Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SexyOldHobo t1_j2k8k2l wrote

China never had the brutal imperialism that defined western economics the past few centuries, so they have a blank slate. They certainly have their problems, but violence in the recent centuries has been largely domestic, they didn’t have a recent slave trade and certainly weren’t aggressors in WWII. They’ve always been insular


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2kb8u5 wrote

Can we really take them seriously if they haven't ruthlessly pillaged a country for it's natural resources while at the same time turning it's cities into a charnal house? Don't forget to loot the central bank on your way out! Thanks, Iraq!


Rafaeliki t1_j2oeij1 wrote

My Tibetan friend is saying this all the time.


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2oiwrn wrote

He liked it better when the Dalai Lama was running a quasi-feudal allotment of fiefdoms for wealthy local barons, gotcha. Do you also have a friend who was a Cuban casino owner under Batista? Or maybe they owned a brothel?


Rafaeliki t1_j2ojcrg wrote

This is the same argument that colonialism apologists make to defend Western colonialism.

Batista was overthrown by his own people in a revolution. Tibet is occupied by China.

Like, are you a fan of Saddam Hussein or something? Do you think Hussein being a horrible dictator justifies the US invasion of Iraq?


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2ok1lo wrote

Indeed, Western intelligence operators are becoming increasingly adept at weaving the emancipatory language of liberation into their screeds. Fortunately, the immortal science, along with a careful inspection of actual historical precedent, allows us to separate the proverbial wheat from the epistemological chaff.


Rafaeliki t1_j2okuut wrote

That's just a fancy way to say imperialism is fine when China does it.

Emancipatory language never justifies imperialism whether it is the US or China.


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2olzl2 wrote

>That's just a fancy way to say imperialism is fine when China does it.

No it isn't, and if that's what your interpretation is, then you need to buck up on your reading comprehension.

It's saying that we have the history available, and China's imperial footprint has been minimal, almost negligible when compared against the US or nearly any European nation. They've acknowledged their overreach in Vietnam, there's little to accuse them of beyond that. But go off, king.


Rafaeliki t1_j2om9d6 wrote

You just a second ago justified Chinese imperialism in the case of Tibet.


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2orh23 wrote

As I pointed out previously, Tibet as it existed prior to Chinese intervention was far more feudal and impoverished by every measurable metric. Compare that against, oh I don't know, Haiti or maybe Guatemala. The comparison is startling.


Rafaeliki t1_j2ov0vr wrote

You can say that about a lot of colonized nations.


ExquisitExamplE t1_j2oy30x wrote

No you can't. I specifically noted two nations where that's not the case, and there are dozens if not hundreds more.


farrowsharrows t1_j2kdq13 wrote

Turns out that when you read the article this take doesn't really hold up


SexyOldHobo t1_j2kgcbz wrote

Pretty biased study with a narrow scope


Freschledditor t1_j2lukf4 wrote

Narrow??? "30 global survey projects that collectively span 137 countries which represent 97% of world population"???

Face it, you just don't like the truth, so you unconstructively dismiss it.


farrowsharrows t1_j2kgnbr wrote

Yeah so Truman isn't considered a weak leader in history. You are a pretty biased commenter


QuantumInteger t1_j2lolgu wrote

China is most certainly an aggressor state. They got that big by conquering their neighbors over several thousand years. You can ask the Tibetans, the Vietnamese, the Hainanese, Cantonese, or the people living on Formosa before it became Taiwan. China was an imperial power long before Western countries even mastered gunpowder.


malusfacticius t1_j2lwjpa wrote

That’s a wide stretch of definition by which very few (if there are at all) civilizations today can be categorize as “non-imperial”.

Think Korea. About the three little dots on the south of the peninsula they began with. Imperial for them to “grow” big via good ‘ol conquest and assimilation. The Japanese, their relatively recent imperial history and repression on the Ainu aside, didn’t begin with the single-race (Yamato) state we know today - where did the Hayato, Kumaso and Emishi people go? Makes your eyes roll!

You’ll find the world filled with “aggressor states” this way, that either started last year or in the neolithic times. Doesn’t make much sense other than diluting “imperialism” with anthropological whataboutism.


James_Solomon t1_j2nrjf8 wrote

>China never had the brutal imperialism that defined western economics the past few centuries, so they have a blank slate.

The Qing Dynasty would beg to differ.