Analogies can only be carried so far of course but, if you prefer, how about the rapprochement between the USA and Mao's China or the very different attitude of the US to Tito's Yugoslavia and the USSR. China and Yugoslavia had the same unpleasant totalitarian ideology and disregard for pluralistic values (I hesitate to use the word "liberal" which has become politically loaded), same political thuggery but neither (at that point in time) were in a position to engage in global power projection and both shared the US's hostility to the USSR doing so. Hypocritical or pragmatic?
A less chauvinism, racist and homophobic world
- Thread starter QueenMaud
- Start date
Aviennca's Pupil
Banned
@alexmilman
Actually it's more pragmatic to pretend that one side is "good" while the other is "bad" and that what you're doing isn't imperialism. This is because of three things:
1. America is a product of fighting against imperialism disregarding interactions with the Native Americans, South America, etc. thus there is a severe disconnect between America's history and American imperialism
2. Most people's ideologies are full contradictions so many wouldn't mind another ideologically broken worldview if it is compatible with their current worldview and feelings.
3. Imperialism has a very bad name in current times globally and will immediately increase unrest in the Middle East if America outright calls what they're doing imperialism along with worse relations with Europe and the rest of the world. It also gives Russia and China the opportunity to be seen as anti-imperialistic and peace-keepers against an aggressive US despite participating in similar activities.
These three things makes it unlikely that America will ever come out and say that they are conducting imperialism. Such an action would be political suicide.
Actually it's more pragmatic to pretend that one side is "good" while the other is "bad" and that what you're doing isn't imperialism. This is because of three things:
1. America is a product of fighting against imperialism disregarding interactions with the Native Americans, South America, etc. thus there is a severe disconnect between America's history and American imperialism
2. Most people's ideologies are full contradictions so many wouldn't mind another ideologically broken worldview if it is compatible with their current worldview and feelings.
3. Imperialism has a very bad name in current times globally and will immediately increase unrest in the Middle East if America outright calls what they're doing imperialism along with worse relations with Europe and the rest of the world. It also gives Russia and China the opportunity to be seen as anti-imperialistic and peace-keepers against an aggressive US despite participating in similar activities.
These three things makes it unlikely that America will ever come out and say that they are conducting imperialism. Such an action would be political suicide.
I know and I was not talking about the practicality within the existing mindset. But what you are saying is basically the same thing that I was saying: it is mostly a matter of attitude and terminology. Certain buzzwords are supposed to be "bad" and you don't want to be associated with them because you want to stick to the "good" ones. So you have to declare that your political associates are "good" even they don't fit into your fundamental set of the principles (like Saudi or Syrian "democratic opposition"). Taking into an account that such a declaration is in an obvious contradiction with the known facts you just end up looking foolish. And if you are seriously trying to make <whoever> "good" you are ending up with a hopeless task of "building democracies" in the most unsuitable places like Iraq or Afghanistan.
Of course, in a different place the same "good" words can be considered bad. For example, in the former SU the Western democracies were considered "rotten" and it looks like in today's Russia being a "democrat" is not the most popular thing because the word is associated with the disastrous 1990's.
It's that or be accused of collusion....by the party which legitimized the USSR, gave it Eastern Europe, and continually undermined efforts to roll back, preferring to only contain, Soviet influence, while in more recent memory allowing Russian entry into the WTO, and delaying/blocking a nuclear umbrella over Central Europe, despite the illegal incursion into Georgia.
Japan? Edo Japan wasn't homophobic. Neither was Aristotle's Greece. And racism is an ideology invented in the Early Modern era, just disliking foreigners or having a caste system isn't racism.
But Aristotle's Greece was not so Female friendly.
Is racism an Ideology?I see it more as behavior instead of Ideology
Is racism an Ideology?I see it more as behavior instead of Ideology
Admiral Fischer
Banned
The fact that Japan at the time practiced pedophilic homosexuality and allowed male prostitutes does not necessarily means it wasn't 'homophobic'.
Interesting post. I'm not familiar with the events described here - is this a reference to a US political party, or a reference to something else? (Am guessing that's what it means, I'm outside the USA though so not sure)
It's a reference to how the US Democratic Party didn't decide to go to war with the USSR or Russia due to their cowardice. I mean what's a few million lives compared to crushing communism?
Marc
Donor
I thought I would throw in the notion that, broadly speaking, human society is actually getting less violent over time. (Which does, I think, relate to the concept of this thread; violence being an integral dynamic when it comes to what we consider the worst aspects of human society. )
Or so Pinker argues in his book: The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Needless to say, it's a provocative thesis.
Historical Reflections (one of the very best academic journals on history, if you're not familiar with it, very much worth checking if your local university library subscribes), Devoted a recent issue to critiquing Pinker's proposition. My take is that they won points on technical analysis, lost some on structural bias. Still, it's useful to be reminded how tied social constructs are to implied or real violence.
Or so Pinker argues in his book: The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Needless to say, it's a provocative thesis.
Historical Reflections (one of the very best academic journals on history, if you're not familiar with it, very much worth checking if your local university library subscribes), Devoted a recent issue to critiquing Pinker's proposition. My take is that they won points on technical analysis, lost some on structural bias. Still, it's useful to be reminded how tied social constructs are to implied or real violence.
The problem with those examples is that homosexuality was accepted, but only to a point; men attracted to other men still generally took wives. I don't know that homosexuality was valued equally to heterosexuality as it is today in much of the West, particularly with respect to marriages and the like.
It's a rant about the domestic political discourse surrounding contemporary American foreign policy. Getting more into this would be best left for chat.
Err, no, it's more of a commentary on contemporary media/political narratives, given historical realities. Nothing short of war with Russia now would satisfy many of the same people who cheered he 2009 thaw in relations between the U.S. and Russia is my point.
I don't mind the idea of the OP, the actual title makes me cringe even if in most respects it does what a post tile is supposed to do (it is accurate and says more or less what the subject is about)
Ancient Greece wasn't homophobic because homosexuality wasn't even a concept to them. The idea of a man taking another man as an equal life partner (hell, even the concept of marriage or sex as an equal union) would be utterly alien to ancient Greek person.