People looked at the Conquisdors conquering of the middle and southern americas as an horror. People see the elimination of local information and practices as evil. Thing is that a person doesn't have to have the conquisdor symbol on their chest to be an agent of ideological impericism.
One might say "Well if we doc**ent ideas and beliefs then we have won. People don't practice the thought pattern but we have information about it." In all honesty this is stupid thinking. Why is that? Because if people don't know the knowledge exists then it disappears in spite of it being categorized and stored.
The truth of the matter is for developing countries to come into their own without the loss of culture and ideas several practices have to be in place. Bare with me because a lot of what I am going to say is going to counter to what people think is best.
1. Introduction of new technology should be very limited and commercial products should be banned.
The basis of this is this thinking is that if the only thing a community needs is mosquito nets and not the internet. We have to realize that technological elements in most countries will erode or break down from high humidity, sand, or any other local specfic issues that causes the materials to break down. Not only that introduction of certain technological ideas designed by those outside the culture leads to ideological conclusions that might harm the community. One of the biggest gripes of Isalmic countries is that when the Western countries move in they bring goods and culture. That the goods embody the culture of the west. To take one is to take the other. So the technological introduction should be lazer pinpoint and fix a need that is physical.
2. Philosophical and Theological issues should not be tackled by those outside of the community.
Thing is ideas don't come out of a vacc**. There has to be some sort of pretext for an idea to be in place. Views of men, women, children, nature, cosmos, spirit, and many other factors can not be divided from each other. You introduce condoms to a culture one would think that would fix sexual diseases. Low and behold that hasn't worked. Why? Not everyone believes in using condoms. Condoms also break and only protect a small part of the body from infection. Condoms don't protect a person if they touch bodily fluids with other parts of their body. The bigger thing that has to be addressed is how is sexed dealt with in the culture? Where are the elders? What are their taboos about sex? These are key things to look at when it comes to culture in some places. If a place has no taboo on sex, has access to condoms, and they still have a high STI/STD rate then the issue is philosophical. Where are the elders? If the elders aren't valued then who has authority?
Another issue we look at is that some technologies present cosmological issues that some religious teachers in some areas may not be ready to deal with. One has to be trained to deal with how to view science through a theological view. If a culture has a continual bombardment of needed and unnecessary cosmological data then it can cause havoc a local community that doesn't have a prepared spiritual leader. In some cases if the religious institution collapses society gets worse and not better because moral standards are then based on might and personal preference. Without norms the stabilizing agents of society such as family can not take root and the society is doomed to collapse.
3. Patrol your own backyard
Thing is that many people are trying to save the world. People get a global view and think they need to go everywhere and save everyone. Few people look at their backyard and see the problems that are going on there. The thing is that people have a higher chance of avoiding ideological conflict with someone local versus someone internationally. Funny thing is that people mock the United States as being the world's police but people when given party want to do the exact same thing when it comes to their personal causes. Yes military might is not being used, but economic and technological might are just as or stronger.
In short. Less conflict is presented when one stays with in their own culture.
4. Preservation of knowledge and viewpoints comes from avoiding unification.
The foolish thought that culture has moved to recently is that we need to unify everything. This is bad. First of it is bad because when you unify everything you loose diversity. Without diversity their is no conflict. Without conflict you have no more micro-evolution.
The second problem is that when a unifying force gets to point of critical mass it will be unstoppable. A Borg like effect will be put in place. Economic, military, and resource advantage will be with one point of view. Any other view to the massive force will be seen as an enemy or doesn't fit in the society. It will be first respected, then tolerated, then mocked, then outcast, next banned, lastly persecuted and hunted.
The best example of this is Home schooling in Germany. At one point it was allowed but no longer. There are many social arguments that the state has presented over time to erode the position of home schoolers. Society eventually hit critical mass and the act of teaching your child was banned. The biggest reason for banning home school was that home schoolers didn't have the same worldview as public schoolers. Most of the arguments had little to do with education but societal interaction. Now all students in Germany have 1 means of education. Whoever rules that education system rules the future of that country.
5.Diversity is essential
I'm not talking about the weak multiculturalism that we through around a lot. That interaction is on the surface because hardly anyone goes into another culture and really learns how to live in it. Once one has a set of norms other things naturally appear weird. This is sound logic. To remove the feeling of weird is to create a new culture and a new weird. So I propose something similar to "separate but equal." Let people have various ideological and cultural system. Let them operate and have influence only within their own groups. Any time two or more different cultures meet they must negoitate their own terms. But in the end preserving of ways and teachings are within communities. By preventing threats to those systems are essential. The only thing I would propose that everyone must have the ablity to leave the cultural system if they choose to go to another system. This forces the community to naturally change due to internal pressures.
Mass Effect got it right when they introduced the ideas of the Reapers. The reaper Soverign makes a statement that goes like this. We seed your universe with technlogy. You find that technlology and you grow along the route we so choose. The same goes with us. We are the Reapers to these communities. If we don't let the cultures develop on their own paths we will set them on the paths that we traveled. If you haven't noticed that every country that is introduced to the western technological system has not skipped a development stage that western nations went through. What would happen if a nation never went through an industrial revolution but went another route? What if their is a country development model out there that doesn't need a industral, post-industral, and digital stages of develpoment to compete and be funcitonal? For this to happen we must get off our high horses and limit our interactions. Thus diversity thrives and we get several different outcomes and viewpoints. With this diversity comes conflict. With conflict comes change. With change comes something new.