“Racists suggested that black and brown people people were simply not capable of running countries, were inherently lazy, or corrupt, or both. They could not be trusted in countries like Vietnam to make their own choices; across Africa intervention was needed in terms of arms not troops. Latin america was looked down on with concern from Washington from where strings began to be pulled in earnest, most obviously in Chile in 1973. The underlying rhetoric all the time was that these people needed ‘help’, that providing such ‘help’ was the continued ‘white man’s burden’, that richer countries needed to indirectly rule those not so white, especially if they might turn to socialism or communism. As elitist thoughts were sustained in rich nations through the 1950s, and exclusion of the poor became tolerated again in the 1960s at home, in the 1970s the rich began to see their destiny as to rule, but now through intervention, co-option and conversion rather than directly through colonial mandate. And they called this leadership”
Daniel Dorling again.
“Childhoods across the rich world had been, in general, traumatic just a couple of generations ago, in an environment that fostered unthinking behaviour. Children were to be seen and not heard, often abandoned, regularly beaten and systematically terrorised to such and extent that the majority of children were what we would now consider abused. Children who were abused can, in adulthood , make good, sometimes racist, bullies. Now in affluent countries far fewer children are brought up in these ways, but sadly many still suffer trauma, not just from abuse, but from events such as having the misfortune of experiencing the death of one of their parents early in their childhood, with insufficient care taken over their welfare subsequently. That can harden people. When the poor are hardened they teach their toddlers to fight, to harden them in turn, and often find ideas such as racism attractive.”
really enjoying Daniel Dorling’s book: “Injustice. why social inequality persists”