I feel your columns are growing dangerously close to anti-Americanism, which is disappointing. The United States is not an empire, and a direct comparison from the British Empire to the United States is ludicrous.
As for "telling the truth about Queen Elizabeth" she was a constitutional monarch. Whether she supported or opposed the decisions of her prime ministers to accelerate decolonization in the '60s, '70s and '80s is immaterial. Her role was to personify the country she fictionally leads. The monarchy is a fiction, and acting like Elizabeth is somehow responsible for actions which occurred before her birth (which is why your example is the Mau Mau Uprising alone) is ridiculous.
Finally on China: of course we should understand Chinese history. We should understand that China fought several conflicts with Britain (and other powers, including the United States) in the 19th century, and that this humiliated China. We should ALSO remember that China is itself an empire which conquered peoples and spreads as far as it does, not because Han Chinese people 'naturally' lived in all of those places but that for thousands of years China spread from the Yangze Delta to cover much of the territory it does today. Taiwan, to use an important examples as not originally settled by China (and THOSE people are not the ones who made Taiwan an independent state in the 20th century).
History is complicated, and of course we should seek to understand why China wants to do what it does: but China isn't seeking reparations for wrongs committed nearly two centuries ago, they're seeking to build a world where they can, like a tiger, hunt for prey without American interference.
"The United States is not an empire" could perhaps qualify for Delusion of the Year. A state controlling 750 military bases in 80 sovereign states is imperial. You are peddling the same falsehood as that spread about by right-wing historians such as Niall Ferguson. The USA began as an imperial project, a genocidal slaughter of North America's Indigenous peoples. Once the western frontier was closed, the US spread its tentacles around the entire globe, where they remain to this day. Ukraine is an imperialist war, waged by the US under its NATO guise in order to render Russia an imperial vassal.
As for the allegedly fictive nature of the monarch, she has had her grubby fingers in far too many pies for them to be considered invisible. Such as her successful lobbying to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions, as I quote above.
For someone claiming I am delusional, the comment that the Russo-Ukrainian War is "Waged by the US under its NATO guise in order to render Russia an imperial vassal" is quite delusional. The US isn't fighting, nor is any NATO country. The origins of the war frankly has little to do with the US and far more to do with Ukraine's unique relationship to Russia.
As for the 750 military bases in 80 sovereign states, I am not familiar with them all, but by this logic any foreign base is inherently imperialistic. Which is rather ridiculous considering many, if not all, of those bases are established with the consent (and frequently at the request) of the countries they're housed in. Germany is hardly an imperial vassal of the US, if they were they never would have been in bed with Russia in the first place.
"In the words of The Hill, the US has become “brazen” in its intervention in the war. “Over time, the administration has recognized that they can provide larger, more capable, longer-distance, heavier weapons to the Ukrainians and the Russians have not reacted,” former US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor told the newspaper... To refer to the conflict as a “proxy war” is an understatement. The Ukrainian army has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US military, which has armed, funded and trained it to the standards of the US Armed Forces."
Finally finished that article from the WSWS and I must say it’s an endless stream of absurd and ridiculous assertions. The US and NATO don’t want to subjugate Russia. This entire war was chosen by Putin, and Putin alone. The West has consistently told Ukraine to not attack Russia itself and we’ve limited our supplies to reflect that.
The socialists can’t seem to decide whether they must support Putin because he’s anti-American or be neutral because they hate both sides. They seem to have aided with the former thus far. It’s disappointing but unsurprising.
it is possible to criticize the strategy & goals of the national security state and still be a patriot. failing to call out and reprimand elite interests that put our nation in harm's way--that earns the distinction of 'anti-american'.
“The Putin government’s decision to invade Ukraine was a desperate and reactionary response to the intensifying pressure of the US and NATO on Russia. Putin’s strategy, to the extent there was one, was to create the circumstances for a favorable negotiation of terms with the United States and its NATO allies.”
Then their research isn’t good.
I don’t think that’s Peter’s take. His take is basically “we should understand our adversaries” which is well and good as far as it goes. The US understands little about China and we should learn more. But he’s grasping two very different things and picked at best an imperfect event to discuss it. Elizabeth II was a constitutional monarch who is admired and respected for reasons that are entirely unconnected to British imperialism in the 19th century or even decolonization.
This also isn’t about winning or losing. I said my opinion, and if someone has something valuable to add I’d love to read it. I don’t agree with Peter much but that’s exactly why I read him. There’s no point in reading people you agree with except to pat yourself on the back.
Unfortunately your statements defy what everyone outside of the US echo chamber knows. Too bad you are not familiar with the US empire's military reach - please do you research on military spending and invasions and regime change games and outright intervention in other sovereign states and use facts and logic not ideology.
Looks like you're a Russian imperialist apologist. You're so anti-American that you're defending the indefensible, like whitewashing Russia's blatant aggression. Before you spout off, why don't you ask the Ukrainians if they agree with your delusional opinion?
I am not an American and I am not a supporter of every American history. But the evil "American Empire" protects your right to self-hatred and to go around publicly spouting nonsense and even slandering your own country with it's constitution, if you had dared to slander the image of your country as a whole in China, you would have long been gagged and secretly dragged to the police station. I wish you had been born in China and fight for the historical justice of the Dzungars, who had been exterminated by China long ago like a dozens of other nations.
If you are replying to one of my comments (the thread has become difficult to follow) I dispute your allegation. I have not defended the invasion of Ukraine by the reactionary nationalist Putin's military forces of largely working-class men with few other prospects. However, that the USA is imperialist in nature is beyond argument. 750 military bases in 80 countries exist. Are you claiming otherwise?
Legacy, smegacy! The Chinese century of degradation ended in 1949 - when the real Maoist Chinese degradation began ..Mao was ot 70% Google, 30% bad as the party-state avers. He was the greatest mass .murderer in history; apparently, he reveled in this. If it were no for Tiananmen Deng's economic policies, the CCP would have little to show for 73 yrs. of missile. Xi is about to undo all these gains with his hyperauthoritian "reforms". If the West held on to historical misadventures as China does Germany and Japan would be rural Western colonies. China holds on to its grievances for internal propaganda purposes, diverting attention away from China's ongoing failures.IMO, the reason for destroying Taiwan
History has to be looked at in the context of the times with which it occurred. Furthermore , it also has to be balanced against the track record of US support for certain things that Britain did that had US support in the context of the Cold War. I, for one, am sick of these stories saying that we have to apologize for European Empires which happened during an entirely different time and age. Not to mention the US hands are not clean on the subject , as well as the fact that post independence, so many of the former colonies failed miserably.
Why do you imagine so many former colonial states didn't prosper after independence? The context of your question implies that the Indigenous peoples of such states were too stupid and incompetent to govern themselves, and that we in the UK are not still benefiting from our former empire.
Colonisation means settlement and immigration. There were not many British settlers in most of Britain's former non-European territories, so they cannot be called colonies, but rather undivided overseas territories or overseas autonomous regions of the British Empire, idiot.
In fact, unlike the republicanised cultural assimilation education enforced by France or other continental countries, the British administration of their overseas territories was rather loose and autonomous.
To my understanding he is simply pointing out, but in a pointedly specific way (and therein lies “the devil” so it’s important to do that fearlessly) that we haven’t learned from the mistakes of history and that pride and arrogance are not good for just policies that produce peace. As for Ukraine, we didn’t give peace and diplomacy its opportunity to work. Instead we chose the hardest route of “looking strong and decisive” as it boosts ratings and feeds into people’s desire for such narratives, as if nothing else “will work.” Now the consequences are upon us and the worst is yet to come. Do you not see the survival value — for our highest values — of peace??
How quickly you dismiss Churchill resisting Hitler. His voice. His words. Harold Laski, who opposed him , recognized this. You have become a BLAME AMERICA FIRSTER.
He didn’t “dismiss Churchill resisting Hitler.” It’s not inherently dismissive to not mention with every breath “the good things he did,” which are ballyhooed to the skies. He was speaking of Churchill as a human living in a time of blatant “the white man’s burden” condescension to “other/indigenous” people, which involved a great deal of oppression. Acknowledging that oppression is a matter of truth which is sadly not even considered in formulating foreign policy. A “blame America firster” is not such a bad thing as a “never admit our own mistakes-er.” It’s called wisdom. It’s called justice. It leads to peace. But we can’t even admit we manufacture wars because it tends to boost the popularity of the rulers, whoever they may be. I’m sure you’ll love that statement…ah, probably not.
Do I recall correctly that it was Fintan O'Toole who wrote that clown analogy? Also, this sentence should be tattooed on the forehead - okay, would require very small font, so maybe forearm? - of anyone purporting to conduct foreign policy: "[U]nderstanding the national memories that shape an adversary’s view of the world is crucial to crafting wise policy toward it."
"...the Queen was a gracious, dignified woman" writes Mr Beinart. I remain to be convinced. Her "lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy." I'm not sure how that qualifies as gracious and dignified rather than self-serving, secretive and money-grubbing.
The Chinese have the right to exist, but its empire does not. And do you know why? Because the People's Republic of China itself is the legacy of the Qing Empire, a pre-industrial totalitarian empire that seized millions of square kilometres of territory through constant foreign aggression and genocide (the only region that gained independence was Outer Mongolia because the Communist Party needed Soviet support for its creation but no Western "left-wing" parrot blame the Soviet Union for "cutting off" China's Mongolian province). Do you know why there were so many nation states in every part of the old continent and only China was ironclad? Because the entire East Asian world has been the victim of imperialist and colonial aggression by the so-called "Central Empire" for more than two thousand years. The small wars the West fought with China in the 19th century were nothing compared to the skin of thousands of years of Chinese imperialism. The war of Qing Empire's suppressing the Taiping Heaven empire alone was far more bloody and also caused far more death than the 2nd Sino-Japanese war during the WW2. Its policy of re-repression in non-sinizied areas in recent decades is the inevitability of its return to it's historical path of imperialism. If you fail to recognise this grand historical picture and merely parrot the self-serving story like "100years of humiliation" from modern Chinese right-wing nationalists, then you are a retard without an independent brain.
Btw the 2nd Sino-Japan is an imperialist's proxy war, waged by the Soviet under guise of the Communist International in order to destabilize East Asian and render the only independent and self-reliant Asian country Japan an imperial Russia's vassal.
PS: Why are these crabs continuous broadcasting to my email? I never subscribed you.
Very insightful. Years ago I read an article about how most of the present world’s conflicts can be traced back to British policies. It was quite stunning. Refusing to learn from this is inexcusable, and it seems “democracy” and “peace-loving” are more important as rhetorical excuses for aggression than they are actual ideals anyone is trying to achieve. The voice of truth and accepting responsibility for one’s mistakes is seen as a threat to power, whereas it is the only sustainable path to human survival.
How do you even know that? We didn’t even try the diplomatic option with any sort of drive. War is never a solution to anything except in self-defense. But “self-defense” has become ideological now — “fighting for freedom” — so the rhetoric masks the truth.
My local Koreatown has a creation myth. Decades ago when Korean immigrants first started to settle there it was largely an African American part of town. Understandably there was friction between the old residents and the new immigrants. It was finally settled in a massive brawl. A hundred combatants from each side armed themselves with knives, clubs, baseball bats, etc. and met in an empty parking lot. The Koreans emerged victorious in the melee, routed their opponents and were then able to proceed with buying property and creating businesses unhindered.
The level of rancor between minority groups in the United States may surprise some but why? Koreans and blacks share no common bonds of culture or language. There is no shared experience as recent immigrants for them to fall back on and the socioeconomic gap between Asians and blacks in this country is vast. Given all that isn't conflict the more likely outcome? Absent the bonds of culture, or language, or life experience, what's left? Reverence for the flag? Love of country? A commitment to the melting pot?
The 20th century was the great dying of the British Empire. But tribalism never ceases to be relevant--it is baked into human biology. Andrew Sullivan understands this:
"The Crown represents something from the ancient past, a logically indefensible but emotionally salient symbol of something called a nation, something that gives its members meaning and happiness. However shitty the economy, or awful the prime minister, or ugly the discourse, the monarch is able to represent the nation all the time. In a living, breathing, mortal person."
What can the United States offer up in comparison?
Relations between the Asian and black communities in this country are the worst they've been for years. Doesn't seem to be working so far in the new age of disunity.
True. This is something that teenagers who think it's cool to criticise the Queen as a symbol of nation and culture tradition need to learn and recite.
I’m not sure what Peter is suggesting regarding China. Is he a China apologist?
China is a self-serving superpower that has used the West for the last 30+ years for its capital and technology to build itself up, ignoring laws regarding free trade and international patent protections. They have subsidized industries to drive other countries out of business, stolen proprietary secrets while manufacturing, allowed black market knock off products, and more.
And, for a sophisticated country that can land a spacecraft on the dark side of the moon, they are still considered a “developing nation”, and take advantage by ramping up their construction of coal fired plants -- the world be dammed.
Trump had the right idea. They are a manufacturing dependent nation and hitting them back with the same types of tariff protections they use against the world, got their attention. Tightening the noose will lead to more US companies seeking other countries to manufacture goods for them.
I feel your columns are growing dangerously close to anti-Americanism, which is disappointing. The United States is not an empire, and a direct comparison from the British Empire to the United States is ludicrous.
As for "telling the truth about Queen Elizabeth" she was a constitutional monarch. Whether she supported or opposed the decisions of her prime ministers to accelerate decolonization in the '60s, '70s and '80s is immaterial. Her role was to personify the country she fictionally leads. The monarchy is a fiction, and acting like Elizabeth is somehow responsible for actions which occurred before her birth (which is why your example is the Mau Mau Uprising alone) is ridiculous.
Finally on China: of course we should understand Chinese history. We should understand that China fought several conflicts with Britain (and other powers, including the United States) in the 19th century, and that this humiliated China. We should ALSO remember that China is itself an empire which conquered peoples and spreads as far as it does, not because Han Chinese people 'naturally' lived in all of those places but that for thousands of years China spread from the Yangze Delta to cover much of the territory it does today. Taiwan, to use an important examples as not originally settled by China (and THOSE people are not the ones who made Taiwan an independent state in the 20th century).
History is complicated, and of course we should seek to understand why China wants to do what it does: but China isn't seeking reparations for wrongs committed nearly two centuries ago, they're seeking to build a world where they can, like a tiger, hunt for prey without American interference.
"The United States is not an empire" could perhaps qualify for Delusion of the Year. A state controlling 750 military bases in 80 sovereign states is imperial. You are peddling the same falsehood as that spread about by right-wing historians such as Niall Ferguson. The USA began as an imperial project, a genocidal slaughter of North America's Indigenous peoples. Once the western frontier was closed, the US spread its tentacles around the entire globe, where they remain to this day. Ukraine is an imperialist war, waged by the US under its NATO guise in order to render Russia an imperial vassal.
As for the allegedly fictive nature of the monarch, she has had her grubby fingers in far too many pies for them to be considered invisible. Such as her successful lobbying to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions, as I quote above.
For someone claiming I am delusional, the comment that the Russo-Ukrainian War is "Waged by the US under its NATO guise in order to render Russia an imperial vassal" is quite delusional. The US isn't fighting, nor is any NATO country. The origins of the war frankly has little to do with the US and far more to do with Ukraine's unique relationship to Russia.
As for the 750 military bases in 80 sovereign states, I am not familiar with them all, but by this logic any foreign base is inherently imperialistic. Which is rather ridiculous considering many, if not all, of those bases are established with the consent (and frequently at the request) of the countries they're housed in. Germany is hardly an imperial vassal of the US, if they were they never would have been in bed with Russia in the first place.
"The US isn't fighting"... really?
"In the words of The Hill, the US has become “brazen” in its intervention in the war. “Over time, the administration has recognized that they can provide larger, more capable, longer-distance, heavier weapons to the Ukrainians and the Russians have not reacted,” former US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor told the newspaper... To refer to the conflict as a “proxy war” is an understatement. The Ukrainian army has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US military, which has armed, funded and trained it to the standards of the US Armed Forces."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/12/pers-s12.html
Finally finished that article from the WSWS and I must say it’s an endless stream of absurd and ridiculous assertions. The US and NATO don’t want to subjugate Russia. This entire war was chosen by Putin, and Putin alone. The West has consistently told Ukraine to not attack Russia itself and we’ve limited our supplies to reflect that.
The socialists can’t seem to decide whether they must support Putin because he’s anti-American or be neutral because they hate both sides. They seem to have aided with the former thus far. It’s disappointing but unsurprising.
it is possible to criticize the strategy & goals of the national security state and still be a patriot. failing to call out and reprimand elite interests that put our nation in harm's way--that earns the distinction of 'anti-american'.
The logic provided by Rebecca strongly suggests to me that this isn’t about criticizing the security state but is reflexive anti-Americanism
I don’t know who William Taylor is and quite frankly I don’t care. His opinion isn’t gospel
Give up while you can Benjamin, you are reading the gospel according to Peter and Rebecca, and they have done their research.
If their research leads to takes like this:
“The Putin government’s decision to invade Ukraine was a desperate and reactionary response to the intensifying pressure of the US and NATO on Russia. Putin’s strategy, to the extent there was one, was to create the circumstances for a favorable negotiation of terms with the United States and its NATO allies.”
Then their research isn’t good.
I don’t think that’s Peter’s take. His take is basically “we should understand our adversaries” which is well and good as far as it goes. The US understands little about China and we should learn more. But he’s grasping two very different things and picked at best an imperfect event to discuss it. Elizabeth II was a constitutional monarch who is admired and respected for reasons that are entirely unconnected to British imperialism in the 19th century or even decolonization.
This also isn’t about winning or losing. I said my opinion, and if someone has something valuable to add I’d love to read it. I don’t agree with Peter much but that’s exactly why I read him. There’s no point in reading people you agree with except to pat yourself on the back.
Unfortunately your statements defy what everyone outside of the US echo chamber knows. Too bad you are not familiar with the US empire's military reach - please do you research on military spending and invasions and regime change games and outright intervention in other sovereign states and use facts and logic not ideology.
Looks like you're a Russian imperialist apologist. You're so anti-American that you're defending the indefensible, like whitewashing Russia's blatant aggression. Before you spout off, why don't you ask the Ukrainians if they agree with your delusional opinion?
I am not an American and I am not a supporter of every American history. But the evil "American Empire" protects your right to self-hatred and to go around publicly spouting nonsense and even slandering your own country with it's constitution, if you had dared to slander the image of your country as a whole in China, you would have long been gagged and secretly dragged to the police station. I wish you had been born in China and fight for the historical justice of the Dzungars, who had been exterminated by China long ago like a dozens of other nations.
If you are replying to one of my comments (the thread has become difficult to follow) I dispute your allegation. I have not defended the invasion of Ukraine by the reactionary nationalist Putin's military forces of largely working-class men with few other prospects. However, that the USA is imperialist in nature is beyond argument. 750 military bases in 80 countries exist. Are you claiming otherwise?
Excellent comment.
Legacy, smegacy! The Chinese century of degradation ended in 1949 - when the real Maoist Chinese degradation began ..Mao was ot 70% Google, 30% bad as the party-state avers. He was the greatest mass .murderer in history; apparently, he reveled in this. If it were no for Tiananmen Deng's economic policies, the CCP would have little to show for 73 yrs. of missile. Xi is about to undo all these gains with his hyperauthoritian "reforms". If the West held on to historical misadventures as China does Germany and Japan would be rural Western colonies. China holds on to its grievances for internal propaganda purposes, diverting attention away from China's ongoing failures.IMO, the reason for destroying Taiwan
History has to be looked at in the context of the times with which it occurred. Furthermore , it also has to be balanced against the track record of US support for certain things that Britain did that had US support in the context of the Cold War. I, for one, am sick of these stories saying that we have to apologize for European Empires which happened during an entirely different time and age. Not to mention the US hands are not clean on the subject , as well as the fact that post independence, so many of the former colonies failed miserably.
Why do you imagine so many former colonial states didn't prosper after independence? The context of your question implies that the Indigenous peoples of such states were too stupid and incompetent to govern themselves, and that we in the UK are not still benefiting from our former empire.
Colonisation means settlement and immigration. There were not many British settlers in most of Britain's former non-European territories, so they cannot be called colonies, but rather undivided overseas territories or overseas autonomous regions of the British Empire, idiot.
In fact, unlike the republicanised cultural assimilation education enforced by France or other continental countries, the British administration of their overseas territories was rather loose and autonomous.
When you include a personal insult in a comment, do you expect to be taken seriously?
To my understanding he is simply pointing out, but in a pointedly specific way (and therein lies “the devil” so it’s important to do that fearlessly) that we haven’t learned from the mistakes of history and that pride and arrogance are not good for just policies that produce peace. As for Ukraine, we didn’t give peace and diplomacy its opportunity to work. Instead we chose the hardest route of “looking strong and decisive” as it boosts ratings and feeds into people’s desire for such narratives, as if nothing else “will work.” Now the consequences are upon us and the worst is yet to come. Do you not see the survival value — for our highest values — of peace??
How quickly you dismiss Churchill resisting Hitler. His voice. His words. Harold Laski, who opposed him , recognized this. You have become a BLAME AMERICA FIRSTER.
He didn’t “dismiss Churchill resisting Hitler.” It’s not inherently dismissive to not mention with every breath “the good things he did,” which are ballyhooed to the skies. He was speaking of Churchill as a human living in a time of blatant “the white man’s burden” condescension to “other/indigenous” people, which involved a great deal of oppression. Acknowledging that oppression is a matter of truth which is sadly not even considered in formulating foreign policy. A “blame America firster” is not such a bad thing as a “never admit our own mistakes-er.” It’s called wisdom. It’s called justice. It leads to peace. But we can’t even admit we manufacture wars because it tends to boost the popularity of the rulers, whoever they may be. I’m sure you’ll love that statement…ah, probably not.
Do I recall correctly that it was Fintan O'Toole who wrote that clown analogy? Also, this sentence should be tattooed on the forehead - okay, would require very small font, so maybe forearm? - of anyone purporting to conduct foreign policy: "[U]nderstanding the national memories that shape an adversary’s view of the world is crucial to crafting wise policy toward it."
"...the Queen was a gracious, dignified woman" writes Mr Beinart. I remain to be convinced. Her "lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy." I'm not sure how that qualifies as gracious and dignified rather than self-serving, secretive and money-grubbing.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo
The Chinese have the right to exist, but its empire does not. And do you know why? Because the People's Republic of China itself is the legacy of the Qing Empire, a pre-industrial totalitarian empire that seized millions of square kilometres of territory through constant foreign aggression and genocide (the only region that gained independence was Outer Mongolia because the Communist Party needed Soviet support for its creation but no Western "left-wing" parrot blame the Soviet Union for "cutting off" China's Mongolian province). Do you know why there were so many nation states in every part of the old continent and only China was ironclad? Because the entire East Asian world has been the victim of imperialist and colonial aggression by the so-called "Central Empire" for more than two thousand years. The small wars the West fought with China in the 19th century were nothing compared to the skin of thousands of years of Chinese imperialism. The war of Qing Empire's suppressing the Taiping Heaven empire alone was far more bloody and also caused far more death than the 2nd Sino-Japanese war during the WW2. Its policy of re-repression in non-sinizied areas in recent decades is the inevitability of its return to it's historical path of imperialism. If you fail to recognise this grand historical picture and merely parrot the self-serving story like "100years of humiliation" from modern Chinese right-wing nationalists, then you are a retard without an independent brain.
Btw the 2nd Sino-Japan is an imperialist's proxy war, waged by the Soviet under guise of the Communist International in order to destabilize East Asian and render the only independent and self-reliant Asian country Japan an imperial Russia's vassal.
PS: Why are these crabs continuous broadcasting to my email? I never subscribed you.
i have no idea why you subscribed to my newsletter. i don't subscribe people without their knowledge. But by all means unsubscribe.
Arguing people with different opinions and enlighten them with historical truth is good.
Very insightful. Years ago I read an article about how most of the present world’s conflicts can be traced back to British policies. It was quite stunning. Refusing to learn from this is inexcusable, and it seems “democracy” and “peace-loving” are more important as rhetorical excuses for aggression than they are actual ideals anyone is trying to achieve. The voice of truth and accepting responsibility for one’s mistakes is seen as a threat to power, whereas it is the only sustainable path to human survival.
There is a time for everything, and your timing is wrong.
How do you even know that? We didn’t even try the diplomatic option with any sort of drive. War is never a solution to anything except in self-defense. But “self-defense” has become ideological now — “fighting for freedom” — so the rhetoric masks the truth.
My local Koreatown has a creation myth. Decades ago when Korean immigrants first started to settle there it was largely an African American part of town. Understandably there was friction between the old residents and the new immigrants. It was finally settled in a massive brawl. A hundred combatants from each side armed themselves with knives, clubs, baseball bats, etc. and met in an empty parking lot. The Koreans emerged victorious in the melee, routed their opponents and were then able to proceed with buying property and creating businesses unhindered.
The level of rancor between minority groups in the United States may surprise some but why? Koreans and blacks share no common bonds of culture or language. There is no shared experience as recent immigrants for them to fall back on and the socioeconomic gap between Asians and blacks in this country is vast. Given all that isn't conflict the more likely outcome? Absent the bonds of culture, or language, or life experience, what's left? Reverence for the flag? Love of country? A commitment to the melting pot?
The 20th century was the great dying of the British Empire. But tribalism never ceases to be relevant--it is baked into human biology. Andrew Sullivan understands this:
"The Crown represents something from the ancient past, a logically indefensible but emotionally salient symbol of something called a nation, something that gives its members meaning and happiness. However shitty the economy, or awful the prime minister, or ugly the discourse, the monarch is able to represent the nation all the time. In a living, breathing, mortal person."
What can the United States offer up in comparison?
The constitution
Relations between the Asian and black communities in this country are the worst they've been for years. Doesn't seem to be working so far in the new age of disunity.
I don’t think the constitution is going to fix that but it’s the only thing we have that compares to the queen in England
There used to be the "American Dream", simple patriotism, etc.
No doubt.
True. This is something that teenagers who think it's cool to criticise the Queen as a symbol of nation and culture tradition need to learn and recite.
I've always found the statement "the sun never sets on the British Empire" to be pretty disturbing.
Thank you you are speaking for me and you are reflecting an understanding I feel is critical to world peace and the moral health of the United States.
I’m not sure what Peter is suggesting regarding China. Is he a China apologist?
China is a self-serving superpower that has used the West for the last 30+ years for its capital and technology to build itself up, ignoring laws regarding free trade and international patent protections. They have subsidized industries to drive other countries out of business, stolen proprietary secrets while manufacturing, allowed black market knock off products, and more.
And, for a sophisticated country that can land a spacecraft on the dark side of the moon, they are still considered a “developing nation”, and take advantage by ramping up their construction of coal fired plants -- the world be dammed.
Trump had the right idea. They are a manufacturing dependent nation and hitting them back with the same types of tariff protections they use against the world, got their attention. Tightening the noose will lead to more US companies seeking other countries to manufacture goods for them.
What global hegemony you're illusional. the US even don't have the hegemony and dictatorship inside their own house let alone global.