Calling out hypocrisy is not the same as supporting the alternative. Two things can be wrong at the same time.
To put it in simple terms: Russian Imperial propaganda is bad but American Imperial neoliberal propaganda isn’t any better just because they are at odds.
The whole “stones thrown from glass houses” thing.
As an anti-imperialist, I get that kind of rebuttal A LOT. People cannot stand it when you bring light that all empires of the modern day got to their heights by being the most politically and socially manipulative parasites this world has ever seen.
US, UK, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Russia, China, etc… any and all nations which exert extensive global influence through economic, military, or political power.
Are you just ignorant of how the global north has, for the last centuries, been exploiting the global south? Are you ignorant of neocolonial economic dynamics that Nordic countries exploit to fuel their capitalist social democracy? Are you just ignorant of the fact many African nations still have to pay colonial taxes to France? Just because they stopped officially attributing the label of “empire” to themselves doesn’t mean they stopped being Imperialist nations. They still all heavily benefit from their colonial past, the only thing that changed was the labels and structures to be less direct so they can claim the benefit of the doubt.
US, UK, France, and Spain all currently hold territory they stole from others. They also invented and continue neocolonialism both individually and collectively. I would add the Netherlands to this list of contemporary empires. Portugal still has 2 islands, so they should count as well.
Norway I don’t believe does. Happy to learn more about this if I am wrong though.
I don’t believe Sweden still has an imperial holdings either. Again, happy to learn more.
While the Nordic countries benefit from their relationship to the North Atlantic empire, I am not aware of their direct exploitation of other nations. Again, happy to learn more.
Russia currently has about 20 foreign military bases, so they could be argued to be an empire from some perspectives. I’m open to that. I don’t think it’s at all accurate to say that Russia got those holdings through the same behavior as the above empires.
What do you consider China’s imperial holdings? They have one foreign military base that was created through mutual negotiations with the government of Djibouti. They do not engage in the economic entrapment of neocolonialism. They haven’t dropped a single bomb in over 35 years.
Tibet is certainly a good opportunity to make the argument for China being imperialist. Here’s my take:
Tibet was independent until the early 1700s when its military failed to repel an invasion. At this point, Tibet was no longer independent but occupied.
But more importantly from China’s perspective, it was now a dangerously permeable border with and enemy. China’s decision under the Qing Dynasty was to liberate Tibet but to treat it as a protectorate as a matter of Chinese national security. During this time, Tibet was an autonomous region under the nation security aegis of China, though this afforded Chinese officials varying levels of influence over the internal affairs of the nation.
When the Qing Dynasty fell, the Tibetan military skirmished with Chinese forces, expelled them from Tibet, signed an agreement with China to remove them, and declared independence. And then promptly enslaved 95% of their people in a brutal theocratic feudal society. They were never recognized by the international community as a nation-state, but they did align themselves with the imperialist British.
Meanwhile back in China a movement to liberate peasants became the PLA and the CPC. Through the process of civil war, the PLA and CPC succeeded in securing the country against imperialists and imperialist collaborators.
This movement came under immediate threat from imperialists and the question of secure borders arose again. This time, Tibet was directly aligned with Britain, having signed treaties with them, while the British are actively occupying parts of China and repressing Chinese people and made no ambiguity about their desire to see China back under imperialist rule.
So the PLA invaded Tibet, freed the enslaved population, expelled the theocratic nobility, and restablished Tibet as an autonomous region, with its own Tibetan government, protection for its customs, religion, language, and relationships with the land.
Unlike other imperials colonies, including the entire Western hemisphere and even the island of Taiwan, the Tibetans govern themselves within a system similar to that under the Qing, where the country of China provides military protection and the Tibetan people are afforded significant autonomy as a Republic. In contrast with Taiwan and the entire Western hemisphere, the indigenous people of those lands have been subject to genocide, replacement. Their languages are dying their religions were outlawed their cultural practices or repressed and to this day none have recovered.
So is Tibet an imperial holding of China’s? I think that could be argued but it would appear to be a different type of imperialism than the other or prominent and widespread form that we generally know of as imperialism. Should we use the same word to describe two very different phenomena? That too can be debated.
It is clear that russian propaganda is the best propaganda. pats you on the head
Calling out hypocrisy is not the same as supporting the alternative. Two things can be wrong at the same time.
To put it in simple terms: Russian Imperial propaganda is bad but American Imperial neoliberal propaganda isn’t any better just because they are at odds.
The whole “stones thrown from glass houses” thing.
Correct, you understood my point perfectly.
As an anti-imperialist, I get that kind of rebuttal A LOT. People cannot stand it when you bring light that all empires of the modern day got to their heights by being the most politically and socially manipulative parasites this world has ever seen.
Name today’s empires please
US, UK, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Russia, China, etc… any and all nations which exert extensive global influence through economic, military, or political power.
Are you just ignorant of how the global north has, for the last centuries, been exploiting the global south? Are you ignorant of neocolonial economic dynamics that Nordic countries exploit to fuel their capitalist social democracy? Are you just ignorant of the fact many African nations still have to pay colonial taxes to France? Just because they stopped officially attributing the label of “empire” to themselves doesn’t mean they stopped being Imperialist nations. They still all heavily benefit from their colonial past, the only thing that changed was the labels and structures to be less direct so they can claim the benefit of the doubt.
US, UK, France, and Spain all currently hold territory they stole from others. They also invented and continue neocolonialism both individually and collectively. I would add the Netherlands to this list of contemporary empires. Portugal still has 2 islands, so they should count as well.
Norway I don’t believe does. Happy to learn more about this if I am wrong though.
I don’t believe Sweden still has an imperial holdings either. Again, happy to learn more.
While the Nordic countries benefit from their relationship to the North Atlantic empire, I am not aware of their direct exploitation of other nations. Again, happy to learn more.
Russia currently has about 20 foreign military bases, so they could be argued to be an empire from some perspectives. I’m open to that. I don’t think it’s at all accurate to say that Russia got those holdings through the same behavior as the above empires.
What do you consider China’s imperial holdings? They have one foreign military base that was created through mutual negotiations with the government of Djibouti. They do not engage in the economic entrapment of neocolonialism. They haven’t dropped a single bomb in over 35 years.
Tibet
Tibet is certainly a good opportunity to make the argument for China being imperialist. Here’s my take:
Tibet was independent until the early 1700s when its military failed to repel an invasion. At this point, Tibet was no longer independent but occupied.
But more importantly from China’s perspective, it was now a dangerously permeable border with and enemy. China’s decision under the Qing Dynasty was to liberate Tibet but to treat it as a protectorate as a matter of Chinese national security. During this time, Tibet was an autonomous region under the nation security aegis of China, though this afforded Chinese officials varying levels of influence over the internal affairs of the nation.
When the Qing Dynasty fell, the Tibetan military skirmished with Chinese forces, expelled them from Tibet, signed an agreement with China to remove them, and declared independence. And then promptly enslaved 95% of their people in a brutal theocratic feudal society. They were never recognized by the international community as a nation-state, but they did align themselves with the imperialist British.
Meanwhile back in China a movement to liberate peasants became the PLA and the CPC. Through the process of civil war, the PLA and CPC succeeded in securing the country against imperialists and imperialist collaborators.
This movement came under immediate threat from imperialists and the question of secure borders arose again. This time, Tibet was directly aligned with Britain, having signed treaties with them, while the British are actively occupying parts of China and repressing Chinese people and made no ambiguity about their desire to see China back under imperialist rule.
So the PLA invaded Tibet, freed the enslaved population, expelled the theocratic nobility, and restablished Tibet as an autonomous region, with its own Tibetan government, protection for its customs, religion, language, and relationships with the land.
Unlike other imperials colonies, including the entire Western hemisphere and even the island of Taiwan, the Tibetans govern themselves within a system similar to that under the Qing, where the country of China provides military protection and the Tibetan people are afforded significant autonomy as a Republic. In contrast with Taiwan and the entire Western hemisphere, the indigenous people of those lands have been subject to genocide, replacement. Their languages are dying their religions were outlawed their cultural practices or repressed and to this day none have recovered.
So is Tibet an imperial holding of China’s? I think that could be argued but it would appear to be a different type of imperialism than the other or prominent and widespread form that we generally know of as imperialism. Should we use the same word to describe two very different phenomena? That too can be debated.