3 ms·

Not sure what history books you're reading, but the history of China is one of imperialism. China didn't just form with its current borders. It expanded and con

Not sure what history books you're reading, but the history of China is one of imperialism. China didn't just form with its current borders. It expanded and contracted and expanded some more for millennia.

mars-or_wars 15d ago
China's borders today are essentially identical to what they were... ... when the U.S. Declaration of Independence was first uttered in 1776
- strictnein 15d ago
  That is completely immaterial and makes absolutely no sense. An imperial power isn't one because its borders were set in 1776 (which they weren't)? Also.. this little event where they added something like 10% of the current size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Chinese_annexation_of_Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Chinese_annexation_of_Tib... But I'm sure that wasn't imperialism because they had already conquered Tibet previously... in an act of imperial expansion.
  - mars-or_wars 14d ago
    [dead]
Insanity 15d ago
The borders were continuously shifting, but they did stay somewhat near a focal point for centuries. The US meanwhile has an overseas empire for honestly no good reason. Highly recommend the book “How to hide an empire” which talks about the American version of colonialism.
- lovich 15d ago
  The reason for our overseas empire was to maintain our economic dominance. If everyone voluntarily refused to touch boats and only trade oil for dollars we may have invested differently.
  - Insanity 15d ago
    "Maintain economic dominance" is a bit of a distorted view of late 19th century US colonialism. It was not a dominant economic power compared to colonial Europe. It was to boost the local economy for sure, with the guano islands. But colonizing the Philippines after the "war" with Spain was mostly to prevent European colonial powers from dominating that part of the world. The US didn't become economically dominant until after the first World War, when it already had an overseas empire for half a century.
    - lovich 15d ago
      I assumed the comment I was replying to was in reference to our constellation of military bases and the economic machinations post ww2. If it was referencing history prior to that then I would reply with the as you mentioned guano mines, fruit production, and keeping European powers out of our regional backyard after several scuffles with Spain and Britain at minimum. I’d also mention the boat touching still. The Marine’s Hymn doesn’t mention the Halls of Montezuma and the Shores of Tripoli for no reason.
- strictnein 15d ago
  > The borders were continuously shifting, but they did stay somewhat near a focal point for centuries. Ok? They were still an imperial power. Having a stable border for a little while doesn't affect that definition. > The US meanwhile has an overseas empire for honestly no good reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - Insanity 15d ago
    Not entirely whataboutism from my part (in my opinion), the thread above was talking about China and US imperialism in (now deleted) comments. It's not like I brought in the US out of nowhere although it looks that way due to deleted comments. Same for the first part you're commenting on, that was in direct response to the thread.
kakadu 15d ago
> China didn't just form with its current borders. It expanded and contracted and expanded some more for millennia. As did everyone else? I don't see China having military bases all over the world and proping up "freedom fighters"
- strictnein 15d ago
  I was responding to the incorrect assertion that China was the least imperialist country on the planet, which is clearly false. Maybe read the entire conversation before jumping in?
  - kakadu 15d ago
    You keep spewing apologist nonsense by refusing to acknowledge that the US is by far the most imperialist entity at the moment. In comparison, China is the least.
    - matheusmoreira 15d ago
      China has been very active in Africa as of late, and it has... Interests in my own country as well.
      - defrost 15d ago
        Interestingly China in Africa has been more commercial (not that "free" long term loans don't have a down side, and bribing "officials' to condone the sale of generational farming lands, etc. isn't a bad thing) than military - but where China has used mercenary forces .. it's most often been outsourced to US PMCs (Private Military Contractors) eg. In the Congo https://friendsofthecongo.org/erik-prince-in-congo-transnational-business-or-imperialism-by-a-different-name/ https://friendsofthecongo.org/erik-prince-in-congo-transnati... and elsewhere.
    - klrefg 15d ago
      > In comparison, China is the least You only know of two major countries in the world?

mars-or_wars 15d ago

China's borders today are essentially identical to what they were... ... when the U.S. Declaration of Independence was first uttered in 1776

strictnein 15d ago
That is completely immaterial and makes absolutely no sense. An imperial power isn't one because its borders were set in 1776 (which they weren't)? Also.. this little event where they added something like 10% of the current size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Chinese_annexation_of_Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Chinese_annexation_of_Tib... But I'm sure that wasn't imperialism because they had already conquered Tibet previously... in an act of imperial expansion.
- mars-or_wars 14d ago
  [dead]

Insanity 15d ago

The borders were continuously shifting, but they did stay somewhat near a focal point for centuries. The US meanwhile has an overseas empire for honestly no good reason. Highly recommend the book “How to hide an empire” which talks about the American version of colonialism.

lovich 15d ago
The reason for our overseas empire was to maintain our economic dominance. If everyone voluntarily refused to touch boats and only trade oil for dollars we may have invested differently.
- Insanity 15d ago
  "Maintain economic dominance" is a bit of a distorted view of late 19th century US colonialism. It was not a dominant economic power compared to colonial Europe. It was to boost the local economy for sure, with the guano islands. But colonizing the Philippines after the "war" with Spain was mostly to prevent European colonial powers from dominating that part of the world. The US didn't become economically dominant until after the first World War, when it already had an overseas empire for half a century.
  - lovich 15d ago
    I assumed the comment I was replying to was in reference to our constellation of military bases and the economic machinations post ww2. If it was referencing history prior to that then I would reply with the as you mentioned guano mines, fruit production, and keeping European powers out of our regional backyard after several scuffles with Spain and Britain at minimum. I’d also mention the boat touching still. The Marine’s Hymn doesn’t mention the Halls of Montezuma and the Shores of Tripoli for no reason.
strictnein 15d ago
> The borders were continuously shifting, but they did stay somewhat near a focal point for centuries. Ok? They were still an imperial power. Having a stable border for a little while doesn't affect that definition. > The US meanwhile has an overseas empire for honestly no good reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- Insanity 15d ago
  Not entirely whataboutism from my part (in my opinion), the thread above was talking about China and US imperialism in (now deleted) comments. It's not like I brought in the US out of nowhere although it looks that way due to deleted comments. Same for the first part you're commenting on, that was in direct response to the thread.

kakadu 15d ago

> China didn't just form with its current borders. It expanded and contracted and expanded some more for millennia. As did everyone else? I don't see China having military bases all over the world and proping up "freedom fighters"

strictnein 15d ago
I was responding to the incorrect assertion that China was the least imperialist country on the planet, which is clearly false. Maybe read the entire conversation before jumping in?
- kakadu 15d ago
  You keep spewing apologist nonsense by refusing to acknowledge that the US is by far the most imperialist entity at the moment. In comparison, China is the least.
  - matheusmoreira 15d ago
    China has been very active in Africa as of late, and it has... Interests in my own country as well.
    - defrost 15d ago
      Interestingly China in Africa has been more commercial (not that "free" long term loans don't have a down side, and bribing "officials' to condone the sale of generational farming lands, etc. isn't a bad thing) than military - but where China has used mercenary forces .. it's most often been outsourced to US PMCs (Private Military Contractors) eg. In the Congo https://friendsofthecongo.org/erik-prince-in-congo-transnational-business-or-imperialism-by-a-different-name/ https://friendsofthecongo.org/erik-prince-in-congo-transnati... and elsewhere.
  - klrefg 15d ago
    > In comparison, China is the least You only know of two major countries in the world?