4 ms·

That's not even a controversial opinion though. US has pretty much always favored its anglosphere allies. It's more or less the new form of the british empire.

That's not even a controversial opinion though. US has pretty much always favored its anglosphere allies. It's more or less the new form of the british empire. See Five Eyes, Special Relationship.

resource_waste 3y ago
Similar culture. As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers. Or at least France and the mainland European powers really really have a bad colonial reputation.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  I doubt that it can be said about Britain to have been "the morally highest out of the colonizers". The most obvious difference between Britain and the other colonizers is that in most British colonies the former native populations have vanished in a much greater proportion than in the colonies of other countries (with the notable exception of India, which was much more populous since the beginning and where much less British have immigrated). Based on this difference, Britain does not seem to have been the morally highest, but the opposite. The current higher solidarity between some former British colonies is based exactly on the fact that these are the colonies where the natives have been almost completely replaced by immigrants, which are more closely related between themselves due to their common origin.
  - brg 3y ago
    Britain led the way to abolishment of slavery.
  - aegypti 3y ago
    There isn’t a single European colonizer who didn’t replace native populations in their settler colonies, “other colonizers” do not exist. That the Spanish Empire established large extractive colonies in 2 densely populated Indias (Aztec, Inca empires) [0] does not erase the complete and near total genocide the Spanish perpetrated in the less populated Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina etc to replace the natives with their settlers. The intractable population density of large extractive colonies does not excuse Empire, and does not provide moral superiority. [0] - https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TdJI.png https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TdJI.png
- graemep 3y ago
  As someone born in a former British colony I tend to agree with that. I do not think you can lump all the mainland European powers together though (they varied a lot), and all empires (not just the European ones) varied greatly over time and behaved differently in different places. There is a reason why the British Empire was able to get a lot of support from local populations. Some groups had a lot to gain from British rules, including oppressed group: I think this might me true for one group of my own ancestors.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > Similar culture. Not sure about that. They all have white anglo-saxon protestant roots but there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures. People I've met from the US and the UK have always seemed like polar opposites to me when it comes to personal values and general life philosophy. > As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers. I live in a former portuguese colony. I simply can't argue with that.
  - nyokodo 3y ago
    > there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures There are significant differences between anglo countries but they also all have similar moral philosophy, Britain-derived legal and political systems, they’re maritime powers so have mostly compatible geopolitical dispositions, since WWI they have a history of close military cooperation, and since WWII they’ve established a stable pecking order. That’s all before considering the shared language which means they have similar ways of chopping up reality, similar myths, and a lot of contemporary cultural sharing. The differences that exist will keep them separate countries and distinct cultures but the similarities compared to other European countries let alone elsewhere are significant.
- chiggsy 3y ago
  What???? Keep reading buddy. Ridiculous.
- riehwvfbk 3y ago
  This belief right here is why the USA continues to play world cop (which is actually a colonization effort dressed up for the modern age). Why USA? Because it is the new empire and the new of the anglosphere.
  - resource_waste 3y ago
    Please, the United States has a universal history of promoting freedom, democracy, and human rights far better than autocracies. They literally fended off communism and stalinism. Its really easy to make grand claims when you are Iceland.
    - riehwvfbk 3y ago
      Just because you drink deep of the Kool Aid doesn't mean the world matches the visions you have as a result. The first statement is so vague as to be meaningless. What does it mean to promote freedom and democracy? How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza? Fended off Communism? Last I checked, China was a superpower, and the fact that the western media are heating up their hysterics means they are doing quite well. Stalinism was fended off by Stalin kicking the bucket. For most of his life he was a US ally.
      - testrun 3y ago
        >>Stalin was a US ally<< Oh boy.
        riehwvfbk 3y ago
        My "man", next you'll tell me the USA won WW2 all by its lonesome, won't you?
      - resource_waste 3y ago
        > How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza? Yes exactly. Without the US involvement, instead of getting democracies, you get ethnic squabbles or regional powers involved. You are just new to the anarchic nature of state-level politics. These conflicts are inevitable, its up to the United States to tilt them in the direction of human rights. Historically its true. (And its not like the morally poor side in Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza has the moral high ground when the US gets involved. ) Anyway, really cool hipster take that Europe and their 1000 year old ethnic rivalries would have navigated any of these better. Maybe for their own realpolitk self interest. How is that more moral than democracies?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

That's not even a controversial opinion though. US has pretty much always favored its anglosphere allies. It's more or less the new form of the british empire. See Five Eyes, Special Relationship.

resource_waste 3y ago

Similar culture. As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers. Or at least France and the mainland European powers really really have a bad colonial reputation.

adrian_b 3y ago
I doubt that it can be said about Britain to have been "the morally highest out of the colonizers". The most obvious difference between Britain and the other colonizers is that in most British colonies the former native populations have vanished in a much greater proportion than in the colonies of other countries (with the notable exception of India, which was much more populous since the beginning and where much less British have immigrated). Based on this difference, Britain does not seem to have been the morally highest, but the opposite. The current higher solidarity between some former British colonies is based exactly on the fact that these are the colonies where the natives have been almost completely replaced by immigrants, which are more closely related between themselves due to their common origin.
- brg 3y ago
  Britain led the way to abolishment of slavery.
- aegypti 3y ago
  There isn’t a single European colonizer who didn’t replace native populations in their settler colonies, “other colonizers” do not exist. That the Spanish Empire established large extractive colonies in 2 densely populated Indias (Aztec, Inca empires) [0] does not erase the complete and near total genocide the Spanish perpetrated in the less populated Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina etc to replace the natives with their settlers. The intractable population density of large extractive colonies does not excuse Empire, and does not provide moral superiority. [0] - https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TdJI.png https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TdJI.png
graemep 3y ago
As someone born in a former British colony I tend to agree with that. I do not think you can lump all the mainland European powers together though (they varied a lot), and all empires (not just the European ones) varied greatly over time and behaved differently in different places. There is a reason why the British Empire was able to get a lot of support from local populations. Some groups had a lot to gain from British rules, including oppressed group: I think this might me true for one group of my own ancestors.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> Similar culture. Not sure about that. They all have white anglo-saxon protestant roots but there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures. People I've met from the US and the UK have always seemed like polar opposites to me when it comes to personal values and general life philosophy. > As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers. I live in a former portuguese colony. I simply can't argue with that.
- nyokodo 3y ago
  > there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures There are significant differences between anglo countries but they also all have similar moral philosophy, Britain-derived legal and political systems, they’re maritime powers so have mostly compatible geopolitical dispositions, since WWI they have a history of close military cooperation, and since WWII they’ve established a stable pecking order. That’s all before considering the shared language which means they have similar ways of chopping up reality, similar myths, and a lot of contemporary cultural sharing. The differences that exist will keep them separate countries and distinct cultures but the similarities compared to other European countries let alone elsewhere are significant.
chiggsy 3y ago
What???? Keep reading buddy. Ridiculous.
riehwvfbk 3y ago
This belief right here is why the USA continues to play world cop (which is actually a colonization effort dressed up for the modern age). Why USA? Because it is the new empire and the new of the anglosphere.
- resource_waste 3y ago
  Please, the United States has a universal history of promoting freedom, democracy, and human rights far better than autocracies. They literally fended off communism and stalinism. Its really easy to make grand claims when you are Iceland.
  - riehwvfbk 3y ago
    Just because you drink deep of the Kool Aid doesn't mean the world matches the visions you have as a result. The first statement is so vague as to be meaningless. What does it mean to promote freedom and democracy? How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza? Fended off Communism? Last I checked, China was a superpower, and the fact that the western media are heating up their hysterics means they are doing quite well. Stalinism was fended off by Stalin kicking the bucket. For most of his life he was a US ally.
    - testrun 3y ago
      >>Stalin was a US ally<< Oh boy.
      - riehwvfbk 3y ago
        My "man", next you'll tell me the USA won WW2 all by its lonesome, won't you?
    - resource_waste 3y ago
      > How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza? Yes exactly. Without the US involvement, instead of getting democracies, you get ethnic squabbles or regional powers involved. You are just new to the anarchic nature of state-level politics. These conflicts are inevitable, its up to the United States to tilt them in the direction of human rights. Historically its true. (And its not like the morally poor side in Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza has the moral high ground when the US gets involved. ) Anyway, really cool hipster take that Europe and their 1000 year old ethnic rivalries would have navigated any of these better. Maybe for their own realpolitk self interest. How is that more moral than democracies?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]