>European countries like the U.S. don't want to help these
>peoples because they realize that among other things it
>means that our infrastructure and raw material needs will
>become greater. If a Russian doctor (or Indian computer
>programmer, or whatever) comes over- he can contribute and
>become a valueable CONSUMER, but if a Haitian, or Columbian,
>or someone from a country ravaged by imperialism and has
>limited skills comes over- they become dependant upon the
>system until they can stand on their own two feet.
>Taxpayers here don't want that.

True. If things were more just, the European countries would admit that the limited skills of 'the others' (as well as other "gifts" you are given when growing up in a country ravaged by imperialism) was a result from their unfair politics. Within the realm of these people wanting to live in the western world, that is. (I say that to try not to be talking about westernization, because that would be going backwards.) A just solution would either be:

A. Let them come, study, work, get the help they would need as a way of apologizing (anything else would be unfair), and: encourage and help these people to bring this economic wealth back to their country. (Not encouraging or implying the adoption of mentality and culture.)

B. Help their country reach a standard of ok peacefulnes, help increase living standards, perhaps help solve internal conflicts etc. (A problem with this option is how it basically involves letting go of things that capitalism loves, such as oppression, exploitation and the exhibition of "superpowers", in order for the intended goals to be honestly, justly and effectively met.)

In Columbia, if USA would just stop having a hand in the civil war it could be a noticable improvement. Same goes for Bolivia and its wrongly elected american puppet president causing unrest (20-30 got killed in one day in the city that suddenly didn't fit its name anymore.. La Paz), and the list should go on..

C. The transcending option.
what do you think it would be?
I am thinking about it.. but it helps to hear others' thoughts

>This was referring to countries that have raw materials like
>Lumber, oil, and such the like, and are being exploited.
>They won't get a chance to bounce back because the parental
>generation will have limited resources to work with. Which
>means as the kids come up they won't know what they have-
>and then the cycle of degradatin, and imperial raping can
>start again.

I see you when it comes to this also. The cycle of degradation.. I can understand it is true, and that what causes it is the exploitation. This cycle starts over again with each child becoming a parent, no? That is what you mean?

Just from reading this it is easy to understand how that shapes the mind of the exploited. But how is it when it comes to the cycle of degradation for those who migrate from an exploited and oppressed society into the developed countries, seeking something better? Is it still as basic and general as you describe?

In Fanons book it was simple, he had the "native" and he had the "bourgeoisie". I dunno how it is in the reality of today. Because, today not only the bourgeoisie are trying to reach the European world. Some of the "natives" are migrating. Well, luckily most of the "natives" who migrate today don't try to reach the European world mentally. Most only go physically, with first of all -stability- in mind. But they are still the "natives" who have realized that fighting is unuseful, and instead try to travel as a way of reaching the solution. (Which is.. Stability, safety, balance.)