4 ms·

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

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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago

spencerflem 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago