It has become fairly common amongst colonial societies ruled by white European Imperialists. After the first flush of independent countries in South & SE Asia, there was a renewed awakening and zeal in Africa mostly, while 'IndoChina' took a different route to a bloody war (Vietnam) that gradually engulfed the whole of that region.
The revolution to achieve independence had riven the polity, ideologically in the middle, aided & abetted by the two ideological camps - Capitalism (free enterprise) & Communism. The resulting civil wars served as proxy wars for the Cold War enacted in Europe. As an ideal foil this obviated direct confrontation between the Superpowers. That is an aspect the world is thankful for.
But it cost Africa particularly in terms of reduction in populations ('lives lost' is too weak a term to describe it), human misery, politically unsettled condition that pauperised these countries even more, setting the clock back form development by several decades. There are too many case histories for me to take up here. The two groups - Communist against the erstwhile Colonial rulers, the 'free world' forces abetted by them and some splinter groups of neutrals & anarchists; while in the Middle East (apart form the 'Baath' faction in each country) there were various phalangist groups on ethnic-religious-social lines. Even after independence the populations & their animosities (mutual distrust) got congealed along these divisive lines making national unity in each of these countries a near-impossibility. This attitude non-participation didn't allow democracy to take to bud. The problem was because the European Imperialists drew the boundaries across ethnical polities, and it all led to ethnic cleansings later (Rwanda). Recent utterances by the Cambodian president, Hun Sen, blaming the French Imperialists of the past of creating border tensions with his neighbouring countries, sums it up.
