 |
|
Demerzel
|
|
As observed above, how can the USA be the most socially advanced country in the world if your country had racial segregation until 30 years or so ago? When black Americans had no rights and risked being attacked or killed in the deep south then you can't be advanced at all.
Plus stealing the land of the Native Americans and forcing them to live on poor or waste land isn't very advanced.
Nothing against the Americans per se in this post but Albert Speer doesn't half come up with some crap in his trolls which need to be cut down.
The idea of America exporting even more of its culture world wide is quite scary, bad enough having MaccyDs everywhere. argh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:24
|
|
Someone has serious problems mentally?
What is this? What is the purpose of this thread?
And most of all, is this a sick joke?
First of all, I don't personally care WHO the imperialist is, if someone pushes around another country, it's not cool, simple as that. No matter if it's the chinese, russians or americans. Soverignity should not be endangered by imperialism. Coming from smaller country, I don't care who the invader is, and I think the rest of us will agree. Enemy is enemy, simple as that, and no one is able to push us around like a rag doll without a fight, and then it's not matter of nationality of the other country.
China hasn't been very imperialist last time I saw news, so I don't see what's the point?
And calling us racial nations is crap, that's racist comment. Sure we don't have so much mixed nations as the US has, so what? How the hell does that make us and other countries LESS civilized? How do you measure socially advanced nations? By the number of their immigrants? Hah! Calling yourself superior is not backed up by any facts, you can measure however you want to, but if that's all you come up with.. it's sad attempt.
I'd say this is a troll, but you seem to be serious about it, so I can only feel sorry for you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
The USA are much better imperialists than anyone else out there. Look at other imperialist nations of the 19th-20th century:
France lost all its empire, and made such a mess of Vietnam (the US had to step in after them) and Algeria (look at how they are killing one another there) that we are clearly bad at colonialism.
England has a better record, but not that much. They were quite good in some parts (managed to make good places out of a desert like Australia and an iceberg like Canada), but pitiful in other places (look at Israel - hardly peaceful thanks to the Brits, plus they couldn't even keep the US).
Japan: Talk about Japan to a Korean...
No, the US are the best imperialists around. In their expansion in the 19th century, they managed to allow all those European immigrants to come to their country, particularly the anglo-saxon protestants, and expand peacefully. Nowadays, the native americans are mostly assimilated, and they are sure happy to be americans (all the survivors are, of course, citizens of the USA, and are not discriminated against). Mexicans are also so very happy to live in the US, f.e. in Tejas or California, which have never been Mexican either, that they must sometimes be sent out of the states, as they entered illegally. Their wanting to go to the U.S., and their being treated with no discrimination either, proves that U.S. imperialism is a good thing.
Conclusion: French-invaded populations have a hard time recovering. England-invaded population spend their time fighting one another. American-invaded population are either dead, or have been chased from their lands. The U.S.A. are sure the best imperialists to have around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
I know it is not 19th century and I was being sarcastic, but my parallel is:
The arguments about why the U.S. should be imperialist at the start of this thread are exactly those held by 19th century Europeans (Jules Ferry in France for example). Except Ferry was honest enough to say " well we are more enlightened than them so we can and have a duty to colonize (bla...)" and then say there was also the trade question.
When you see the consequences of imperialism, it really doesn't look like a good idea.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
As a student of history, I'm amazed that with the wealth of historical evidence showing imperialism to be a good thing for both the imperialists and the imperialised, people can still oppose imperialism. 
There are some very good benefits for being an imperial empire. Could Britain have industrialised so quickly without access to large colonial markets for their production? They had a huge surplus of fabricated materials and no local market to sell these goods.
Could they have industrialised without the raw materials required to fabricate some of these products, such as fur, timber, spices, tea, cotton, silk, etc?
As for the imperialised, look at India. One of the benefits of imperialism was an effective railroad system constructed by the British. Another benefit was an improved irrigation system. Together, both of these alleviated famine in India substantially.
Look at my avatar! How could I be anything other than an imperialist? (At least pro-British imperialism).
While they certainly weren't perfect, they were better than the rest, including the Yanks.
And look- why do we speak English here and not some obscure language like Finnish? Thank the British Empire!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
from a debate i had on my website with my buddies:
this is how the world has ALWAYS been. look at it this way, a complete logic argument.
America is number 1.
Iraq doesn't like America.
Iraq used to have the 4th largest army in the world.
America destroyed most of it.
Iraq gets madder.
Iraq is beginning to figure out how to get nukes.
Iraq will use nukes.
Nukes make power
Iraq is gaining a lot of power
America likes being #1
America doesn't like an enemy gaining power
America topples the regime.
now seriously, look throughout history. the nation who is #1 in the world goes OUT OF ITS WAY to slow down the others, and the others work their asses off to try and be #1.
IT'S HOW HISTORY WORKS.
England, Spain, France, most of Europa, went to war over colonies half way around the world, because at that time, COLONIES = MASSIVE POWER.
they fought all over the new world and even a few times at home, trying to "slow down" or even "topple" their competitors, and destroy their claim to power.
Now, we don't really need colonies (they help a lil, but whatever). Now, NUKES = MASSIVE POWER.
it's the same scenario with a new measure of power. We are #1 and we dont want someone to rise to power and de-throne us.
IT'S HOW IT WORKS.
and back in the day, I'm sure English people weren't too happy at the Spanish colonization of almost all of south america (save brazil). but in todays age, resisting voices are more readily heard.
in minds and machines, we call this the "Ought from is fallacy", whereas you can say "This is the way it is, therefore this is the way it ought to be". This is a "bad example" in many arguments we are discussing, and i'm assuming you guys will see that, so I'm addressing it.
Ought from is may not be the best way, but thats how it is. If you don't think ought from is applies (or should apply), look at Capitialism vs Communism again, and THEN come back to argue about the strategic regime toppling in America's foriegn policy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
Drake:
Thank you... i thought my five explanations was enough... I'll try one more time...
Pre-civilized societies was ones founded on family units... clans were divided by blood... a war between paleolithic clan A and clan B was a war between families.
As societies developed into civilizations, these familial clans were extended to include several hundreds of families which composed an ethnic group... they had similiar racial traits and essentially the same culture. these are ethnic or racial nation states.
Most of the world is still at this level. Japan is, and always has been, a nation of Japanese. Japanese people are of the same racial group. Their nation is a racially-based one... that doesn't mean they are racist. It just means that, in many ways, someone can not just become Japanese. There are racial traits associated with being fully accepted into Jap society. again, you can NOT become Japanese...
Some nations 'advanced' to another level. Rome was a multi-national nation. Syrians and Gauls were far different ethnically and culturally but they united into a single, idealogical nation. the idealogy was chiefly one of the idea of Roman authourity though. Anyone could become a roman citizen.
Over time, other such states formed, such as the Ottomon Empire which was also not a racial state but one formed on the idea of a multi-national state.
The United States is the most extreme of such states. the US is far from a racial state being composed of thousands of ethnic groups and religions. We are united, however, in the idea of a diverse multi-nation democratic state where everyone has the potential to succeed.
See the difference? In my opinion, such a state is an improvement from racial states (which are simply an extension of the ancient clan system).
thanks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
red_jon:
maybe an even more advanced level of civilization would be one with women (which, last time i checked, were equal to men in the US) and gay equality... I'm just saying that the US is on a higher level as is than other countries today... of course, some countries may still cling to being racial states but have gender equality or whatever but saying that they are more advanced than the US because of that is like saying 19th century Ethiopian warriors armed with rifles were as advanced as Victorian England
thanks
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2003 20:02
|
|