>>17894003 (OP)
It sort of won, yeah. There's a plot twist though. In the 1960s, third-worldism tended to include both (a) demands for independence / sovereignty but also (b) a self-critical attitude towards their own societies, because traditional kings, chiefs, warlords, etc. were often in cahoots with colonialists. This combined in a movement towards a sort of republican socialism.
These two tendencies began to split up though with the decline of socialism. The self-critical tendency split off in one direction and got in with liberal NGOs and became more concerned with "human rights" discourse. While the sovereigntist discourse has become (in my view) rather reactionary. It's anti-Western but usually blindly un-critical of their own societies. Also being blindly anti-Western is more often than not a way to scapegoat the white man for their problems without fundamentally addressing the problems.
You see this especially in the Sahelian juntas that have come to power in the past few years. The actual structure of rule-by-paratrooper is an updated version of the pre-colonial way of doing things when tribal war leaders called the shots. They are not doing well but they blame French conspiracies for why nothing has changed or has gotten worse and then stomp anybody who disagrees with them to death. There are some whackjob ideologies that have also latched onto these juntas, like we wuz kangz and we must retvrn stuff in their own context.
