[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.