5 ms·

It's funny how some people scream "imperialism" against anything. Just because "the west" is the poster child for human rights, medicine, industrialization, etc

by boxed 3y ago

It's funny how some people scream "imperialism" against anything. Just because "the west" is the poster child for human rights, medicine, industrialization, etc, doesn't mean it's bad. This meme of "western == bad" has got people very confused.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
I would argue "imperialism == bad" is some novel confusion too. I think American imperialism (were it an actual thing, like America annexing regions and making them into states) would be good. What's not to like about some corrupt autocracy somewhere becoming part of the freest and most prosperous country in the world? On the other hand, imagine a free democracy getting annexed by a dictatorship. That imperialism would be bad to me. To say imperialism itself is bad is some kind of anarchist delusion. If you don't assert yourself on the world, others will assert themselves onto you. This is has always been true.
- spencerflem 3y ago
  if the people in the place being annexed don't want to be part of the freest country in the world, who are we to say they're wrong
- sublinear 3y ago
  > If you don't assert yourself on the world, others will assert themselves onto you. This is has always been true. I very much agree with this. > What's not to like about some corrupt autocracy somewhere becoming part of the freest and most prosperous country in the world? This not so much. The success of the United States has been, in part, due to avoiding overannexation. Culture and politics can change, but geography cannot. Mexico, for example, has terrible unproductive geography. Economics drives a lot of politics. Annexing countries like that would be a net burden. Their trafficking and other crime problems are not a matter of culture. The tail does not wag the dog. You can't politic the earth into submission but many will try. It can be argued the United States already has this problem with some of its states, but their proximity and lack of natural borders requires them to be assimilated. Manifest destiny was a carefully considered thing and not as stupid and reckless as some people want you to believe.
  - boxed 3y ago
    Well.. maybe. The US would certainly have a MUCH smaller southern border to protect if Mexico was brought into the union! 40 years ago it didn't make sense, but today it might just.
- thrance 3y ago
  I think you'd gain a lot by reading the wikipedia article on American imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism There are dozens of illiberal dictators installed by/allied to the US to gain access to natural resources and cheap labor: https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/dictatrs.htm https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/dictatrs.htm Frankly, I'm a little disturbed by your comment.
  - boxed 3y ago
    The problem there was never imperialism per se. It was that evil was supported. On the other hand, look at what happened to North Korea after the US abandoned it. Not a pretty picture. South Korea is the victim of US imperialism, while the North is not.
    - spencerflem 3y ago
      I don't think its at all clear that North Korea's problems are from a lack of imperialism. "Almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed as a result.[369][370] The war's highest-ranking U.S. POW, Major General William F. Dean,[371] reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland.[372][373] North Korean factories, schools, hospitals, and government offices were forced to move underground, and air defenses were "non-existent".[374] North Korea ranks as among the most heavily bombed countries in history,[375] and the U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs (including 32,557 tons of napalm) on Korea, more than during the entire Pacific War." I cannot imagine how a functional democracy was ever expected to emerge from this
      - boxed 2y ago
        > I don't think its at all clear that North Korea's problems are from a lack of imperialism. It's certainly a result of communism/Juche, and the war saved half the country from it. South Koreas massive growth and success since then is easily seen from satellite images.
    - thrance 3y ago
thrance 3y ago
America installed dictatorships in Cuba, Chile, Brazil and many others... People don't mindlessly scream against "the west" for no reason, and to many in the South, "the west" is the poster child of years of oppression and poverty as they saw their countries natural resources get exported and had to sell their labor for next to nothing, under the guise of a leader made very rich by "free" trade. Note that I am not saying that Chinese or Soviet leadership would have been any better, but at least please acknowledge that it's not as simple as "us good, them bad", and that people denouncing imperialsim do not do it out of self-hate for the west or whatever.
- mint2 3y ago
  Like muscling around countries isn’t good, but like it seems rather a rather myopic reason to criticize the “west” given how it seems literally every country and culture of note does the same - Russia, China, Japan, India all do or recently did similar to varying degrees. It’s kind of a pointless metric on that superficial level. Judging by the expected modern consequence of continued influence seem more usefulness rather than based on historical grudges. Like wow out of the frying pan into the fire, way to go!
  - spencerflem 3y ago
    Yes, other large imperial countries are doing imperialism. Nobody complaining about western imperialism supports those things either, and the focus is on western ones because they presumably live in a western country and have more influence there than elsewhere. Its also a fair critism that the west is more hypocritical given its big talk about freedoms and liberties just for it to install dictators whenever it's politically profitable.
    - mint2 3y ago
      I don’t think it’s possible to have a nuanced debate on this topic. I’m just saying as someone against strong armed empire building, arguments that ignore the increasing imperialism of certain countries in order to decry the historical and waning imperialism of others feels not like an argument with imperialism but more like picking sides in a team sport. as someone against imperialistic takeovers that does anger me.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
EA-3167 3y ago
It's just a cynical war on the language we use, to dilute the value of certain words and terms. If everything is imperialism, colonialism, genocide, etc... then nothing is. It's no shock when you find out which powers are invested in that project.

by boxed 3y ago

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

I would argue "imperialism == bad" is some novel confusion too. I think American imperialism (were it an actual thing, like America annexing regions and making them into states) would be good. What's not to like about some corrupt autocracy somewhere becoming part of the freest and most prosperous country in the world? On the other hand, imagine a free democracy getting annexed by a dictatorship. That imperialism would be bad to me. To say imperialism itself is bad is some kind of anarchist delusion. If you don't assert yourself on the world, others will assert themselves onto you. This is has always been true.

spencerflem 3y ago
if the people in the place being annexed don't want to be part of the freest country in the world, who are we to say they're wrong
sublinear 3y ago
> If you don't assert yourself on the world, others will assert themselves onto you. This is has always been true. I very much agree with this. > What's not to like about some corrupt autocracy somewhere becoming part of the freest and most prosperous country in the world? This not so much. The success of the United States has been, in part, due to avoiding overannexation. Culture and politics can change, but geography cannot. Mexico, for example, has terrible unproductive geography. Economics drives a lot of politics. Annexing countries like that would be a net burden. Their trafficking and other crime problems are not a matter of culture. The tail does not wag the dog. You can't politic the earth into submission but many will try. It can be argued the United States already has this problem with some of its states, but their proximity and lack of natural borders requires them to be assimilated. Manifest destiny was a carefully considered thing and not as stupid and reckless as some people want you to believe.
- boxed 3y ago
  Well.. maybe. The US would certainly have a MUCH smaller southern border to protect if Mexico was brought into the union! 40 years ago it didn't make sense, but today it might just.
thrance 3y ago
I think you'd gain a lot by reading the wikipedia article on American imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism There are dozens of illiberal dictators installed by/allied to the US to gain access to natural resources and cheap labor: https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/dictatrs.htm https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/dictatrs.htm Frankly, I'm a little disturbed by your comment.
- boxed 3y ago
  The problem there was never imperialism per se. It was that evil was supported. On the other hand, look at what happened to North Korea after the US abandoned it. Not a pretty picture. South Korea is the victim of US imperialism, while the North is not.
  - spencerflem 3y ago
    I don't think its at all clear that North Korea's problems are from a lack of imperialism. "Almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed as a result.[369][370] The war's highest-ranking U.S. POW, Major General William F. Dean,[371] reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland.[372][373] North Korean factories, schools, hospitals, and government offices were forced to move underground, and air defenses were "non-existent".[374] North Korea ranks as among the most heavily bombed countries in history,[375] and the U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs (including 32,557 tons of napalm) on Korea, more than during the entire Pacific War." I cannot imagine how a functional democracy was ever expected to emerge from this
    - boxed 2y ago
      > I don't think its at all clear that North Korea's problems are from a lack of imperialism. It's certainly a result of communism/Juche, and the war saved half the country from it. South Koreas massive growth and success since then is easily seen from satellite images.
  - thrance 3y ago

thrance 3y ago

America installed dictatorships in Cuba, Chile, Brazil and many others... People don't mindlessly scream against "the west" for no reason, and to many in the South, "the west" is the poster child of years of oppression and poverty as they saw their countries natural resources get exported and had to sell their labor for next to nothing, under the guise of a leader made very rich by "free" trade. Note that I am not saying that Chinese or Soviet leadership would have been any better, but at least please acknowledge that it's not as simple as "us good, them bad", and that people denouncing imperialsim do not do it out of self-hate for the west or whatever.

mint2 3y ago
Like muscling around countries isn’t good, but like it seems rather a rather myopic reason to criticize the “west” given how it seems literally every country and culture of note does the same - Russia, China, Japan, India all do or recently did similar to varying degrees. It’s kind of a pointless metric on that superficial level. Judging by the expected modern consequence of continued influence seem more usefulness rather than based on historical grudges. Like wow out of the frying pan into the fire, way to go!
- spencerflem 3y ago
  Yes, other large imperial countries are doing imperialism. Nobody complaining about western imperialism supports those things either, and the focus is on western ones because they presumably live in a western country and have more influence there than elsewhere. Its also a fair critism that the west is more hypocritical given its big talk about freedoms and liberties just for it to install dictators whenever it's politically profitable.
  - mint2 3y ago
    I don’t think it’s possible to have a nuanced debate on this topic. I’m just saying as someone against strong armed empire building, arguments that ignore the increasing imperialism of certain countries in order to decry the historical and waning imperialism of others feels not like an argument with imperialism but more like picking sides in a team sport. as someone against imperialistic takeovers that does anger me.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

EA-3167 3y ago

It's just a cynical war on the language we use, to dilute the value of certain words and terms. If everything is imperialism, colonialism, genocide, etc... then nothing is. It's no shock when you find out which powers are invested in that project.