Jared Diamond, _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ addresses that question by comparing societies that were geographically isolated (and thus could count only on sel-development) to those that were not (and thus cross-polinated one another so to speak). His conclusions are that self-development does not lead anywhere but backwardness and stangantion.
"Self-development" is a ruse invented by thrid world nationalists and the "noble savage" intellectuals in the developed world. ***********************************
But we are not comparing societies which are isolated from those that have vibrant connections to others; we are comparing societies that have been invaded and co-opted with those that have been relatively free to determine their own course. Using isolation as a metric is a straw man.
The United States itself, grown from a colonial seed, provides a good example. Once she had achieved liberation from Britain, and established dominance over the landmass, there was no nation on earth able to manipulate in any serious way this country's evolution.
Japan is another example. Although the 'Great White Fleet' opened through the implication of force Edo harbor - and Japan to the world - the Meiji were able to retain Japan's independence from direct colonization and thus give her the freedom to chart her own path.
We can compare the U.S. to Brazil and Japan to China. Were it not for countless interventions large and small, and various forms (from militarism to the IMF) of interference on the side of the most repressive domestic elements by American administrations, Brazil might be our co-equal in hemispheric, if not global power.
But, because of this interference, we are looking at a different Brazil from the one that might have been.
Rome destroyed Carthage because it couldn't abide sphere-of-influence rivals; a kind of war, for similar reasons has been waged by the US upon Latin America. The result: chaos, bloodshed and damaged societies.
China, colonized by Europeans and Japanese and later abused by the CP, is only now assuming its proper place on the world stage. Where might China be today if this meddling hadn't occured?
I read an essay recently about the Indian textile industry, pre-British Raj. The author's point was that the British imperial intervention first retarded, then killed this domestic development and that, despite the common wisdom, the British did not bring quite as many wonders to old India as we think.
How many similar stories have been lost in the imperial shuffle I wonder?
Wojtek, I sympathize with your wish to banish 'noble savage' romanticisms to the scrap heap. In your zeal to do so however, I believe you're erring too far on the side of dismissing all claims of outside interference as nationalist, self-determination, absurdities.
DRM
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com