[boxed]

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.

[thrance]

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.

[avmich]

It's a sad situation if those considerations would lead to conclusion that since everybody is not perfect, then all approaches are equally valid.

For example, references to historical events gradually lose sense, as in a distant past human behavior was different - i.e., Roman republic or China kingdoms were even ideologically very different from modern countries, or e.g. Denmark was very different from today's state. Times change in a sense that some people's values change, behaviors change and it makes less and less sense to construct intersocietal relationships on the events of the distant past. What's more justifiable is to consider the current state of affairs.

For example, in 2001 Russia was helping USA to put a pressure on Afghan bases of jihadists, and today such a behavior is probably impossible, given that Taliban is welcomed in the Kremlin - so it's reasonable for US to change the stance toward Russia in relation to this state.

As for e.g. South America, the Western approach gradually changed from "colonial" - where various resources were extracted and the society was pushed towards leaders convenient the West - towards "collaborational", where West has laws and habits regulating relations with foreign countries, which, for example, have penalties for bribes.

The society changed enough so that after the war started in Ukraine a lot of Western companies left Russia - just because the population in markets more important to those companies, and that population doesn't in general approve the Russian actions.

So, yes, the West isn't perfect, and efforts should continue to improve it. At the same time West provides a compelling demonstration of success in important areas of life, which could be useful to other countries.

[spencerflem]

I'm not sure I really get your point tbh.

The argument is that the west ought not to do colonialism or imperialism. This has nothing to do with other countries being better or relative correctness of values etc.

[avmich]

My point is the societies - and West in particular - become better with time and it's not very useful to remember past clashes to justify the avoidance of collaboration today.

It's actually every country, not only West, which ought not to do colonialism or imperialism. And West does a fair share of efforts here.

[spencerflem]

Yea totally, i agree for the most part. I don't really get how that take relates to the grandparent comment, which I didn't read as implying that the US is unique or that we should not oppose other countries colonialism.

It would also improve collaboration if we were to formally acknowledge and apologize for our past actions and maybe even try to make up for them. And while we do less of it now the US still does support have some colonialist tendencies that make us look less credible and huts both the people we're oppressing and our reputation elsewhere.

[avmich]

Yes, US has a lot of obvious things to do too right now. And it should be done, yes, while also paying full attention to quite large problems outside of US.

[mint2]

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]

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]

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.

[spencerflem]

Yeah totally, that viewpoint (the US/west is uniquely bad, we should not try to prevent imperialism elsewhere) is not one I've personally encountered much but if you have I can totally see why it would be super irritating.

[mint2]

It’s basically the general opinion I counter online.

it’s pretty much always focused on western imperialism in vague terms. Chinese and Russian are on an imperialistic rise of late, but those that decry western imperialism seem to ignore those. But yes there are posts that overly index on the Chinese or Russian imperialism as well.

conversely The ones that actually do decry Chinese or Russian imperialism usually give western actions more of a pass.

Sure there’s some exceptions, but the typical posts are always overly fixated on one flavor, and it really gives the impression that it’s not imperialism that’s being object to, but rather the team doing it.

What is rare is any post that seems to be honestly against all of that type of behavior, not tied to their team.

[thrance]

Just because others did it does not mean we're justified in us doing it. And I am obviously not supporting any other kind of imperialism.

Also I don't think colonialism/imperialism has ever lead to anything particularly good for the subjugated people. If anything, it's emancipation from the oppressor rather than its influence that allowed for better living condition for the common man.

Historical grudges can be justified in the sense that oftentimes the scars of exploitation may last for decades, and the west refusing to even acknowledge their wrong doing is damning for its image in the eyes of the South.

[boxed]

And British Imperialism stopped the Atlantic slave trade. You win some, you lose some. Looking at the ethnic cleansing of India very shortly after British rule ended, and the continued progress of the cleansing today plus the horrors of the caste system, it sounds more like "What did the Romans ever do for us?"...

[thrance]

Have you considered that maybe the instability in those regions is due to their prolonged subjugation? Maybe progress towards ending the caste system would have been faster had the British not brutalized the country.

On wikipedia:

> Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the post-Mughal period and the British colonial period, which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.

Section "History", subsection "During British rule" of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Also I think you'll have to review your understanding of the history of slavery.

Your rationalization of imperialism is kind of weird.

[boxed]

> Have you considered that maybe the instability in those regions is due to their prolonged subjugation?

The central tenet of anti-imperialism is that everything good was despite imperialism, and all bad things because of it. This is a classic "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.

> which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.

Hmmm.. that article goes against everything I've read before. Yea, the British adapted to the caste system that was in place, but to blame it on the British rule seems very strange.

> Also I think you'll have to review your understanding of the history of slavery.

I was only talking about one specific thing, namely the destruction of the atlantic slave trade by the British Empire (at great cost to them btw). You just ignoring that and then hand waving isn't even close to an argument or even coherent.

> Your rationalization of imperialism is kind of weird.

I'm not rationalizing it. I'm saying the blanket "Imperialism is to blame for everything bad" is overly simplistic at best. The Monty Python sketch exemplified by "what did the romans ever do for us?" shows the madness quite clearly.

The Roman Empire was corrupt, stupid, and culturally imperialist. Sure. But the collapse brought the Dark Ages.

I think also that ethnic cleansings of nations is a bad thing. You might disagree. That's fine. But the ethnic cleansing of muslims from India into the division of India into (eventually) India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, that's a historical fact. As are the dark ages mentioned above.

We have to see the good of empires as well as the bad. Only by seeing clearly the problems and advantages can we make improvements to the world.

[thrance]

To me, the central tenet of anti-imperialism is more "it brings more harm than good", which is backed by the outcomes of many historical instances and I think is a pretty reasonable stance.

It should be possible to intervene to prevent genocides without then grabbing the region's natural resources and putting in place a despotic leadership.

Also, just on a side-note, if I'm not mistaken, Rome did not simply occupy conquered territories, it assimilated them and gave citizenship to the conquered people (those who were free at least). Imperialism is often described as beginning around the 18th century.

[boxed]

> Imperialism is often described as beginning around the 18th century.

Yea, because otherwise it might include the Roman Empire ;)

[shrimp_emoji]

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.

[thrance]

I think you'd gain a lot by reading the wikipedia article on 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

Frankly, I'm a little disturbed by your comment.

[boxed]

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]

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]

> 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]

Couldn't Korea have benefited from not being split up? Not being invaded by Japan? Wouldn't the North be in a better place if it hadn't been taken over by the Soviets? And bombed by the US to smithereens?

The first ruler of South Korea after the war, Syngman Rhee, was not known for his respect of democratic processes, and had the approval of the US. He maintained an authoritarian regime and didn't contribute much to the country's economic growth.

South Korea's economic success happened in spite of American imperialism, not because of it.

Imperialism as an ideology is evil, no matter who is the oppressor.

[boxed]

> South Korea's economic success happened in spite of American imperialism, not because of it.

Tails I win, heads you lose. Classic.

[spencerflem]

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]

> 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]

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.

[EA-3167]

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.