4 ms·

And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Amer

• krapp 4y ago
  >And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? Hawaii.
  • toss1 4y ago
    Hawaii, annexed in 1898... not exactly modern era. The point is that there was an age of empire, where it was accepted to take territory by force. It was pretty much that way since Alexander, Ghengis Kahn, through all of European history since the middle ages. The point is that the era of empire by violent imperialist conquest is over. While authoritarians want to continue acting like might-is-right empires, the democratic nations of the free world reject that concept The free world understanding that it is unsustainable. The lands of previous empires are largely returned, India, most of Africa, Carribbean, etc. Just because governments since the age of empire still retain continuity and the same name, that does not mean they are the same. England, France, Germany, US, have rejected authoritarianism and empire, while Russia, and China still want to continue it. Treating something that has the same name but is different is a falsehood. (A caveat here is that there are authoritarian movements in all of the democratic countries, in no small part aided and fomented by the authoritarian govts as part of hybrid warfare, so it is possible for them to flip back.)
    • jessaustin 4y ago
      Congratulations on producing yet another specious half-assed defense of USA militarism! Wouldn't it be nice if its record spoke for itself? We still occupy Hawai'i, as well as the entirety of continental USA. We still occupy the eastern third of Syria, as Trump said and Biden hasn't contradicted "to steal their oil". The various nations we occupy in Africa invite similar explanation. We occupied Philippines for decades, as colonial masters, until Japan kicked us out, after which we reoccupied it. As observed above, that wasn't a different thing from the colonization of North America, because it was done in the same racist way by the exact same racist army officers. We maintain military bases all over, every one a direct threat to the host nation should they stray from our political line. For example, how successful can Korean reunification efforts be while our sword hangs above their heads? This isn't winning wars. This is terrorizing populations. Over the decades we spent in Philippines we pioneered the sort of financial colonialism we codified at Bretton Woods. This has been extensively documented by economist Michael Hudson. After we trick a nation (i.e. pay off whichever corrupt locals we can maneuver into power) into signing up for this program, we oppress working people, extract resources, privatize public assets, and financialize the whole mess. Most of the surplus in the economy is exported to e.g. NYC and London. This is the real explanation for USA capitalism's "century of success". Our system can no more support itself without victimizing other nations than the Roman Empire could have thrived without slavery. As developing nations throw off our yoke (witness the "Россия" t-shirts worn in every nation in Africa), we'll have to organize very differently, or else the American 99% will suffer the same predations from the American 1% that were previously focused overseas. In four thousand years, China has never fought a war on the other side of the world with a nation (or with a ragtag bunch of goat enthusiasts) that could never threaten the territory of China.
      • toss1 4y ago
        Right, congratulations on spouting straight-down-the-line CCP/Soviet anti-American tropes, while simultaneously conflating pre- and post-20th century / WWII world orders. Oh, and revealing yourself as a complete fool citing anythign Trump says as if it were fact. Yikes. And trying to claim that China is not expansionist despite it's post WW-II history? Yikes againb. Just look at the ACTUAL history in Korea, Tibet Uhigurs, "9-dash-line", Hong Kong, "Belt and Road Initiative" trying to take Africa, claims on Taiwan, and more. Again mistaking lacking the capability to project global power for the will. I never disputed that the pre-WWII order was the Age of Empire, going back to times of Alexander, and that the Americas were basically stolen from the native populations, going back to Columbus. That does not mean that things are the same, or that the Free World is not different from the Authoritarian regimes. I note that while you seem to love all these authoritarian regimes, you don't live there. I hope you're paid well for your trolling. Have a good day.
• pwinnski 4y ago
  > in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era ... did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? That seems like an odd condition to add, but I still think the answer would be non-zero if we were more successful in our invasions of sovereign countries. Hard to annex a country that you eventually give up even pacifying. We are notably invading neither Russia nor the Ukraine.