged?
Ping me up, before you go-go!
I’m a little disappointed by the definition of imperialism as “exploitation of nation by nation.” Because of the way that it takes the nation as a given and doesnt look at the nation itself as being an imperial imposition (and of course, later a tool for anti colonial organizing. Fanon writes beautifully on the ambi-valence of nationalism in the colonized world and would be a great addendum of this book.)
I think because of this limitation Rodney puts forward a partial understanding of imperialism that is useful as a primer but ultimately fails as a theory in that its too simplistic to be rigorous
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.
I’ll sign up for this one!
Ping me too pls.
This will be an interesting read
can you ping me too? :)
