American Hegemony

[At Home 0]

I'll try to find the video of this debate, but the topic of it was American hegemony around the world. It's no doubt that America has tons of influence around the world (or does it?), and the term "American Empire" is thrown around a lot where I am. But what are the consequences of American dominance throughout the world, both positive and negative? Was it the motivating factor in consolidating Europe into the EU? Is America the least rapacious empire? Let's discuss.

[NoCalMike 0]

Are we talking things like the World Bank and how it is really the American Bank? Throwing out loans to countries they know can never be paid back?

 

That kind of stuff, or am I off the mark?

[At Home 0]

The whole package. It's a pretty broad topic, I know, but we should discuss all the aspects and results of American influence around the globe, good and bad.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I think it's wrong to think about this stuff in terms of nationalism and national culture. It's not "American Hegemony," it's "Multinational Capitalist Hegemony." I mean, there's obv. some overlap, but they're not one and the same.

[At Home 0]

But a lot of that falls under the proviso of free trade and wanting people to buy American stuff. Had it not been for already-existing political influence, would that exist with the same fervor and prevalence as it would today?

[The Niggardly King 0]

what

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm completely okay with renaming the DOD the Department of Imperial Affairs, since that's pretty much what it is. It seems pretty stupid to have a "Department of Defense" and a "Department of Homeland Security." What's the difference? Well one defends us, and the other secures the homeland. WTF?

 

And I'm becoming increasingly convinced that our far flung military bases are mostly a good thing, with, perhaps, the exception of those in the Middle East.

[Czech please! 0]

I never liked the term "homeland." We'd never really used it until then. David Mamet wrote a good piece about this.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It sounds kind of Soviet.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

At Home, good topic idea and good introductory post. There is some overlap with lilyoungsmitty's security thread, though. I could see their being merged. Nowadays, backlash to American global hegemony is the main reason for national security concerns.

 

My view is that the United States, throughout its history, has probably fucked over every single country on Earth in some way. Hubris is the word for it. For example, the United States attempted to force Western-style democracy on Somalia. What is the problem with this act? Spencer Heath MacCallum eloquently explains:

 

The first thing that voting does is to divide a population into two groups — a group that rules and a group that is ruled. This is completely at variance with Somali tradition. Second, if democracy is to work, it depends in theory, at least, upon a populace that will vote on issues. But in a kinship society such as Somalia, voting takes place not on the merit of issues but along group lines; one votes according to one's clan affiliation. Since the ethic of kinship requires loyalty to one's fellow clansmen, the winners use the power of government to benefit their own members, which means exploitation of the members of other clans. Consequently when there exists a governmental apparatus with its awesome powers of taxation and police and judicial monopoly, the interests of the clans conflict. Some clan will control that apparatus. To avoid being exploited by other clans, each must attempt to be that controlling clan.

 

The turmoil in Somalia consists in the clans maneuvering to position themselves to control the government whenever it might come into being, and this has been exacerbated by the governments of the world, especially the United States, keeping alive the expectation that a government will soon be established and supplying arms to whoever seems at present most likely to be able to "bring democracy" to Somalia.

One reason that I bought a ticket to board the Obamaian Express is that I believe that he will end the G.W. Bush/neoconservative idea of spending exorbitant amounts of money to impose American ideas on the whole world and destroy anyone who opposes them. Mr. Obama is more empathetic to the customs, heritages, and faiths of other peoples. This change in philosophy is good for everyone.

 

Ultimately, although both of these topics are historically very interesting, they are becoming archaic. The biggest threat to America's stability is economics, not bombs. For how long will we be supported by the Chinese and the Saudis? As Nasr Ibn Othman said, "economic dependence is the death of a nation."

[Nightwing 0]

At Home, good topic idea and good introductory post. There is some overlap with lilyoungsmitty's security thread, though. I could see their being merged. Nowadays, backlash to American global hegemony is the main reason for national security concerns.

My view is that the United States, throughout its history, has probably fucked over every single country on Earth in some way. Hubris is the word for it. For example, the United States attempted to force Western-style democracy on Somalia....

 

Christ, you are a one trick pony.

 

I disagree that the cliche that we've fucked over everyone, mostly because we were fucked over by the game board long before we became the hegemonic power in the world. The blowback is less because of us, and more because the colonial partitioning which was never meant to survive past their "parent" states leaving. The Middle East, the prime threat, is the prime example of a place which was (literally) planned out in a few hours on a piece of paper not much larger than an unfolded napkin. We've made many mistakes, but many of these things situations were inevitable by the design of these boundaries.

 

Secondly, I disagree with the idea that Bush was seeking to somehow destroy tradition and heritage. While his invasion of Iraq was miserably executed and falsely justified, and his foreign policy was far too stand-offish, I'm not sure how Bush was destroying tradition and heritage. It's not like we've been sending masses of Christian missionaries to Iraq, and I don't believe that democracy has destroyed any of the traditions of a state that has only existed since the end of World War I. I mean, what do we do, return them to Turkey? You're overblowing a poorly executed foreign policy into something more sinister.

 

As for my own opinion, I think neoconservative militarism has failed, but international republicanism as the ideal government is something that should be pushed, encouraged, and defended when appropriate. Obama's administration gives me hope to renew relations that had cooled during the Bush Administration, like with... well, who didn't relations cool with? Poland? Obama's early overtures to Russia (A state that is not a threat, but has the potential to turn into one in the future) are an excellent start, and his early overtures to Iran are a good idea. That's a country which has a stronger liberal base than people know about, and it needs to be given encouragement from us.

 

I disagree with the concept of an American "Empire". Hegemony is different than Imperialism, and simply having foreign military bases does not make us an Empire. Nowadays it's closer to a form of 1st World Foreign Aid, and I wouldn't mind closing down many of the bases we have in Western Europe and other places to save cash and remove such an argument from our critic's playbooks.

 

Edit: Missed a few highlights I meant to include. Didn't mean it to come off so snarky.

[SuperJerk 0]

Has any other nation in the history of the world ever attempted something as bold and benevolent as the Marshall Plan?

 

As messed up as our foreign policy towards Iran and Iraq have been, or Vietnam and Central America, the United States' track record of doing things that benefit other countries is pretty unmatched.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

the United States' track record of doing things that benefit other countries is pretty unmatched.

 

Our track record of propping up brutal military juntas is pretty unmatched as well. I guess we just have to take the sour with the sweet?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I pretty much agree with everything Nightwing said--pretty much as usual. I might quibble with the empire part, but I think we pretty much agree on everything but nomenclature.

 

Don't get me wrong, XC, I think American foreign policy has been quite misguided at times. I just don't view it as this singular evil throughout its history. America was not even that active on an international role until around the turn of the 20th century. American foreign policy also has a lot to be proud of: from its role in stopping German militarism in WWI, fighting fascism, Naziism, and Japanese expansion in WW2 to rebuilding Europe and Japan after that war. And even though I may disagree with a number of foreign policy steps taken during the Cold War, I think the ultimate goal and accomplishment of containing communism was an unequivocal good.

 

Finally, I think having a hegemon is a pretty good thing--based on my understanding of hegemonic stability theory. Basically, this theory says that global collective goods (a free sea, global reserve currency, regulated trade, etc.) are underprovided unless a single group or small group of actors picks up the slack. Since in IR, even a small group of actors usually have trouble getting along, it usually falls to the hegemon to provide those goods. I think this is borne out historically, as periods of a single country's primacy have generally been prosperous: from the Pax Romana to the Pax Brittania to the relative peace of the period of post-Cold War American primacy.

[SuperJerk 0]

the United States' track record of doing things that benefit other countries is pretty unmatched.

 

Our track record of propping up brutal military juntas is pretty unmatched as well.

 

I'm not going to split hairs over what we should consider "propping up brutal military juntas" to mean, but in terms of militaristic brutality and imperialistic immorality directed at other countries...well, let's look at some other historic examples of the brutality of various imperial powers over the centuries:

• The Spanish and British Empire's policies towards Native Americans.
• European powers in Africa from the 1600-1800s.
• Pretty much everything the Russians did to their neighbors from 1945 onward.
• Japanese expansion prior to and during World War II.
• Boy, the Romans sure loved open dissent, didn't they?
• Germany.
• England, opium, China....'nuff said.

 

So, in summary, compared to everyone else to ever have any influence in world affairs, we're total amateurs when it comes to fucking people over.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

So, in summary, compared to everyone else to ever have any influence in world affairs, we're total amateurs when it comes to fucking people over.

 

Having less blood on your hands than, say, King Leopold or Stalin is hardly something to be commended for.

 

Listen, I don't disagree that America has done some good in the world. That's undeniable. But to simply brush all the shady shit we've done in Latin America/SE Asia/The Middle East/Africa aside and say, "Well we've done some questionable things in the past, but on the whole we're pretty great!" (which is what it seems like you and smitty are doing) is, I think, somewhat problematic.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don't think I'm doing that, but it may have come off that way. It was intended more as a response to what I saw as XC's portrayal of the US as some sort of megalomaniacal villain. I think if you revisit my posting history, you'll see that I've been a frequent critic of historical and contemporary US foreign policy. I could list wars, interventions, coups, and other various and assorted machinations that I don't like all day.

[BorneAgain 0]

Having a far reaching foriegn policy is one thing, but it doesn't really work when its done with just the short term in mind and blowback (see Iran, Afganistan, Iraq, etc) comes back and bites you in the ass.

 

The Iraqi occupation itself was blown from the very beginning with the gross incompetence of the Coalitional Provisional Authority and the lack of knowlege of Iraqi economy, customs, culture, and religion.

 

I can't help but feel that the window for an interventionist foriegn policy is starting to close, especially in light of the economic crisis. We lack both the money and the international good will to pull it off well.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In fact, my new biggest pet peeve, now that I've finally gotten over Iraq, is the US decision to back the Ethiopian overthrow of the ICU in Somalia in '06.

 

It's quite ironic, I think, that Osama Bin Hidin' recently called for the overthrow of Somalia's new president, who was head of the ICU and was deposed because of, yep, the ICU's purported Islamist "extremism."

[Nightwing 0]

So, in summary, compared to everyone else to ever have any influence in world affairs, we're total amateurs when it comes to fucking people over.

 

Having less blood on your hands than, say, King Leopold or Stalin is hardly something to be commended for.

 

Listen, I don't disagree that America has done some good in the world. That's undeniable. But to simply brush all the shady shit we've done in Latin America/SE Asia/The Middle East/Africa aside and say, "Well we've done some questionable things in the past, but on the whole we're pretty great!" (which is what it seems like you and smitty are doing) is, I think, a little problematic.

 

I don't think they ever said anything like "questionable"; to me, I think they basically admitted the wrong-doing. Our choosing of strongmen solely based on their allegiance to the US is one of our most consistently mistakes (Even the ones that turned out well enough in the end, like South Korea), and none of us are denying that. As much as we've done, I think we've done more good than bad. I'm not brushing past the bad, but I honestly think the US (or at least, many of the people) go out and truly attempt to make other peoples' lives better.

[At Home 0]

I honestly think the US (or at least, many of the people) go out and truly attempt to make other peoples' lives better.

 

I'm pretty busy tonight and just wanted to come and check in here, but don't you think this is a little bit naive?

[BorneAgain 0]

To be fair, there's always been some level of realpolitik to US foriegn policy. We just happened to enact it less severely than other countries did, and in many (but not all) occasions did make some effort to not completely fuck over the people/nation we were intervening with.

[Nightwing 0]

I tried to temper it with "many people", but I do believe that the US's actions are trying to be "win-win" and not "we win, you lose". And I do think that a good portion of the US believes that we need to help other peoples out of duty to them (Hegemon's Burden?). Of course, this isn't always the case, but I think at the heart of things we are trying to be a force of good in the world.

[SuperJerk 0]

So, in summary, compared to everyone else to ever have any influence in world affairs, we're total amateurs when it comes to fucking people over.

 

Having less blood on your hands than, say, King Leopold or Stalin is hardly something to be commended for.

 

Listen, I don't disagree that America has done some good in the world. That's undeniable. But to simply brush all the shady shit we've done in Latin America/SE Asia/The Middle East/Africa aside and say, "Well we've done some questionable things in the past, but on the whole we're pretty great!" (which is what it seems like you and smitty are doing) is, I think, somewhat problematic.

 

I can't deny the bad stuff we've done, either, but the claim that our "record of propping up brutal military juntas is pretty unmatched" is nonsense. Compared to almost every other powerful country that's ever existed, we've been saints. I mean, that is what that statement was doing, wasn't it? Comparing the U.S. to other countries?

[SuperJerk 0]

Double post.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

Christ, you are a one trick pony.

My friend Nightwing privately assured me that he was joking here, not insulting.

 

I disagree that the cliche that we've fucked over everyone

I carefully phrased my sentence to read, "the United States, throughout its history, has probably fucked over every single country on Earth in some way." Simplifying it to "the US has fucked over everyone" changes its meaning to something much less trivial. I'm saying that, given a list of every country, I could probably name at least one way that the US has wronged everyone on the list. I don't care about this point, but it seems like you're attacking a straw man. I don't blame the US for every problem in every country.

 

Secondly, I disagree with the idea that Bush was seeking to somehow destroy tradition and heritage. While his invasion of Iraq was miserably executed and falsely justified, and his foreign policy was far too stand-offish, I'm not sure how Bush was destroying tradition and heritage. It's not like we've been sending masses of Christian missionaries to Iraq, and I don't believe that democracy has destroyed any of the traditions of a state that has only existed since the end of World War I. I mean, what do we do, return them to Turkey?

The phrase "American ideas" means, essentially, "freedom and democracy," according to the rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine. "Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine hold that the hatred for the West and United States in particular, is not because of actions perpetrated by the United States, but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy."^[1] I did not directly say that the aim was to destroy other countries' traditions and heritage intentionally, but I don't think that anyone can deny that Barack Obama is more empathetic toward Islamic and other peoples than neoconservatives are. In the Somalia example, however, it is quite apparent that there was no respect shown for the polycentric political tradition of the Somali people, and the American version of democracy does not work in Somalia. The ousting of Somalia's ICU also showed a lack of respect for the Islamic faith of the Somali people.

 

You're overblowing a poorly executed foreign policy into something more sinister.

I think we do disagree here. I don't see the Bush Administration's interventions as a mere series of failures that meant well. I think that after 11 September 2001 they presented the false dilemma of "you're with us or with the terrorists" and then used it as justification to advance their neoconservative agenda of attempting to destroy governments/organizations that "hate democracy."

 

* 2001: Invaded Afghanistan.

* 2002: Supported Venezuela's coup attempt.^[2]

* 2003: Invaded Iraq.

* 2005: Funded Somali warlords to fight against the ICU.^[3]

* 2006: Joined in Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia.^[4]

* 2006: Provoked Palestinian civil war after Hamas was democratically elected.^[5]

* 2007: Attempted destabilization of Iran's government.^[6]

* 2007: "Washington's foreign policy course is to actively promote the political fragmentation and balkanization of Pakistan as a nation."^[7]

* 2008: Orchestrated civic coup against democratically elected leader in Bolivia.^[8]

 

Is it not incredibly hypocritical and outrageous for a small oligarchy within the United States—while purporting to be spreading God's gift of freedom and democracy—to unilaterally decide the political fates of the peoples of multiple countries, especially when some of those countries have democratically elected leaders?

 

I disagree with the concept of an American "Empire". Hegemony is different than Imperialism, and simply having foreign military bases does not make us an Empire.

I guess when America stopped expanding its physical territory (Manifest Destiny) in favor of focusing on unilaterally installing governments friendly to America around the world (neoconservatism) it ceased to become an empire(?)

 

America was not even that active on an international role until around the turn of the 20th century.

Come on, friend.

 

1. There was that whole 258-years-of-trading-millions-of-African-slaves thing.

2. Before the Spanish-American War, the US conquered the Native Americans, Mexicans, and Hawaiians.

 

American foreign policy also has a lot to be proud of: from its role in stopping German militarism in WWI, fighting fascism, Naziism [sic], and Japanese expansion in WW2 to rebuilding Europe and Japan after that war.

I agree that there are some good things in there, particularly our actions during WWII. (Except for the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans.)

 

XC's portrayal of the US as some sort of megalomaniacal villain.

Nah, megalomaniacal villains have the INTJ personality. America is more of the ENTJ personality: "I'm really sorry that you have to die."

 

Compared to almost every other powerful country that's ever existed, we've been saints.

If I ever wanted to put a poster's hilariously awful statement in my signature, it would be this one.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hey, you didn't have to [sic] me, you can spell the word for the principles and practices of the National Socialist Workers’ party under Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945 both ways, you jerk!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

America was not even that active on an international role until around the turn of the 20th century.

Come on, friend.

 

1. There was that whole 258-years-of-trading-millions-of-African-slaves thing.

2. Before the Spanish-American War, the US conquered the Native Americans, Mexicans, and Hawaiians.

 

The slave trade ended by the early 1800s in the US. I guess American attacks on the Native Americans could be considered acting internationally, but in nothing more than a regional role--same with Mexico. The Hawaiian overthrow and annexation was around the time period I mentioned. But I agree that all those things were bad. I think my point pretty much stands.

[Nightwing 0]

I carefully phrased my sentence to read, "the United States, throughout its history, has probably fucked over every single country on Earth in some way." Simplifying it to "the US has fucked over everyone" changes its meaning to something much less trivial. I'm saying that, given a list of every country, I could probably name at least one way that the US has wronged everyone on the list. I don't care about this point, but it seems like you're attacking a straw man. I don't blame the US for every problem in every country.

 

You're trying to hide behind "particular phrasing", but you still mean exactly that. You made the comment, and you're trying to trivialize it because you got called on it. That's poor form, sir. I don't see much difference in saying "The US has fucked over everyone" and "Well, if we made a list of every country, we could probably name one way the US has fucked them over", and I don't think anyone else does, either.

 

The phrase "American ideas" means, essentially, "freedom and democracy," according to the rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine. "Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine hold that the hatred for the West and United States in particular, is not because of actions perpetrated by the United States, but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy."

 

The Bush Administration does not own the concepts of freedom and democracy. I don't believe that freedom and democracy are inherently incompatible with the vast majority of cultures that we see in the modern world. While it might necessitate modifications that move it away from our own system, I do believe this is the right way.

 

I did not directly say that the aim was to destroy other countries' traditions and heritage intentionally, but I don't think that anyone can deny that Barack Obama is more empathetic toward Islamic and other peoples than neoconservatives are. In the Somalia example, however, it is quite apparent that there was no respect shown for the polycentric political tradition of the Somali people, and the American version of democracy does not work in Somalia. The ousting of Somalia's ICU also showed a lack of respect for the Islamic faith of the Somali people.

 

Okay, I'll agree with this, because I feel it's much more accurate to the real situation. I'd say Obama comes off as more "empathetic" because he's simply willing to actually talk directly to them rather than hurling tough talk across the Atlantic. I'll also agree that the "American" version of democracy might not work in Somalia, but the military leaders in Iraq completely acknowledge that Iraq will likely have a form of "Islamic Democracy" and understand that that's just how it's going to be.

 

I think we do disagree here. I don't see the Bush Administration's interventions as a mere series of failures that meant well. I think that after 11 September 2001 they presented the false dilemma of "you're with us or with the terrorists" and then used it as justification to advance their neoconservative agenda of attempting to destroy governments/organizations that "hate democracy."

 

You don't think they meant well? Don't you think that they thought democracies or Pro-American governments would improve the following places? I'm not arguing they did these out of purely noble motives. I don't think, however, that they get their jollies out of kicking people while they're down. I think they really believe that democracy and good relations with the US will not only bring about better living conditions, but allow for more stability in their regions (which, generally speaking, is a problem with many of these areas).

 

* 2001: Invaded Afghanistan.

 

True, though this is the most justified on the list.

 

* 2002: Supported Venezuela's coup attempt.^[2]

 

Quoting vague allegations does not make it true. Taking that at face value is the same as believing Joe McCarthy really had a list of names.

 

* 2003: Invaded Iraq.

 

I've already expressed my views on this many times before, and I just don't feel like repeating them again.

 

* 2005: Funded Somali warlords to fight against the ICU.^[3]

* 2006: Joined in Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia.^[4]

 

I can't comment, simply because I'm not educated enough on the subject. I will say, however, that I've disagreed with all of the actions (and inaction) the Bush Administration has taken in Africa. At least the stuff I can remember offhand. My hope for the Obama administration is that we can finally form a coherent policy that can help deliver justice and stability that the region desperately needs and deserves. In particular, our indifference towards Darfur is one of the worst policy decisions in recent memory.

 

* 2006: Provoked Palestinian civil war after Hamas was democratically elected.^[5]

 

Vanity Fair is a good source, but I can't find any corroborating article to cross-reference it with; they're the only real news source that seemed to make these specific allegations.

 

And just because you democratically elect someone doesn't mean there are no consequences that come with it. Electing Hamas comes with baggage, considering it's listed as a terrorist organization with many countries. Fatah was inevitably going to come into conflict with them due to their difference in ideology and methodology. Our mistake was that we neutered Fatah so much that the Palestinian people were pretty much driven to Hamas as they had no other options. That is something you can blame the US for.

 

* 2007: Attempted destabilization of Iran's government.^[6]

 

The use of minority parties is certainly not the way to go with Iran. With the liberal movement it's developing, I'd argue we'd have to find a way to inspire and help them change their government from within. But again, I've already stated that I have disagreements with the ham-handed efforts of the Bush Administration. But I don't see them attempting to do this to Iran to create a global empire like you seem to suggest. They see it as a solution to a region plagued with problems. It's simply a poorly thought out solution.

 

I also hope to God that you aren't considering this one of the "democracies" you talk about later on.

 

* 2007: "Washington's foreign policy course is to actively promote the political fragmentation and balkanization of Pakistan as a nation."^[7]

 

... Did you even look at the source for this? Not only that, but a great deal of it is author supposition, not fact.

 

* 2008: Orchestrated civic coup against democratically elected leader in Bolivia.^[8]

 

Again, consider your source. If you got your information from sights that weren't putting tinfoil on their heads, I'd have more to talk to you about. But this is just poor form. You're seriously going to bring Information Clearinghouse up with me?

 

Is it not incredibly hypocritical and outrageous for a small oligarchy within the United States—while purporting to be spreading God's gift of freedom and democracy—to unilaterally decide the political fates of the peoples of multiple countries, especially when some of those countries have democratically elected leaders?

 

*Sigh*

 

You mean the oligarchies of those countries, right? If we are going to talk about that (And tell me how Barack Obama fits into that Oligarchy), any country can have an oligarchy. It all depends on where you want to draw the line.

 

It doesn't help that the vast majority of the sources your using for the above accusations are only accusations and suppositions.

 

I guess when America stopped expanding its physical territory (Manifest Destiny) in favor of focusing on unilaterally installing governments friendly to America around the world (neoconservatism) it ceased to become an empire(?)

 

Apparently America is only concerned with dominating everything it can. Which is why we were incredibly isolationist all the way up until the Cold War, eh? Confusing 8 years of misguided policy with some sort of new "empire building" plan is again trying to put something sinister behind the foreign policy failures of the Bush Administration.

 

Come on, friend.

 

1. There was that whole 258-years-of-trading-millions-of-African-slaves thing.

2. Before the Spanish-American War, the US conquered the Native Americans, Mexicans, and Hawaiians.

 

If you're going to bring up such things, at least cite them with context and correctness.

 

1. The slave trade was historically carried out by Europeans. The institution was introduced by the Spanish and carried out by many others. By 1800, every state had banned the slave trade from Africa. The only reason it wasn't carried out in other parts of the European world was it simply wasn't economically viable like it was in the Americas. Hell, the only reason Mexico banned it was to stop the flow of Southerners immigrating to Texas.

 

2. I can't deny the atrocities that we committed against the Indians, the robbery we committed against Mexico, nor the injustices that we inflicted on the Hawaiians. It'd be foolish of me too. But, as smitty said, these were completely regional and hardly international. They also aren't unique to America; the Mexican-American War is comparable to a great many European wars (Off the top of my head, I'd probably compare them to Prussia's wars against Denmark and Austria), and European attitudes towards natives in Africa are comparable to the worst that we did to the Indians and the Hawaiians. And, depending on the power, perhaps worse (Belgian Congo, for example).

 

None of these actions were considered spectacular for their time. Again, I'm not trying to excuse ourselves, but I feel as though you're singling out America unfairly in this matter.

 

I agree that there are some good things in there, particularly our actions during WWII. (Except for the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans.)

 

Certainly. Though I'd be more critical of MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan (especially the reactionary remaking of the government during the 1950's, which really led to the more conservative Japan we have today), as well as Eisenhower's playing of politics rather than attempting to win the war quickly. I'm not a fan of Patton the person, but he was right on a lot of things. Allowing the Russians to do what they did after the war, along with the partitioning of Germany, was a big mistake.

[SuperJerk 0]

Once again, he wants to put the U.S. on trial and ignore the history of every other world power which have done things far worse and with far more detrimental consequences.

 

Regarding the slave trade, I don't think the United States should be blamed for the policies of the nations which controlled this land prior to the founding of the U.S. in the 1770s. The British and the Spanish Empires were the ones that brought slavery to America, not a government that didn't exist yet. Allowing the slave trade to continue from the 1770s to the early 1800s, and then allowing an internal slave trade until the 1860s are immoral things the U.S. did and allowed, but you can't point a finger at the U.S. for things that were done while were colonies under someone else's control, because that absolves the true culprits. Regarding the Mexican War, it should be noted that Mexico was unfairly compensated for the land they lost in the war, but the land they lost was also stolen from the Native Americans by the Spanish before Mexican independence. Not that it makes what we did right, but Mexico's own claim on the land was dubious as well.

 

I don't want to make this a personal argument (though he already has), but I'm waiting for the post where X.C. blames us for the Holocaust. That's how ridiculous this is becoming.