3 ms·

I recently read the book The Jakarta Method and it was extremely eye-opening. I'd previously heard a very abridged account of what happened in Indonesia in the

I recently read the book The Jakarta Method and it was extremely eye-opening. I'd previously heard a very abridged account of what happened in Indonesia in the 60s from Chomsky, but this book goes and examines how the same pattern was intentionally repeated by the US in many countries throughout the world. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say the US successfully inflicted a fourth reich on the global south over the course of the 20th century. Any left-wing or labor movements were threatened or actually put down with shocking fascist violence so that the wealth could keep flowing out of the country to the US. Not even necessarily communist movements, just the same social-democratic policies that all the nordic countries were implementing. Things are very comfortable here in the core; all the really sick shit happens abroad and is never reported until decades later in books by academics. We can be certain it still happens to this day: nobody here ever faced any consequences, and the same faces or schools are still in power. And they benefit greatly.

lp0_on_fire 4y ago
> It is scarcely an exaggeration to say the US successfully inflicted a fourth reich on the global south over the course of the 20th century. Any left-wing or labor movements were threatened or actually put down with shocking fascist violence so that the wealth could keep flowing out of the country to the US. I don't know if it's the Chomsky talking but this kind of hyperbole taints your argument. While US involvement in Southeast Asia and South America are _far from_ perfect they're even farther from being like a "fourth reich".
- ahelwer 4y ago
  The US funded, trained, armed, and supported with propaganda fascist elements in many countries that came to political power and committed mass murders, all for our benefit. Call it whatever you want. "Far from perfect", just lol.
  - lp0_on_fire 4y ago
    I didn't deny that. I just said calling it the "fourth reich" is hyperbole. Do you honestly believe, without hyperbole, that these actions are on the same level as those committed by the Nazis while they were in power. You know they were responsible for the genocide of millions at an industrial scale, yes?
    - ahelwer 4y ago
      Millions of people died in Indonesia, Vietnam, and elsewhere. It is absolutely on the same order of magnitude.
      - hahaitsfunny 4y ago
        Let's not forget about Ukraine too with the CIA training far-right paramilitaries to fight Russia... https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-...
        ahelwer 4y ago
        I wouldn't personally put that in the same category, but it does illustrate our comfort with arming & training nazis.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        Also South Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      Yes
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      keep going bc you're on the right track.
rayiner 4y ago
Is the term “global south” like the term “black and brown people?” A concept that lumps together huge swaths of the world’s population that have nothing to do with each other, and reduces them to subjects in a moralistic rant against Americans/Europeans/whites?
- ahelwer 4y ago
  Broadly refers to countries with a history of being colonized rather than a history of being colonizers. There certainly was a racial aspect to colonialism, yes.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    So England is part of the “global south” because it was colonized by the Romans? Is India part of the “global south” because it was colonized by Muslims, or only because it was colonized by the British? Is Thailand part of the “global south?”
    - ahelwer 4y ago
      You can Socrates this definition or you can recognize that it is a useful term for talking about global power imbalances from the latest wave of colonialism that resulted in the global order we see today. You do recognize and accept that such power relationships exist, yes?
      - rayiner 4y ago
        I disagree that it's a useful term. It centers white people and Europeans to suggest commonality between myriad different groups of people who otherwise have nothing in common. Moreover, it falsely assumes that interactions between those countries and European powers "resulted in the global order we see today." That's backwards. Europeans were able to engage in colonialism because they were already ahead of those other countries. Just as the Romans were able to conquer Britain and Gaul for the same reason. Even with respect to European colonization, former colonies were left in vastly different circumstances. African countries colonized by the French are vastly differently situated than, say, Singapore or Hong Kong. Not least of all, insofar as that view strongly suggests that white people and Europeans were the cause of current global power imbalances, they must be the solution. That is a dangerously counter-productive way to view the world. Even if we accept, for example, the theory that Great Britain transferred trillions of wealth from India to itself through colonization, it is a shadow of its former self and will never be able to meaningfully affect the future prospects of India. I would posit that India should view British colonization the same way Great Britain views Norman colonization: something that shaped the country's past but something of only historical interest going forward. At least in my experience as a Bangladeshi, I think that's how most folks do view it. We don't think of ourselves as being defined by our colonial history. Indeed, my parents (who were born in what was then the British Dominion of Pakistan) have positive as well as negative things to say about colonialism.
nico 4y ago
Along the same lines, there’s also the short book “War is a racket”, by retired general Smedley Butler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
shalmanese 4y ago
> is never reported until decades later in books by academics. Is never reported in the West until decades later. It's reported with extreme detail contemporaneously by local sources in an extremely easy to access format. I remember after 9/11, reading accounts by cross Arab/Western people who were reporting in extreme detail, specific grievances that people across the Middle East had with American foreign policy in an attempt to explain but not justify the actions of OBL and all of it being shut down with an almost aggressive ignorance of "they just hate our freedoms" by virtually the entire intellectual spectrum in the US. Like, you would expect pro-war hawks to simplify the issue but even anti-war bleeding heart liberals often seemed to have zero interest in engaging with criticisms from actual people who would be impacted vs the imaginary people they construct who are convenient to their argument. Even to this day, if you ask people what was OBL's self-stated reason for 9/11, 99% of people would get it wrong despite this being a purely factual question for which the primary source is trivially available [1]. I bet you, the person reading this comment have a vague idea of what OBL said and your vague notion is pretty significantly wrong. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

lp0_on_fire 4y ago

> It is scarcely an exaggeration to say the US successfully inflicted a fourth reich on the global south over the course of the 20th century. Any left-wing or labor movements were threatened or actually put down with shocking fascist violence so that the wealth could keep flowing out of the country to the US. I don't know if it's the Chomsky talking but this kind of hyperbole taints your argument. While US involvement in Southeast Asia and South America are _far from_ perfect they're even farther from being like a "fourth reich".

ahelwer 4y ago
The US funded, trained, armed, and supported with propaganda fascist elements in many countries that came to political power and committed mass murders, all for our benefit. Call it whatever you want. "Far from perfect", just lol.
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  I didn't deny that. I just said calling it the "fourth reich" is hyperbole. Do you honestly believe, without hyperbole, that these actions are on the same level as those committed by the Nazis while they were in power. You know they were responsible for the genocide of millions at an industrial scale, yes?
  - ahelwer 4y ago
    Millions of people died in Indonesia, Vietnam, and elsewhere. It is absolutely on the same order of magnitude.
    - hahaitsfunny 4y ago
      Let's not forget about Ukraine too with the CIA training far-right paramilitaries to fight Russia... https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-may-take-central-role-if-russia-invades-185258008.html https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-...
      - ahelwer 4y ago
        I wouldn't personally put that in the same category, but it does illustrate our comfort with arming & training nazis.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Also South Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    Yes
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    keep going bc you're on the right track.

rayiner 4y ago

Is the term “global south” like the term “black and brown people?” A concept that lumps together huge swaths of the world’s population that have nothing to do with each other, and reduces them to subjects in a moralistic rant against Americans/Europeans/whites?

ahelwer 4y ago
Broadly refers to countries with a history of being colonized rather than a history of being colonizers. There certainly was a racial aspect to colonialism, yes.
- rayiner 4y ago
  So England is part of the “global south” because it was colonized by the Romans? Is India part of the “global south” because it was colonized by Muslims, or only because it was colonized by the British? Is Thailand part of the “global south?”
  - ahelwer 4y ago
    You can Socrates this definition or you can recognize that it is a useful term for talking about global power imbalances from the latest wave of colonialism that resulted in the global order we see today. You do recognize and accept that such power relationships exist, yes?
    - rayiner 4y ago
      I disagree that it's a useful term. It centers white people and Europeans to suggest commonality between myriad different groups of people who otherwise have nothing in common. Moreover, it falsely assumes that interactions between those countries and European powers "resulted in the global order we see today." That's backwards. Europeans were able to engage in colonialism because they were already ahead of those other countries. Just as the Romans were able to conquer Britain and Gaul for the same reason. Even with respect to European colonization, former colonies were left in vastly different circumstances. African countries colonized by the French are vastly differently situated than, say, Singapore or Hong Kong. Not least of all, insofar as that view strongly suggests that white people and Europeans were the cause of current global power imbalances, they must be the solution. That is a dangerously counter-productive way to view the world. Even if we accept, for example, the theory that Great Britain transferred trillions of wealth from India to itself through colonization, it is a shadow of its former self and will never be able to meaningfully affect the future prospects of India. I would posit that India should view British colonization the same way Great Britain views Norman colonization: something that shaped the country's past but something of only historical interest going forward. At least in my experience as a Bangladeshi, I think that's how most folks do view it. We don't think of ourselves as being defined by our colonial history. Indeed, my parents (who were born in what was then the British Dominion of Pakistan) have positive as well as negative things to say about colonialism.

nico 4y ago

Along the same lines, there’s also the short book “War is a racket”, by retired general Smedley Butler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

shalmanese 4y ago

> is never reported until decades later in books by academics. Is never reported in the West until decades later. It's reported with extreme detail contemporaneously by local sources in an extremely easy to access format. I remember after 9/11, reading accounts by cross Arab/Western people who were reporting in extreme detail, specific grievances that people across the Middle East had with American foreign policy in an attempt to explain but not justify the actions of OBL and all of it being shut down with an almost aggressive ignorance of "they just hate our freedoms" by virtually the entire intellectual spectrum in the US. Like, you would expect pro-war hawks to simplify the issue but even anti-war bleeding heart liberals often seemed to have zero interest in engaging with criticisms from actual people who would be impacted vs the imaginary people they construct who are convenient to their argument. Even to this day, if you ask people what was OBL's self-stated reason for 9/11, 99% of people would get it wrong despite this being a purely factual question for which the primary source is trivially available [1]. I bet you, the person reading this comment have a vague idea of what OBL said and your vague notion is pretty significantly wrong. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver