As usual, nuance is the important part here, not slogans (you can hide anything inside them). I'll admit that a little healthy nationalism is useful to keep foreign interests from overwhelming you (or more if anyone gets too pushy), but it's important to not let it stop you using all the tools at your disposal for development e.g. CFA Franc is very useful as a way to facilitate trade between neighbouring countries with the drawback that the "central bank" is located in Paris, but during decolonisation there was no clear leader to control the currency, so a foreign influence made sense at the time, maybe today it could be the AU, but I see no credible alternatives. https://theconversation.com/why-abandoning-the-cfa-franc-would-be-a-risky-operation-120551 (the Wikipedia article is notably terse)

[–] livus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@Gsus4 I agree, slogans are nebulous at best, which is why they are so useful to politicians. I'm not the person who introduced the slogan (that was @appel, and as I said elsewhere I don't actually agree with them that this is what it is - the Sahel is still in the clutches of global corporates).

I was just objecting because you seemed to be equating attempted decolonization with xenophobia towards powerless migrants in high income countries, and I don't think that's appropriate.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But xenophobia is not class-based, it can be aimed at powerful people (and be partially justified) or aimed at powerless people. Anyone can fall for it, look at the recent example in South Africa: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66808346

I'm just trying to figure out where to draw a line for an acceptable amount of useful self-defense xenophobia (a sort of protectionism) as a general principle e.g. legislation preventing foreign countries from owning any of your critical infrastructure sounds reasonable vs self-destructive xenophobia e.g. "those damn foreigners"