Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were (probably are) and they did. One becomes smarter and more effective through learning and application, not whining and recrimination. S. Korea was demonstrably worse off than Ethiopia as well as many other sub-Saharan countries in the 1950s and look at them now. Did they achieve this through colonization, exploitation, and slavery?
Well, maybe you should stop supporting our dictatorial regime for your own interests and give us the same freedom afforded to the 50s S.Korea before you point your uneducated fingers at me.
There is no national government that does not A) act in its own self/best interest and B) does so with the express approval of all of its citizens. The fact that you decide to blame the population of an entire nation (who are largely ignorant of global affairs as well as having no stake/vested interest in big money deals between nationstates) is indicative of your knowledge base on the subject. The game of wealth has been going on for much longer than Thirdworldism (1970s), Dependency Theory (1960s), Globalism (1940s), Socialism (~1850s), or even Capitalism (1700s).* Resource exchange and the wealth derived from it are hallmarks of pastoral societies, potentially even out dating currency exchange given the obvious value raw material plays in terms of power. What may be considered unique to the late stage Holocene is the domination of raw material exchange by Western Societies, but only in terms of its global scale. The Chinese (there are many empires that can be called this but i hope you can suss that out for yourself) knew the value of spices and precious metals even as Europeans were trying to figure out why the Saracens lived longer and better despite being "satan worshipers." Global mass transfer is what cemented the Western ascendancy on the globe. But the idea that this ascendancy was appropriated from others is a bridge too far (unless one is making an emotional or faith based argument) given the destruction the West wrought on itself, as well as the fact that every single Western Empire did substantially better economically once shorn of their colonial possessions. What is more, non colonial nations like Sweden and Switzerland are demonstrably wealthier than the original western colonialists Spain and Portugal. This, in my as well as far more notable historian's opinions, is due to culture and governance. This can be seen in the staggering achievements of the East Asian tiger economies vs. the abject shitholes of sub-Saharan Africa. The tigers were resource poor, xenophobic, and overpopulated. the -holes were resource rich, comparatively open, and underpopulated. Yet somehow, East Asia is opulently wealthy and powerful while sS Africa can barley keep the lights on. It would be foolish to claim that there were no outside influences in either case, but to blame the disparate outcomes on a single nation is not only unhelpful to solving the problem, it is deleterious. One can always make a "lead by example" argument, but that is just a transposed American Exceptionalism argument which is silly. I'd be interested in any reading you could point me to on this subject, assuming you've actually done any. My sources are all antiquated paper media, but i will give you a truncated reading list should you defy my expectations. More your speed might be the doc Empire of Dust as a point of departure. Nonetheless... "Western Guilt&Third World Poverty" Bauer,"Dont Decry Colonialism" Drake, "Decolonization" Fieldhouse, "The Middle East: Geostrategy and Oil" Khalidi and many, many more.