International Thread 3

[DMC]

On 12/31/2019 at 10:47 AM, Rippounet said:

And anyone who thinks "Western values" matter in geopolitics knows zilch about geopolitics. 

Well this is just plainly untrue.  There seems to be two arguments talking over each other in this discussion over the past couple pages/days.  On the one hand, you have HOI, apparently a UK citizen, arguing that he'd prefer the US as the hegemon as opposed to the regimes of China and/or Russia.  This should not be too controversial of an opinion.  In terms of post-WWII, it's very hard to deny the "western world" did a far better job rebuilding themselves than the Soviet model (or, I suppose, Maoist China following the Sino-Soviet split). 

And, yes, this was built on "Western values" of open markets, free trade, and democratization.  These were the bases for building institutions both economically - such as Bretton Woods and the EEC (that have since led to the IMF, World Bank, and EU) - and militarily with NATO.  If we're doing a Cold War comparison, then it's very difficult to reasonably argue against the "first" world over the "second."  The Marshal plan >>>> the Molotov plan in successfully rebuilding Europe.  Japan opened-up, liberalized, and within two generations became the second-largest economy in the world.  Even the Asian Tigers took Japan as an example to open up, emphasize exports, and attract foreign investment from Western powers - which resulted in rapid industrialization and economic growth.  And, of course, when the Wall fell, just as the citizens of the Eastern Bloc rushed into the "west," most of their governments clamored to join those international institutions derived from "Western values."

There's obviously an argument to be had about the effects of globalization, not to mention the backlash its engendered even within the Western powers over the past quarter century, but these attacks on HOI for making a pretty banal point seem decidedly unwarranted in terms of the substance of his argument.  The empirical evidence strongly indicates the Western model is indeed far preferable to the regimes of China and Russia - for industrialized democracies.

OTOH, this argument entirely falls apart if we're arguing in relation to "third-world" countries.  (I personally abhor that terminology, and much prefer "developing nations" or especially "Global South" to emphasize the iniquitous and pervasive racism involved in the distinction).  As many have said, of course it doesn't matter one bit whether your oppressive authoritarian regime is being propped up by the US, China, Russia, or Freedonia.  And, of course, America has an insidiously horrific record since WWII of direct intervention with such regimes - just like China and Russia.  Not to mention the continued adverse effects globalization - promoted and dominated by the Western model and its institutions - inflict upon the Global South.

Which, logically, would lead to advocating non-intervention on the US' behalf.  (As well as, and perhaps more importantly, urging more fair trade practices with the Global South to protest the hypocritical policies of the World Bank and IMF that perpetuates such inequality.)  Fact is, even if the hegemon was assumed to have the purest of intentions (which clearly is a preposterous expectation in reality), directly intervening in regime change is almost always going to end in unfavorable outcomes.  But by the same token, it seems quite inconsistent to curse the travesty of American imperialism in one breath then turnaround and lament the US' lack of intervening to encourage the democratic movements amidst the current strife across South America in the next breathe.

[Raja]

12 hours ago, DMC said:

The empirical evidence strongly indicates the Western model is indeed far preferable to the regimes of China and Russia

 I agree with you that opening up the economy by engaging in open markets, free trade etc has allowed some developing nations to thrive ( there are huge caveats & criticisms here that one size does not fit all, but I think that is an altogether different debate).

No one here is strongly arguing that we should not follow that economic model & stick with the 'the soviet model' as you state - the opposition to HoI and the attacks towards him are to do with him initially saying 'dictators are going to be installed, do you want them backed by the US or Russia' & 'The US might need to do some unsavory things but ho hum that is life' - *that* is what is being called out here ( see posts #352 & #353) - As you & several other people have rightly pointed out - it doesn't matter who props up your oppressive authoritarian regime.

I also do  think that Rippounet has a point about 'Western Values' not really mattering too much in some aspects -

Take Bahrain for example - it's a tiny island that has a US naval base that saw massive pro-democratic protests during the Arab spring. Bahrain's response was a viscous crack down which involved inviting Saudi tanks & troops into the tiny gulf country to quell these protests - there were innumerable human rights violations, a 3 month state of emergency, doctors were put in jail for treating protestors, some doctors getting up to 20 years in prison, opposition activists were tortured & killed, shitte mosques were destroyed. This repression continues till today.

But because the US needs Saudi & Bahrain it did nothing - no sanctions, no pulling out of the 5th fleet, no recalling of the ambassador -  just a couple of speeches from Obama & Clinton but nothing concrete. In fact, the UK in 2018 also built a permanent military base in Bahrain ( The UK isn't innocent either here with them selling arms to the Bahraini goverment even after protestors were being tortured & killed - it is only public pressure that made the UK gov cease some of their exports to Bahrain)

The US, like every other country in the world, gives zero fucks ( Edit - and obviously I think this is wrong) about these 'values' if it interferes with their broader foreign policy & military objectives ( And I know you probably know this, but it seems lots of people in this thread don't)

[Heartofice]

Quote

'dictators are going to be installed, do you want them backed by the US or Russia' & 'The US might need to do some unsavory things but ho hum that is life' - *that* is what is being called out here ( see posts #352 & #353) - As you & several other people have rightly pointed out - it doesn't matter who props up your oppressive authoritarian regime.

Quote

The US, like every other country in the world, gives zero fucks about these 'values' if it interferes with their broader foreign policy & military objectives ( And I know you probably know this, but it seems lots of people in this thread don't)

Are you not simply agreeing with me here? Are we talking at cross purposes?  Like you, I don't believe that the US gives a real shit about the morality or values of the countries it uses as allies and vassals (although on occasion I believe there was a misguided belief by neocons that they could use their hegemony to spread liberal democracy across the world), and maybe sometimes it's not possible to influence countries in that way. 

Maybe it's just from a pragmatic point of view, I'd rather the US maintained its influence abroad, if backing off meant that China or Russia stepped in, because one of those 2 being head honcho would be less good for me than the current situation. ( I know certain posters believe it wouldn't make a difference to me if Russia was in charge, ignoring them assassinating people and setting of deadly substances in my country, but I think thats pretty naive, and I'd rather not take the risk thanks!)

Not to say I wouldn't rather everyone played nice.

[Raja]

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Are you not simply agreeing with me here?

No. Here's what DMC said earlier and I agree with that ( as well as what liffguard said a couple of pages back)

Quote

As many have said, of course it doesn't matter one bit whether your oppressive authoritarian regime is being propped up by the US, China, Russia, or Freedonia.  And, of course, America has an insidiously horrific record since WWII of direct intervention with such regimes - just like China and Russia.  Not to mention the continued adverse effects globalization - promoted and dominated by the Western model and its institutions - inflict upon the Global South.

 

[Heartofice]

Cool. I agree with that too..

so...

[Raja]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Cool. I agree with that too..

so...

No, I disagree with all of this too

Quote

From my own perspective I’d much rather if there was a hegemonic power that it was the USA mainly due to them being our allies and the similarities we share than communist China or gangster Russia. Doesn’t seem that hard to compute does it. As Tywin said, any other opinion is insane. 

Quote

America is the least worst of those options clearly. 

There are a bunch of other but I honestly cannot be bothered copy pasting all of it.

[Heartofice]

Maybe you are misreading what I’m saying. I think you are taking what I said to mean that the US is the least worst country for the countries it interferes with. I’ve never said that. I think it’s the same and the US uses the countries in the same way others would.

My point is simply that I wouldn’t want China or Russia to be the leading world power. Get it?

[Raja]

On 1/1/2020 at 4:43 AM, Tywin et al. said:

 Rarely are there positives in the short run, but over the longer course of history you can find examples where the net end game has some clear advantages, though rarely do the natives get to enjoy that as much as they should.

Somehow I missed this but - what the fuck?

You really need to crack open a few books or like take a look around at the world. This is some staggering levels of ignorance.

[Conflicting Thought]

58 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Maybe you are misreading what I’m saying. I think you are taking what I said to mean that the US is the least worst country for the countries it interferes with. I’ve never said that. I think it’s the same and the US uses the countries in the same way others would.

My point is simply that I wouldn’t want China or Russia to be the leading world power. Get it?

Yeah dude, we all "get" what you're saying, your point tho?. Like, you prefer the US to be THE big daddy, its just, i dont really know why you prefer them?, you just said they dont care about other countries, just like China or Russia. sooo you say you prefer the USA cuz of Russians spies or somthing? 

[Varysblackfyre321]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

OTOH, this argument entirely falls apart if we're arguing in relation to "third-world" countries. 

Which to be fair has been discounted by HOI as not really mattering to him. 

Mass-human suffering across the world doesn't concern him. 

 He did however point to the supposed human-suffering happening ing Venezuela  to shame people into supporting a US regime-change, or at least stop saying such a thing would be bad. 

But as has been shown that was just for manipulation. 

15 hours ago, DMC said:

And, yes, this was built on "Western values" of open markets, free trade, and democratization. 

Two of those things are more or less happily embraced by China and Russia as of now.

And for the last thing, who cares when the US’s foreign policy does not actually see the preservation of it as a goal.

Also, to my discredit I suspected 

15 hours ago, DMC said:

Which, logically, would lead to advocating non-intervention on the US' behalf.

Only if you are concerned about foreigners and/or from the place the US wants to fuck up. If not a person outside said country takes the position of such intervention being to the ultimate benefit of your country, one could easily argue it should be done. 

Sure it is evil, but a necessary evil.

Also, according to HOI on this particular   if you disagree that is necessary  then apparently you think China and Russia are better countries than the US if yo ungrateful if you are an American. 

 

A problem is that a lot of it is unnecessary evil. That the main beneficiaries of certain anti-democratic action or just flat-out horrific policies perpetrated are often not regular citizens. Often they're just international corporations with a vested interest in the country in question. 

I do not think it is a controversial to say the US’ trade-embargo against isn't to the betterment of either of the two nations. 

I do not think it is controversial if the US stopped selling weapons to brutal states like Saudi-Arabia that the rights of everyone in the US or ”Western world” would be in more serious risk. 

15 hours ago, DMC said:

But by the same token, it seems quite inconsistent to curse the travesty of American imperialism in one breath then turnaround and lament the US' lack of intervening to encourage the democratic movements amidst the current strife across South America in the next breathe.

I don't think anyone argued for that exactly. I kinda said the US for many of the countries which had Democratic governments before the US instituted a regime change could have won them over or kept them outside of China’ or Russia’s sphere of control without literally supporting/propping up a dictatorship in them. 

And I stand by statement. 

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Maybe it's just from a pragmatic point of view, I'd rather the US maintained its influence abroad, if backing off meant that China or Russia stepped in, because one of those 2 being head honcho would be less good for me than the current situation. ( I know certain posters believe it wouldn't make a difference to me if Russia was in charge, ignoring them assassinating people and setting of deadly substances in my country, but I think thats pretty naive, and I'd rather not take the risk thanks!)


Oh I’m pressing  your talking about the double-spy and the other people(although probably through just negligence) Russia probably had murdered with a nerve agent last year. Or other cases like it.

Rest assured, assassinations like these probably would probably be as bad even if the country had the same level of geo-political pool as the US. But they're not literally going to just start massacring British citizens in the streets. You yourself are too unimportant to make it on their radar to actually kill specifically. 

I'm guessing if Britain allies with Russia(which is still a real option for you to do)  if it became a hegemon you’d just give over people like that. Or in this case not bother to get them.  Your country does not have to be allied with the US. 

I think it's naive to think the US is above assassinations even in countries that they're allied with.

Ever hear of it's drone strikes in Pakistan? Often times it has resulted in the deaths of a ton of Pakistani

Honestly it's down right laughable to act like the US are better in regards to Assassination  given the course of this conversation when you’ve already conceded the US government is as brutal and ruthless in regards to it’s foreign policy as either china or Russia. 

It's suddenly is too skittish to order an assassination it’s allied with? 

That doesn't make sense in opinion

I mean this is a country whose central intelligence seriously considered deliberately killing it's own citizens. 

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/jfk-docs-cia-plotted-to-bomb-miami-kill-refugees-and-blame-castro-9782696

Just to  help justify unlawful military intervention in another country.

Tell me if the US had gone through with this plan how thankful should the deceased family’s be?

And to be clear this is far from the worst thing the US government has done to it’s own citizens in pursuit of Imperialism, 

Tell me, how thankful should the American civil-rights activists be that the FBI used the pretense of ”stopping communism” to harass and attempt to clamp on a movement that’s main purpose was to give rights to none-whites?

Should I as a gay, or Atheist, or Black guy be joyful that the US managed to help overthrow a regime, and institute a regime that's anti-secularism/Religious fanatics, and racist, even if the previous regime was more friendly to my ideological bent, sexuality or skin-tone? If so why? The world as whole is a more dangerous place for people like me. 

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Yeah dude, we all "get" what you're saying, your point tho?. Like, you prefer the US to be THE big daddy, its just, i dont really know why you prefer them?, you just said they dont care about other countries, just like China or Russia. sooo you say you prefer the USA cuz of Russians spies or somthing? 

Meh, I recall what he's referring to. In his defense Russia did probably order an Assassination or assassinations in the UK.

But, to honestly act the US would not steep to equally low-grounds is absurd.

To be clear he's been vague as fuck on what exact ideological similarities he really values between the US and UK, to which would justify the position that he as a British person(from a purely self-preservation standpoint) must logically think America should have global hegemony.

And his vapid point of being allies would only matter much, if the country wasn't free to pursue a more amicable relationship with Russia if the US was no longer the winning horse to bet on.

DMC gave some values which I had a feeling HOI counted as-that being the US is capitalist, and would support things like Free-trade and open markets. Thing is neither Russia or China are really against those things anymore.

[Rippounet]

13 hours ago, DMC said:

And, yes, this was built on "Western values" of open markets, free trade, and democratization.  These were the bases for building institutions both economically - such as Bretton Woods and the EEC (that have since led to the IMF, World Bank, and EU) - and militarily with NATO.  If we're doing a Cold War comparison, then it's very difficult to reasonably argue against the "first" world over the "second." 

Ok, so I was foolish enough to make a sweeping generalisation and need to clarify now.

What I meant that "Western values don't matter" is that they aren't anyone's guiding principles when it comes to actual decision-making. In geopolitics, "values" are just another tool or weapon to be used to maximize your country's influence, part of what Joseph Nye described as "soft power." They will be promoted as long as they don't harm your direct economic or strategic interests, and abandoned the minute they do, or might.
So my point was really that, as a question of intent, "Western values" don't matter, because in actuality they are interchangeable with other values (I will expand on that later).

Now your main point I believe is one of efficiency, i.e. that when Western powers do promote Western values, these are far more efficient at helping peoples than the alternatives.
As a European, that is hard to argue with, since I am still reaping the benefits of the Marshall plan to this day. And yet, it's not so simple...

On the economic front, the idea that open markets and free trade are net positives is debatable to say the least. From my perspective this is a myth that has been thoroughly debunked, among others by economist Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge. Chang made two simple points:
i) On an abstract level, open markets and free trade always benefit the strongest economies. It is near-impossible for a developing economy to develop its industries while competing with those of developed nations. Simply put, "open markets" benefit the multinational corporations that are already well established, ready to reap the benefits of newly opened markets.
ii) Contrary to common perception, open markets and free trade are terrible at bringing prosperity to developing nations. Analysing the rise of Asian economies, Chang has argued that it was really protectionism, government subsidies and regulations, as well as *gasp* some forms of central planning, that really allowed Asian economies to flourish in the late 20th century.
Building on Chang's point ii), it's easy to see what the effects of the "free trade" ideology on developing economies are: an obstacle to local development combined with the exploitation of countries' national resources by foreign corporations that only really benefit local elites, since whatever economic development happens will bring little wealth to the people as a whole (some jobs yes, but most profits will go back to developed nations through their multinationals, with corruption siphoning the rest). This has of course political consequences as well, which brings us to the second front.

On the political front, liberalism and democracy are certainly net positives where they are promoted by Western powers. However, not only does free trade not require them, they can often be incompatible because the influence of Western multinationals is often unpopular. Hence why the West tends to support authoritarian regimes throughout the world.
Chile under Pinochet was a particularly good example of this.
Generally speaking, "superpowers" don't care much about liberalism and democracy. What they are interested is stability, and to a lesser extent, legitimacy, in their "client states." If a liberal-democratic regime can be stable and legitimate that's cool, but from a geopolitical angle, "illiberal" regimes can offer just as much stability, and legitimacy is secondary issue in the short-term.

Lastly, the idea that US hegemony is fundamentally "good" because the US is somehow different from other or past empires. This is what historian Andrew Bacevich called the "myth of the reluctant superpower." In fact, the US is neither particularly reluctant nor benevolent. The consequences of its hegemony tend to be misunderstood. I would have thought that Trump's scorn for "soft power" would have made that obvious enough, but I can add a few examples here.
It's not well-known that when Germany and France refused to join the US alliance against Iraq in 2003 they were forced by the US to erase billions of Iraqui debt to compensate for them not getting involved militarily (5,5 billion $ for France alone). In other words, even the leading nations of the EU could not say no to US military interventionism: they either contributed militarily or financially.
Then there's the economic aspect generally speaking. Why is the French public pension system being "reformed" by Macron? To open the market to investment funds specialising in private pensions. That's not a conspiracy theory: the president of Blackrock France was just awarded the "légion d'honneur," France's highest civilian honor. In a similar fashion, in spite of BoJo saying the NHS would never be on the table when negotiating new trade agreements between Britain in the US, Trump's declarations made it clear that it totally was. That is the principle at the heart of the pax americana: the US maintains the international order in exchange for opportunities for its corporations.
Would another hegemon be worse? Fundamentally, we don't know. Other superpowers have developed or are still developing their own version of universalist values to expand their soft power. The Soviet Union promoted gender and racial equality and opposed colonialism before it was cool (because Marxism is all about equality) ; as ridiculous as it seems today, it held the moral high ground for decades against the US, which is why it was able to make its ideology attractive throughout the "third world," despite its numerous flaws. Ironically, most of the values promoted by the Soviet Union are now mainstream in the West, though of course you'll always find a Jordan Peterson ranting against what he calls "cultural Marxism."
As for China, it has been investing considerably in its soft power in recent years. Economic development through infrastructure building and aid programs, cultural centers, loans... etc. But because we live in an information age, China finds its harder to hide the flaws of its own socio-political structure at home than the Soviet Union did. Time will tell what "values" China will seek to promote by contrast to Western ones.
What we do know for certain is that it's better not to have a single hegemon because neither Donald Trump nor Xi Jinping are in any way benevolent.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Are you not simply agreeing with me here? Are we talking at cross purposes?  Like you, I don't believe that the US gives a real shit about the morality or values of the countries it uses as allies and vassals (although on occasion I believe there was a misguided belief by neocons that they could use their hegemony to spread liberal democracy across the world), and maybe sometimes it's not possible to influence countries in that way. 

Meh, I’m going to give most Neo-cons credit and think, they don't really care much on how their policies negatively affect the people they say desire to free. 

And definitely a lot of times any peaceful, democratic means are ignored due unreasonable stricture to ideology(how could we work with a country that's socialist and Commmunist), or for the fact making a country be in total subservience to corporations. Which profits could possibly benefit the US. Or not.

Like could you at least acknowledge this sort of things happen? 

That not every abominable act perpetrated by the US in terms of foreign policy was really made to primarily improve or maintained the lifestyle of it's citizens? Or to save it's people’s lives? 

Like can you at least agree to that very banal point? 

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, I recall what he's referring to. In his defense Russia did probably order an Assassination or assassinations in the UK.

Yes, i konw what he is referring to. I juts tgin i doesnt make sense, cuz like you said, assassination is not russian monopoly, but more imoportant, if that is the argument he is making... Then maybe he is trolling? 

 Or am i being dense or are his arguments kind of shit? 

[Heartofice]

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, I’m going to give most Neo-cons credit and think, they don't really care much on how their policies negatively affect the people they say desire to free. 

And definitely a lot of times any peaceful, democratic means are ignored due unreasonable stricture to ideology(how could we work with a country that's socialist and Commmunist), or for the fact making a country be in total subservience to corporations. Which profits could possibly benefit the US. Or not.

Like could you at least acknowledge this sort of things happen? 

That not every abominable act perpetrated by the US in terms of foreign policy was really made to primarily improve or maintained the lifestyle of it's citizens? Or to save it's people’s lives? 

Like can you at least agree to that very banal point? 

You write SO much.. assuming I really care?

It seems so important to you that you keep quoting me and harassing me.

What part of "I don't believe that the US gives a real shit about the morality or values of the countries it uses as allies and vassals" makes you think I believe the US always is trying to improve countries? Stop trying to create an argument with me about things I really am indifferent to. 

22 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Yes, i konw what he is referring to. I juts tgin i doesnt make sense, cuz like you said, assassination is not russian monopoly, but more imoportant, if that is the argument he is making... Then maybe he is trolling? 

 Or am i being dense or are his arguments kind of shit? 

My point was that Putin seems happy enough to brazenly assassinate people in Britain and release deadly radioactive material (or so out of control of his subordinates that he can't stop them doing it) that having Russia being the major world power would make me pretty damn nervous, especially as a Brit, given our relations are so frosty. 
 

[Heartofice]

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 12/31/2019 at 6:34 PM, A wilding said:

I know that this has been a US Republican meme for a long while, but it is not true. Actually they interfered with the existing successful "ABC" program (Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms) for which previous US administrations can take most of the credit, by insisting that the "C" part be dropped, apparently to appease US religious opinion. In doing so they set the fight against HIV back significantly.

 

You’re right to point out that religious zealots watered down some aspects if the plan, but otherwise I think you’re overstating this. I read a few different articles covering it and the general consensus seems to be a net positive, though there are areas of concern. I also wouldn’t just call it a Republican talking point because Democrats also used it as a talking point on how they can work across the isle. More Republicans in the House voted against the measure (40 to 1 I believe, I didn’t look up the Senate results).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 12/31/2019 at 9:37 PM, Raja said:

Here's my problem with what you posted -

1. Citing the fact that you 'lived in a developing country' and felt 'vibe was positive' to support your point is a grossly ignorant thing to say. Firstly, there are innumerable 'developing countries' each with their own history, political context & foreign policy - they are not a monolith and in fact can be very different from each other, even if they're within the same region - Bahrain is wholly different from Saudi, even though they're a 20 minute drive from each other. Pakistan is wholly different from India, even though they can be similar culturally. Qatar is wholly different from Bahrain. There are *numerous* examples.

Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to say that my experience living abroad gave me a perspective that could apply to the entire developing world, just where I was, and the people I spoke to generally were overall okay with outside influences of the U.S. while also recognizing that there were some horrific failures (and to be clear, they weren't really victims of them so their perspective is different).

Quote

2. Based on your posts in the last two pages, I don't think you have seriously read about or talked to people that have felt the impact of US interference in the middle-east, south-east asia & Africa ( the list of nations here is quite large)-  people who have actually lived in those countries will tell you that US policy is more than 'flawed'. And then somehow saying that the PEPFAR program counterbalances that is fucking gross.

I am in agreement with Liffguard's post regarding being equally skeptical and resisting interference from all the countries being discussed here.

To me, these posts in the last two pages represent posts with a very facile understanding your own country's impact on other countries since the second world war and are indicative of a certain amount of ignorance, privilege and a lack of self-examination.

I'll be the first to tell you that I don't know enough about Southeast Asia to comment on it, and I could always learn more about all three areas, but I have interacted with a number of refugees from Africa and the Middle East and I have run into instances where people are quite grateful for the U.S.'s aid and interventions. That of course does not offset all the awful things our Government and other Western governments have done. 

Just as a quick example, did our countries interference in Iran during the 50’s cause it to become a better place today? I think the answer is decidedly no. Imagine what the ME could look like today if they had just been allowed to keep more profits from their natural recourse, an ask that is more than reasonable.

Quote

Edit: This is a separate point but you calling 'developing nations' 'failed states' a while back also doesn't lend much to your credibility as someone who actually accounts for any nuance.

Did I? Because there is a significant difference between the two and if I did so I was probably just typing quickly in between seeing patients.

10 hours ago, Raja said:

Somehow I missed this but - what the fuck?

You really need to crack open a few books or like take a look around at the world. This is some staggering levels of ignorance.

I hope it makes you feel better that one of the few books on my desk is World History to 1500. Should I ditch it for another rereading of A Peoples History of the United States, a book that among other things, outlines how the U.S. totally screwed over Mexico to steal some of its Northern territory?

[Clueless Northman]

11 hours ago, Rippounet said:

On the economic front, the idea that open markets and free trade are net positives is debatable to say the least. From my perspective this is a myth that has been thoroughly debunked, among others by economist Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge. Chang made two simple points:

i) On an abstract level, open markets and free trade always benefit the strongest economies. It is near-impossible for a developing economy to develop its industries while competing with those of developed nations. Simply put, "open markets" benefit the multinational corporations that are already well established, ready to reap the benefits of newly opened markets.
ii) Contrary to common perception, open markets and free trade are terrible at bringing prosperity to developing nations. Analysing the rise of Asian economies, Chang has argued that it was really protectionism, government subsidies and regulations, as well as *gasp* some forms of central planning, that really allowed Asian economies to flourish in the late 20th century.

Paul Bairoch made the point decades ago. Besides, the mere economic history of the USA is the ultimate proof of this: they knew that they would be strangled by British free trade and had to go the protectionist way to allow their own economy, specially their industry, to grow; that had been US official policy since the times of Hamilton and during the whole 19th century.

 

As for current US benevolent international role, the numerous deaths and the growing chaos in the Middle-East that could well follow the fresh assassination of Suleimani, top IRGC general, and Muhandis, deputy leader of Iraqi PMU, might tell a different tale.

[Raja]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I hope it makes you feel better that one of the few books on my desk is World History to 1500. Should I ditch it for another rereading of A Peoples History of the United States, a book that among other things, outlines how the U.S. totally screwed over Mexico to steal some of its Northern territory? 

I don't know what lessons you took away from these, or other books you've read. You don't have to prove anything to me, but I read the US politics thread to know well enough that you are not a troll like HoI or mother of queens or whatever that person's name is, but when you say something like this

Quote

Rarely are there positives in the short run, but over the longer course of history you can find examples where the net end game has some clear advantages, though rarely do the natives get to enjoy that as much as they should.

It shows me, and the other people in here that have called you out on it, that you have not seriously engaged with the subject of colonialism when you state the above it reads, as  @larrytheimp stated above, like A "Whitewashing Colonialism 101" course catalog description.

And unfortunately, the attitude & statements above by you are par for the course for some white people that just haven't woken up to the world around them.

[DireWolfSpirit]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Should I ditch it for another rereading of A Peoples History of the United States, a book that among other things, outlines how the U.S. totally screwed over Mexico to steal some of its Northern territory?

No library should .be considered complete without Zinn