Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Imperialism

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 7:09:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Politics isn't really something Ive studied formally since 10th grade, so forgive me if this seems trivial.

Doesnt imperialism have a negative concoction in todays politics? I was going through some official state textbooks (Indian) on the subject, and while explaining military imperialism they explained- and I quote

' The USAs invasion against Iraq with its military power, forced it to have another sort of government favourable to the US. This is called military imperialism'.

While I agree with this, this seems sort of weird to me ESPECIALLY because it was written in the state textbook as a fact and not something debateable.

Is it considered more or less a fact equivalent to british colonialism? Or is this a little propogandish in nature?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2014 7:37:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:09:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
Politics isn't really something Ive studied formally since 10th grade, so forgive me if this seems trivial.

Doesnt imperialism have a negative concoction in todays politics? I was going through some official state textbooks (Indian) on the subject, and while explaining military imperialism they explained- and I quote

' The USAs invasion against Iraq with its military power, forced it to have another sort of government favourable to the US. This is called military imperialism'.

While I agree with this, this seems sort of weird to me ESPECIALLY because it was written in the state textbook as a fact and not something debateable.

Is it considered more or less a fact equivalent to british colonialism? Or is this a little propogandish in nature?

It is exactly as you say it is. A concoction. It's all about dat imperial oil. Where is that oil?

Doesn't imperialism have a negative concoction in todays politics?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 1:27:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:09:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
Politics isn't really something Ive studied formally since 10th grade, so forgive me if this seems trivial.

Doesnt imperialism have a negative concoction in todays politics? I was going through some official state textbooks (Indian) on the subject, and while explaining military imperialism they explained- and I quote

' The USAs invasion against Iraq with its military power, forced it to have another sort of government favourable to the US. This is called military imperialism'.

While I agree with this, this seems sort of weird to me ESPECIALLY because it was written in the state textbook as a fact and not something debateable.

Is it considered more or less a fact equivalent to british colonialism? Or is this a little propogandish in nature?

Imperialism in America has negative connotations because part of what we aimed to do post-WWII is to advocate for self-determination in former European colonies. We do so to appear more just than the pre-WWII system because, well, we're in control post-WWII and we need to appear to be better.

We generally speaking don't consider ourselves to be imperialistic and do our absolute best to maintain such an appearance, although IMHO it is indeed just an appearance and what is in your textbook, while obviously a bit propagandistic, is probably also fairly accurate.

I'm sure in India imperialism has extremely negative connotations due to the British occupation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 2:01:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ah, I forgot to add that America was founded on an anti-imperialist platform, so there's that too.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 2:15:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:09:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
Politics isn't really something Ive studied formally since 10th grade, so forgive me if this seems trivial.

Doesnt imperialism have a negative concoction in todays politics? I was going through some official state textbooks (Indian) on the subject, and while explaining military imperialism they explained- and I quote

' The USAs invasion against Iraq with its military power, forced it to have another sort of government favourable to the US. This is called military imperialism'.

While I agree with this, this seems sort of weird to me ESPECIALLY because it was written in the state textbook as a fact and not something debateable.

Is it considered more or less a fact equivalent to british colonialism? Or is this a little propogandish in nature?

Yes it is a fact, yet someone could say your book wants to spread a little hatred towards USA. Which is great by me btw!
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 10:53:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 1:27:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2014 7:09:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
Politics isn't really something Ive studied formally since 10th grade, so forgive me if this seems trivial.

Doesnt imperialism have a negative concoction in todays politics? I was going through some official state textbooks (Indian) on the subject, and while explaining military imperialism they explained- and I quote

' The USAs invasion against Iraq with its military power, forced it to have another sort of government favourable to the US. This is called military imperialism'.

While I agree with this, this seems sort of weird to me ESPECIALLY because it was written in the state textbook as a fact and not something debateable.

Is it considered more or less a fact equivalent to british colonialism? Or is this a little propogandish in nature?

Imperialism in America has negative connotations because part of what we aimed to do post-WWII is to advocate for self-determination in former European colonies. We do so to appear more just than the pre-WWII system because, well, we're in control post-WWII and we need to appear to be better.

We generally speaking don't consider ourselves to be imperialistic and do our absolute best to maintain such an appearance, although IMHO it is indeed just an appearance and what is in your textbook, while obviously a bit propagandistic, is probably also fairly accurate.

Makes sense.

I'm sure in India imperialism has extremely negative connotations due to the British occupation.

Yeah. That plus Nehrus firm belief in non intervention.

It seems weird though, India is more or less pro US.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 3:45:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
But isn't that exactly what military imperialism is? I didn't know it was controversial language.

So what SHOULD you call it when there's a military takeover of a country and the occupiers impose their own government?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 9:41:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 3:45:55 AM, rross wrote:
But isn't that exactly what military imperialism is? I didn't know it was controversial language.

So what SHOULD you call it when there's a military takeover of a country and the occupiers impose their own government?

The ostensible idea behind what we did in Iraq was that we didn't impose our own government, but let the people impose their own via a democracy, an opportunity they did not have prior due to a despotic leader taking power.

IMHO this exposes a flaw in America's policy of nation-building through democracy, because if you can control who can become a candidate (through cullings, i.e. through war or stoking rebellion), then "self-determination" is a myth. Obviously we would be "determining" who is the "rightful" leader of whatever country in which we chose to intervene.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 9:48:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 10:53:33 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:27:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I'm sure in India imperialism has extremely negative connotations due to the British occupation.

Yeah. That plus Nehrus firm belief in non intervention.

It seems weird though, India is more or less pro US.

Aye, so is France, yet France typically rebels against the notion of US "cultural imperialism". There are far fewer instances of this now, but I remember a while ago reading a lot about arson attacks against McDonalds restaurants in France.

http://www.historytoday.com...
http://www.mcspotlight.org...

IMHO the best political, ideological explanation of such reactions is realpolitik, where all political entities are assumed to be covetous of power because of the rational motive of threat reduction, i.e. only those with no power cannot be a threat.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 1:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 9:48:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:53:33 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:27:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I'm sure in India imperialism has extremely negative connotations due to the British occupation.

Yeah. That plus Nehrus firm belief in non intervention.

It seems weird though, India is more or less pro US.

Aye, so is France, yet France typically rebels against the notion of US "cultural imperialism". There are far fewer instances of this now, but I remember a while ago reading a lot about arson attacks against McDonalds restaurants in France.

http://www.historytoday.com...
http://www.mcspotlight.org...

IMHO the best political, ideological explanation of such reactions is realpolitik, where all political entities are assumed to be covetous of power because of the rational motive of threat reduction, i.e. only those with no power cannot be a threat.

Yeah, I guess so. Its true though, so I suppose its not really as bad as it could have been. I remember reading a really non flattering comic on NPT in our 9th grade textbook too, (and I think that's the only thing that's really stayed with me from the class) so I suppose they are successful too in some way.

god state education has a potential to be such bullsht
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 7:04:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 9:41:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/5/2014 3:45:55 AM, rross wrote:
But isn't that exactly what military imperialism is? I didn't know it was controversial language.

So what SHOULD you call it when there's a military takeover of a country and the occupiers impose their own government?

The ostensible idea behind what we did in Iraq was that we didn't impose our own government, but let the people impose their own via a democracy, an opportunity they did not have prior due to a despotic leader taking power.

IMHO this exposes a flaw in America's policy of nation-building through democracy, because if you can control who can become a candidate (through cullings, i.e. through war or stoking rebellion), then "self-determination" is a myth. Obviously we would be "determining" who is the "rightful" leader of whatever country in which we chose to intervene.

Well...yeah. Of course the occupiers would need to impose a government that's as palatable as possible to the occupied people, and more importantly to their own domestic population and the international community. Those are pragmatic concerns. I don't see how it makes any difference to whether or not it's military imperialism.

Are there people who think it's not imperialism because of the government being democratic? I honestly didn't know that and find it a bit baffling to be honest.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 7:53:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 7:04:23 PM, rross wrote:
At 8/5/2014 9:41:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/5/2014 3:45:55 AM, rross wrote:
But isn't that exactly what military imperialism is? I didn't know it was controversial language.

So what SHOULD you call it when there's a military takeover of a country and the occupiers impose their own government?

The ostensible idea behind what we did in Iraq was that we didn't impose our own government, but let the people impose their own via a democracy, an opportunity they did not have prior due to a despotic leader taking power.

IMHO this exposes a flaw in America's policy of nation-building through democracy, because if you can control who can become a candidate (through cullings, i.e. through war or stoking rebellion), then "self-determination" is a myth. Obviously we would be "determining" who is the "rightful" leader of whatever country in which we chose to intervene.

Well...yeah. Of course the occupiers would need to impose a government that's as palatable as possible to the occupied people, and more importantly to their own domestic population and the international community. Those are pragmatic concerns. I don't see how it makes any difference to whether or not it's military imperialism.

Again, the ostensible idea behind our occupation of Iraq is that we DIDN'T impose a government, the Iraqis CHOSE their own government. IMHO it's a farce, but that's the logic of American nation-building.

Are there people who think it's not imperialism because of the government being democratic? I honestly didn't know that and find it a bit baffling to be honest.

Yes, that is the logic behind democracy being the preferable form of governance. It's flawed IMHO, because an outside power can manipulate the pool of candidates. That's something we don't talk about in America because it's almost unthinkable that some foreign entity could exert that kind of control over American politics...but for other nations? Sure...America can and IMHO does exert that kind of control over foreign politics. It's most evident in Iraq but IMHO it's more than likely true to some degree or another in any country aligned with the US.

I can point to Korean politics, how Roh Moohyun was an independent that advocated actual self-determination by distancing SK from China and the US, how Roh Moohyun is now inexplicably dead, and how Lee Myungbak who replaced him was very pro-US. No hard evidence mind you, just...suspicions. This also happened in Taiwan as well, Chen Suibien was someone who attempted the same, formal Taiwanese independence and nationhood which neither the US nor China wanted. Chen Suibien is now in prison, and his replacement, Ma Yingjeou is rabidly for the one-China two-systems governance model that satisfies both the US and China.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 9:26:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 7:53:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/6/2014 7:04:23 PM, rross wrote:
At 8/5/2014 9:41:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/5/2014 3:45:55 AM, rross wrote:
But isn't that exactly what military imperialism is? I didn't know it was controversial language.

So what SHOULD you call it when there's a military takeover of a country and the occupiers impose their own government?

The ostensible idea behind what we did in Iraq was that we didn't impose our own government, but let the people impose their own via a democracy, an opportunity they did not have prior due to a despotic leader taking power.

IMHO this exposes a flaw in America's policy of nation-building through democracy, because if you can control who can become a candidate (through cullings, i.e. through war or stoking rebellion), then "self-determination" is a myth. Obviously we would be "determining" who is the "rightful" leader of whatever country in which we chose to intervene.

Well...yeah. Of course the occupiers would need to impose a government that's as palatable as possible to the occupied people, and more importantly to their own domestic population and the international community. Those are pragmatic concerns. I don't see how it makes any difference to whether or not it's military imperialism.

Again, the ostensible idea behind our occupation of Iraq is that we DIDN'T impose a government, the Iraqis CHOSE their own government. IMHO it's a farce, but that's the logic of American nation-building.

Are there people who think it's not imperialism because of the government being democratic? I honestly didn't know that and find it a bit baffling to be honest.

Yes, that is the logic behind democracy being the preferable form of governance. It's flawed IMHO, because an outside power can manipulate the pool of candidates. That's something we don't talk about in America because it's almost unthinkable that some foreign entity could exert that kind of control over American politics...but for other nations? Sure...America can and IMHO does exert that kind of control over foreign politics. It's most evident in Iraq but IMHO it's more than likely true to some degree or another in any country aligned with the US.

I can point to Korean politics, how Roh Moohyun was an independent that advocated actual self-determination by distancing SK from China and the US, how Roh Moohyun is now inexplicably dead, and how Lee Myungbak who replaced him was very pro-US. No hard evidence mind you, just...suspicions. This also happened in Taiwan as well, Chen Suibien was someone who attempted the same, formal Taiwanese independence and nationhood which neither the US nor China wanted. Chen Suibien is now in prison, and his replacement, Ma Yingjeou is rabidly for the one-China two-systems governance model that satisfies both the US and China.

Wow. That's horrible.

I don't know how it works at all, but it just seems really likely that an occupied country might prefer a government that's anti-occupier, and those sorts of governments are never elected, so there you are.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 9:34:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/31/2014 7:09:48 PM, Cermank wrote:
Politics isn't really something Ive studied formally since 10th grade, so forgive me if this seems trivial.

Doesnt imperialism have a negative concoction in todays politics? I was going through some official state textbooks (Indian) on the subject, and while explaining military imperialism they explained- and I quote

' The USAs invasion against Iraq with its military power, forced it to have another sort of government favourable to the US. This is called military imperialism'.

While I agree with this, this seems sort of weird to me ESPECIALLY because it was written in the state textbook as a fact and not something debateable.

Is it considered more or less a fact equivalent to british colonialism? Or is this a little propogandish in nature?

Imperialism, in contemporary usage, is often abused to judgmentally imply abuse of power at others expense.

What the US did in Iraq was not imperialism, of any kind. That does not mean that what we did wasn't controversial, but it was not imperialism.

Imperialism as a military policy is a method of extending a country's power and influence through the conquest of other territories and permanently subjugating acquired territories to rule by the government which acquired them.

Imperialism, when used to describe the exercise of power, is a bit more nuanced. It's only the use of power to acquire more power at the expense of others which once retained power. That's what prompted Arthur Schlessinger Jr. to describe LBJ as "imperial," and later pundits would later make similar claims about Bush and Obama. But, this is not "imperialism" in a military sense.

It would seem that your textbook is conflating contemporary usage definition of imperialism with imperialism as a military policy, which is kind of disappointing.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 10:29:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 9:26:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 8/6/2014 7:53:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I don't know how it works at all, but it just seems really likely that an occupied country might prefer a government that's anti-occupier, and those sorts of governments are never elected, so there you are.

1) Your underlined statement is simply false. Roh Moohyun and Chen Suibien were both democratically elected, and Roh especially pushed quite hard for the expulsion of the US military presence out of South Korea. It was under his administration that the US military golfing range in Yongsan army garrison, which was located in prime real estate in downtown Seoul (some of the most expensive real estate in the world), was ceded back to SK and converted into their national museum, just to cite one example that I actually personally witnessed, and he pushed hard to move the rest of the base out of Seoul entirely into a much smaller city 40 miles south of Seoul, a proposal that originated with him.

2) You're probably familiar with my pro-imperialism stance, and most of it involves acknowledging the hegemonic power in the region. Fighting against this power (which is what your statement boils down to), results in debilitating and catastrophic wars like Vietnam. Accepting this power and being subservient to it results in administrations like Japan and Europe, which have almost zero military veracity yet enjoy rather comfortable lifestyles. The Tiger economies in east Asia all have very close trade relations with the US and have followed suit, and China is rather far along this path as well.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 10:33:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 10:29:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/6/2014 9:26:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 8/6/2014 7:53:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I don't know how it works at all, but it just seems really likely that an occupied country might prefer a government that's anti-occupier, and those sorts of governments are never elected, so there you are.

1) Your underlined statement is simply false. Roh Moohyun and Chen Suibien were both democratically elected, and Roh especially pushed quite hard for the expulsion of the US military presence out of South Korea. It was under his administration that the US military golfing range in Yongsan army garrison, which was located in prime real estate in downtown Seoul (some of the most expensive real estate in the world), was ceded back to SK and converted into their national museum, just to cite one example that I actually personally witnessed, and he pushed hard to move the rest of the base out of Seoul entirely into a much smaller city 40 miles south of Seoul, a proposal that originated with him.

Haha serves me right for being slightly flippant. That's really interesting. :)

2) You're probably familiar with my pro-imperialism stance, and most of it involves acknowledging the hegemonic power in the region. Fighting against this power (which is what your statement boils down to), results in debilitating and catastrophic wars like Vietnam. Accepting this power and being subservient to it results in administrations like Japan and Europe, which have almost zero military veracity yet enjoy rather comfortable lifestyles. The Tiger economies in east Asia all have very close trade relations with the US and have followed suit, and China is rather far along this path as well.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2014 10:52:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 10:33:59 PM, rross wrote:
At 8/6/2014 10:29:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/6/2014 9:26:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 8/6/2014 7:53:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I don't know how it works at all, but it just seems really likely that an occupied country might prefer a government that's anti-occupier, and those sorts of governments are never elected, so there you are.

1) Your underlined statement is simply false. Roh Moohyun and Chen Suibien were both democratically elected, and Roh especially pushed quite hard for the expulsion of the US military presence out of South Korea. It was under his administration that the US military golfing range in Yongsan army garrison, which was located in prime real estate in downtown Seoul (some of the most expensive real estate in the world), was ceded back to SK and converted into their national museum, just to cite one example that I actually personally witnessed, and he pushed hard to move the rest of the base out of Seoul entirely into a much smaller city 40 miles south of Seoul, a proposal that originated with him.

Haha serves me right for being slightly flippant. That's really interesting. :)

Yeah, it's really interesting how small things like that can alter your perception of power relations and economic clout. I mean, land per acre in Seoul is more valuable than it is in San Francisco. That we used prime real estate like this that was surrounded by 50 story condominiums that sold for several thousand dollars per sq foot for a military golfing range suggests either how valuable our presence was in South Korea, or that we really could do whatever we wanted to, and that SK's opinions simply did not matter much to us...well, not until recently.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2014 6:31:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/6/2014 9:34:20 PM, YYW wrote:
Imperialism, in contemporary usage, is often abused to judgmentally imply abuse of power at others expense.

What the US did in Iraq was not imperialism, of any kind. That does not mean that what we did wasn't controversial, but it was not imperialism.

Imperialism as a military policy is a method of extending a country's power and influence through the conquest of other territories and permanently subjugating acquired territories to rule by the government which acquired them.

Imperialism, when used to describe the exercise of power, is a bit more nuanced. It's only the use of power to acquire more power at the expense of others which once retained power.

So invading a country and replacing its government with one you like isn't imperialism as long as that government isn't your own? I suppose we'll have to call it America's aggressive consolidation of power then.