|
Zonie63 -> RE: The current middle eastern crisis is Israels fault... (7/31/2014 9:07:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I think we'd probably have to define what exactly we're talking about when we say 'control'; I've a feeling we're not quite talking about the same thing.
In this context, I would say "control" amounts to whichever lawfully recognized government conducts the affairs of a given territory, has its flag flying over that territory, and something that would be clearly visible on any map. For example, the US Virgin Islands or Guam have "(U.S.)" written next to its name on a map. The British Virgin Islands or the Falklands have "(U.K.)" written next to their names, indicating that those territories are under the control of the U.K. It all seems pretty straightforward, honest, and above-board, even if one might question why the US or UK control territories so far away from their homeland.
Now, if you're talking about puppet or proxy governments which entail some kind of secret or unofficial "control" that wouldn't be indicated in the World Almanac nor actually recognized or acknowledged by any government, then that's something different.
quote:
Ultimately, we're still in the age of Imperialism; there are different players in the game but same political manoeuvring, empire building, alliances/pacts. But, the means to the end will differ from nation to nation. The British Empire controlled nations through very few armed forces, but rather through ideas and trade; and the United States does something very similar.
Yes, although my earlier point about the difference between the US and UK empires still stands. Regardless of how much force was used, the British Empire set up colonial governments to rule over territories on multiple continents, raising up their own flag over those territories. The U.S. did some of that, such as with Puerto Rico, Guam - along with the Philippines and Panama Canal which we no longer control. And we did use quite a bit of force, especially on the North American continent and the Philippines. The British also used force in China, India, and Africa, among other places. Because weapons technology was so lopsided in the Europeans' favor back then, no one really required that much force to carve out large territories on other continents. Even tiny Holland and Belgium got large colonies in Indonesia and the Congo. They didn't need that much force either.
quote:
Other nations, for example Germany in years gone by, and Russia today, have a tendency towards brute force.
Different histories, different realities. Once Britain established her Empire, the Germans and Russians found themselves somewhat boxed in, so it's not surprising that they came out fighting.
quote:
If I were you I wouldn't underestimate the power of the United States to influence the world through its culture because while many people from foreign lands will say they don't like Americans, those same people are wearing American clothes and listening to American music and have quite happily been surrounded by one big massive Starbucks.
Yes, I've noticed that. I think world cultures influence each other, just as the United States is an amalgamation of many cultures. I'm not sure if that says anything about our current geopolitical situation, though.
quote:
The United States' foreign policies have only failed if you are an 'isolationist', which I suppose in laymen's terms means you value the sovereignty of other nations.
I consider the term "isolationist" to be a misnomer when applied to the American historical experience. We were never really "isolationist" in the same sense as North Korea or Albania during the Cold War. We still maintained commerce, trade, communication, cultural exchange, diplomatic relations, etc. with other nations - even during periods when we maintained a posture of neutrality in world affairs.
quote:
Otherwise, they've done pretty well considering the other competitor has had their borders pushed back right the way to the Ukraine, which is some achievement when you consider the state of Europe in 1945.
Well, let's consider for a moment how that actually happened. Putting into the context of defining "control," Ukraine and other former Soviet Republics legally seceded from the USSR, as it was their legal right to do so according to the Soviet Constitution at that time. Even the Russian Republic seceded from the Soviet Union, so in that sense, the "other competitor" just disintegrated entirely.
That's the drawback of not actually controlling a territory officially or not exerting enough control. There wasn't really anything that "pushed them back," other than the people in those territories over which they had lost control (or gave up voluntarily). But I wouldn't count them out just yet. They've been competitors for a very long time, long before the U.S. was a twinkle in anyone's eye. The Cold War was a "competition" that didn't have to happen, and it really shouldn't have happened, considering the consequences of bringing the main competitors to the brink.
I also find myself wondering by what standard you would define "doing pretty well," at least in the context of crediting our good fortune as being the result of policies of imperialism, interventionism, and covert rule-by-proxy. I think it could be argued that the U.S. would be doing pretty well with or without those policies, since our size, resource base, population, industries, favorable climate, and large regions of arable land contribute to a comfortable standard of living.
Whatever comparisons one might make about imperialism back then as compared to today, one might argue that there was more of a sense of "need" on the part of the Europeans who sought to build their empires. By "need," I mean that there was a greater sense of urgency because they needed the land and resources which came with controlling other territories. And they didn't want any of the competing powers to grab it either.
In contrast, the United States really had no such "need" in 1945, but somehow, many people thought that we did, as the other "competitor" was actually an abstract political ideology, not some other "empire."
I'm not really an isolationist, but I don't really believe in interventionism or "imperialism," for lack of a better term. I think the Cold War could have been avoided through smart and careful negotiations.
A lot of the turmoil we've seen in the world was due to the power vacuum left by failed empires from the past, which ties in with the topic of this thread and illustrates another major difference between "imperialism" then and now: Weapons. Back in the old days, the true imperialists kept all the weapons for themselves and didn't give them to the Natives. But now, we've been sending all kinds of modern weaponry to nominally "sovereign" governments and/or militant factions - depending on which power they're aligned with. That's where imperialism and "control" can get a bit murky - and if nothing else, it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth considering the amount of violence and bloodshed in many of these territories we strive to control. Judging by the results, there's more chaos than control.
|
|
|
|
