5 ms·

Unless you lived in the parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity… it’s important to remember peace and prosperity are regional phenomen

Unless you lived in the parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity… it’s important to remember peace and prosperity are regional phenomena that are not shared around the globe equally.

leereeves 4y ago
Certainly there have been some parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity, but it was widespread. Former colonies threw off their colonial yokes. Most of the "developing world" developed. Marginalized groups gained new civil rights. China and India rose to become great powers even as their former colonial masters, though declining, still enjoyed peace and prosperity. Recognizing that there is still a lot of injustice and inequality in the world doesn't require denying all the progress that has been made.
- 4ggr0 4y ago
  > Recognizing that there is still a lot of injustice and inequality in the world doesn't require denying all the progress that has been made And recognizing that we've made process shouldn't make us believe that we've done enough. Recognize what we've (or they've) achieved, be proud about it but never loose focus on making "it" even better. (I'm just adding to your comment, not disagreeing)
- jl6 4y ago
  > Certainly there have been some parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity, but it was widespread. > Former colonies threw off their colonial yokes. While I don’t disagree that decolonization was progress, it ironically came at the cost of the peace that had been imposed on the colonies by their former colonial masters. Many of the world’s most conflict-stricken areas today are ex-colonies still in the process of stabilization. The dirty secret of peace is that it is often imposed by a dominant power. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. These were peaceful times because of intense power asymmetry.
  - ansible 4y ago
    > While I don’t disagree that decolonization was progress, it ironically came at the cost of the peace that had been imposed on the colonies by their former colonial masters. What is this "peace" you speak of? I think you want to take a closer look at the oppression that was endemic to colonization and occupation of foreign lands. One of the worse examples is Belgium's colonization of the Congo: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb5/belgian-king-establishes-congo-free-state/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb5/belgian-king... If an African laborer didn't produce rubber (for example), it was common to chop off a hand (his own or a family member's) to encourage him to work harder. Congo may be on the worse end of the spectrum of colonization, but it is hardly a singular example.
    - jl6 4y ago
      Yes, I know this. This is why I view decolonization as progress. I am distinguishing such oppression from war.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > dirty secret of peace is that it is often imposed by a dominant power. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. If it’s literally in the name it’s not a secret. Competition for monopolies on violence are bloody. When we can sidestep that contest, we get a lasting peace.

leereeves 4y ago

Certainly there have been some parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity, but it was widespread. Former colonies threw off their colonial yokes. Most of the "developing world" developed. Marginalized groups gained new civil rights. China and India rose to become great powers even as their former colonial masters, though declining, still enjoyed peace and prosperity. Recognizing that there is still a lot of injustice and inequality in the world doesn't require denying all the progress that has been made.

4ggr0 4y ago
> Recognizing that there is still a lot of injustice and inequality in the world doesn't require denying all the progress that has been made And recognizing that we've made process shouldn't make us believe that we've done enough. Recognize what we've (or they've) achieved, be proud about it but never loose focus on making "it" even better. (I'm just adding to your comment, not disagreeing)
jl6 4y ago
> Certainly there have been some parts of the world that didn’t have that peace or that prosperity, but it was widespread. > Former colonies threw off their colonial yokes. While I don’t disagree that decolonization was progress, it ironically came at the cost of the peace that had been imposed on the colonies by their former colonial masters. Many of the world’s most conflict-stricken areas today are ex-colonies still in the process of stabilization. The dirty secret of peace is that it is often imposed by a dominant power. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. These were peaceful times because of intense power asymmetry.
- ansible 4y ago
  > While I don’t disagree that decolonization was progress, it ironically came at the cost of the peace that had been imposed on the colonies by their former colonial masters. What is this "peace" you speak of? I think you want to take a closer look at the oppression that was endemic to colonization and occupation of foreign lands. One of the worse examples is Belgium's colonization of the Congo: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb5/belgian-king-establishes-congo-free-state/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb5/belgian-king... If an African laborer didn't produce rubber (for example), it was common to chop off a hand (his own or a family member's) to encourage him to work harder. Congo may be on the worse end of the spectrum of colonization, but it is hardly a singular example.
  - jl6 4y ago
    Yes, I know this. This is why I view decolonization as progress. I am distinguishing such oppression from war.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > dirty secret of peace is that it is often imposed by a dominant power. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. If it’s literally in the name it’s not a secret. Competition for monopolies on violence are bloody. When we can sidestep that contest, we get a lasting peace.