3 ms·
My comment was not to defend the racist, patronizing, and jingoistic proclivities of 19th-century American politicians, but to explain how the U.S. approach to
by _iyig 7y ago
My comment was not to defend the racist, patronizing, and jingoistic proclivities of 19th-century American politicians, but to explain how the U.S. approach to empire differed in both outcome and intent from its European and Asian counterparts.
- jessaustin 7y agoI'm not seeing that. Most European colonial powers have withdrawn from most of their colonies. Those colonies still feel the effects of colonization, both ill effects and more benign effects. How are the actions of USA in Philippines different from that?
- _iyig 7y agoCompared to other colonial powers the U.S. introduced representative democracy, got rid of the state religion (Catholicism), and bestowed colonial peoples with a broad set of civil rights and liberties. They also decolonized right after WW2 at the height of their power in Asia, in contrast to France and the U.K. which hung onto their empires even into the 50s and 60s.
- jessaustin 7y agoRepresentative democracy is if anything in worse shape in Philippines than it is in USA. Certainly it was nothing to admire during the decades Marcos ruled. Also Catholicism is still very common. Colonialism with slightly different ritual formalisms, yet largely the same aims and results, is still colonialism. USA colonialism doesn't require American governors to remain in place. IMF/IBRD administrators do the job just as well, and they didn't leave in the 60s.