 |
 |
Precisely. That was my intial concerns with the article (as a geographer interested in the history, development, economy, spaces, of Europe generally - specifically of its food and general retail and consumption systems). The concepts of governance were loosely used/glossed over - said in an earlier CG email, the 'governance issues' he mentions re postcolonial developing states have also occurred in Europe, e.g. Ireland, Scotland, Catalonia, Czechoslovakia, and especially Yugoslavia. And these governance issues can be blamed on the artifical national boundaries created especially in Africa, but also in S America, by those European colonisers. You've got to love the spatially incompatible aims of the French in creating a continuous east-west bloc from Senegal to Djibouti with the British aims of a north-south bloc from Egypt to S Africa. Maybe, at Fashoda, they could have built an underpass or flyover? Then tossed a coin as to who got the ground level route? OK enough frivolity.But I did get a laugh out of his description of Britain, without the Roman occupation, as a 'backward Druid state'. One might walk from the City of London to the Isle of Dogs and think.....if only. Dr Hillary J. Shaw Director and Senior Research Consultant Shaw Food Solutions Newport Shropshire TF10 8QE www.fooddeserts.org -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Linstead <[log in to unmask]> To: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thu, Sep 14, 2017 10:54 am Subject: Re: "The case for colonialism", outrage and response It also expects us to understand the meaning of the term before we use it. On 14 Sep 2017 10:46 am, "Willis N. Churnocht" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: What could be more critical and radical than putting forward a case defending colonialism? Bravo to this chap for being brave, breaking the mold and transcending the confines of left-wing thinking. Academia asks us to think critically, after all.