I know, I've worked in an American company. My boss's boss was an white American (born and raised in Arizona) and so were some of my colleagues. Almost all of them were very goodhearted guys. But that hardly changes the fact that US government $crewed the world over again and again.Originally Posted by JMA
This might help you in learning some things.
http://www.globescan.com/news_archiv...6-3/index.html
Nothing new or unusual there.
Since when has any nation's foreign policy been based on a search for global popularity?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
1949-1998, (West) Germany.
It came very, very close.
Sweden is another candidate, an certain countries with tourism-based economy (or maybe even recently Qatar and UAE?) come close, too.
Dr. Steven Pinker's research on the relatively peaceful era of Pax Americana
In response to the following (and other comments):
No great power is entirely innocent. Abuse of power is a facet of human nature.
At any rate, a NYT article on Harvard Professor Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature":
Since 1945, we have seen a new phenomenon known as the “long peace”: for 66 years now, the great powers, and developed nations in general, have not fought wars against one another. More recently, since the end of the cold war, a broader “new peace” appears to have taken hold. It is not, of course, an absolute peace, but there has been a decline in all kinds of organized conflicts, including civil wars, genocides, repression and terrorism. Pinker admits that followers of our news media will have particular difficulty in believing this, but as always, he produces statistics to back up his assertions.http://tinyurl.com/3mfpzbpTo readers familiar with the literature in evolutionary psychology and its tendency to denigrate the role reason plays in human behavior, the most striking aspect of Pinker’s account is that the last of his “better angels” is reason. Here he draws on a metaphor I used in my 1981 book “The Expanding Circle.” To indicate that reason can take us to places that we might not expect to reach, I wrote of an “escalator of reason” that can take us to a vantage point from which we see that our own interests are similar to, and from the point of view of the universe do not matter more than, the interests of others.
His argument is complicated, however, and not related entirely to monopolies of violence, international institutions, or American soft/hard power. Instead, he describes an evolutionary process affecting human cultures 'writ large'. Perhaps his theory is a more illuminating way to look at the development of mankind than clashes of culture or East vs. West?
If Dr. Pinker's thesis is correct, this should have implications for American (and other) Foreign Policy and even for our FP elite.
At any rate, Pax Brittanica and Pax Americana are difficult to compare. For example, on the economy of India during the Raj (a complicated topic much outside my areas of expertise), see the following from Amardeep Singh quoting Manmohan Singh:
http://tinyurl.com/8xrgqqpThere is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign.
(Moderator: Should I introduce myself to the Council? I chose not to do so because I am a regular commenter on the SWJ blog).
Not a moderator, but welcome to the dark side.(Moderator: Should I introduce myself to the Council? I chose not to do so because I am a regular commenter on the SWJ blog
I don't think the general increase in peace (yes, the world is more peaceful now than it's been in recorded history, and has been for some time) is necessarily a consequence of a fundamental evolution in human nature, or a consequence of US hegemony. There are a number of more pragmatic factors involved, for example:
Nuclear weapons and mutual assured destruction raised the risks of great power conflict to a hitherto unknown level. That's why the Cold War was fought by proxy: nobody had evolved beyond fighting, the probable consequences of direct conflict had simply become unacceptable.
The dissolution of imperial spheres of trade and the emergence of relatively free trade reduced a major incentive to conflict. Emerging economic players no longer need to conquer territory to gain access to resources and markets.
Commercial interdependence has reduced (not eliminated, but reduced) the incentive to fight.
There are more, of course, but overall I don't think we've become more peaceful as a race. We've just given ourselves fewer good reasons to fight and more good reasons not to.
Last edited by Dayuhan; 11-15-2011 at 04:40 AM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
I never buy into this.
It didn't keep away either World War (and there was a lot of commercial interdependence then already, and a huge rise in it since 1870).
Bear with him Fuchs. He makes this sort of statement all the time.
I did not suggest that the power of commercial interdependence to deter war is in any way absolute: it clearly is not. It is one factor among many. Nobody would say that nations with active trade and commercial interdependence never fight: that would be silly. It's a disincentive, not an absolute bar.
Do you not think, for example, that the potential loss of the US as an export market would be a factor in any calculation China was making that might involve armed conflict with the US? Please note that I do not suggest that this makes such a course impossible, only that it would be a factor in the calculation of cost, risk, and benefit.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan, about the special case: I don't think that a trade relationship in which China exports more than it imports (and gets paper or bits and bytes to make of for the difference) is so indispensable for China as many people in the U.S. appear to think.
The Chinese are moving toward strengthening their domestic consumption/demand. Additionally, most of their economic growth is afaik primarily in their construction sector and other domestic investments, not in export to the U.S..
About the general issue: I've heard and read the reference to economic relations as war inhibitor very often and it looks overstated to me. It's not reliable as you write and probably not even powerful. The public perception of it appears to be overstated, and taking peace for granted is not a wise move.
We gotta work for peace continually, for there's a beast in many if not all of us (at least those with balls), it's pretty primitive and inclined to use force.
The paper, bits and bytes are extremely useful to the Chinese, despite their rather hypothetical nature: they can be passed on to folks in the Middle East and Africa in return for oil, to folks in Australia for iron, etc etc.
A large percentage of their growth at this point is in construction that's increasingly speculative in nature, which is a very big problem for them, though a different issue. While they are strengthening domestic consumption, it has a long, long way to go. They remain very reliant on exports and removal of any major export market would be a real problem for them, especially if it were removed through a conflict that threatened to disrupt trade with other markets as well.
I don't recall saying that it was powerful, reliable, or even quantifiable, only that it exists. I would certainly not advise anyone to take peace for granted.
Agreed. However, we can empirically verify that we have more peace than ever before. That would suggest that we are either working more effectively at keeping peace (though I see little evidence of that) or circumstances have evolved that are more conducive to peace. If the latter, we'd want to keep track of those various circumstances and try to help them keep evolving. Obviously there is no single circumstance that assures peace, but that doesn't mean we can't make efforts to expand and continue evolutionary trends that favor peace, no matter how peripherally, over those that do not.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Welcome aboard, Madhu.
Sadly true, that...Hopefully they'll pay some attention. They tend to self fulfilling prophesizing and a lot of group think.If Dr. Pinker's thesis is correct, this should have implications for American (and other) Foreign Policy and even for our FP elite.
Never said nor implied it.
In what world, Brits were more "evil" than the Gaznavis and Aurangzebs they replaced. The 22% you mentioned, much of it belonged to these rulers and they for certain were not Indians. For the sake of minority votes, Dr. Singh may not want to point this out but a common man wasn't living with the fear of being slaughtered under Brits or a woman wasn't supposed to be raped because she was a Hindu or Sikh.
Americans are definitely lesser of the evils aroundand probably the best hope. Most people, sooner or later will find that it is easier to deal with the Americans than it is to deal with the Chinese.
Yes the Americans squandered the opportunity to do good in the world. With their Presidents Wilson and FDR leading the charge to put the boot into the Brit Empire which led to uncontrolled and often chaotic decolonization.
To their credit many Americans are aware of the fact that the end result is that the world is not a better place despite their belief that they were making it so.
Your broad brush condemnation of them is more painful than most will admit.
So you will be accused of being misinformed, misguided etc ... and it will get worse (so you will need broad shoulders).
The bottom line sadly is that unlike the Brits the Americans are not mature enough as a nation to engage in robust rebate on a subject such as this. Around here you will find they can dish it out but they can't take it (and often the moderators take sides). You need to know where you are headed.
Last edited by JMA; 11-15-2011 at 05:16 AM.
We've been through this before, but at the end of WW2 the Brit Empire was an ex-parrot. it needed no boot to push it into oblivion, nor would anything Americans could have done have held it together.
Is the world not a better place? Better than what? When was it ever better than it is now? I certainly wouldn't say it's better because of Americans or America, but that doesn't mean it isn't better. We are neither scourge nor saviour, just another bunch of generally misinformed blunderers trying to muddle through.
Only to the very isolated and very thin-skinned. We've all heard far worse.
Broad shoulders might be useful. The ability to support one's arguments might be even more so.
Bring it on. I will personally request that the moderators be permissive, which may or may not accomplish anything.
What might be a more interesting robust debate would be to get a bunch of people who think America has done everything wrong (no shortage of them around) together and let them argue over what America should have done. They all seem to have quite different and generally incompatible ideas on that score, and of course they all absolutely know that they are right and the others are wrong.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Nah. He's got some good points...
Not really, most of us knew most of our failings before you or he learned of them. We probably also know of a few neither of you might think of.I doubt he will be so accused. He may not understand a random nuance or two but at least he does not flaunt ignorance.So you will be accused of being misinformed, misguided etc ... and it will get worse (so you will need broad shoulders).Heh, you're priceless -- any Moderator that tells you that you're off base as generally have several other non-Moderator posters already in many threads is taking sides?The bottom line sadly is that unlike the Brits the Americans are not mature enough as a nation to engage in robust rebate on a subject such as this. Around here you will find they can dish it out but they can't take it (and often the moderators take sides). You need to know where you are headed.
Who is it that can't engage in robust debate?
Ken, your disconnect with current reality is growing.Not really, most of us knew most of our failings before you or he learned of them. We probably also know of a few neither of you might think of.I doubt he will be so accused. He may not understand a random nuance or two but at least he does not flaunt ignorance.Heh, you're priceless -- any Moderator that tells you that you're off base as generally have several other non-Moderator posters already in many threads is taking sides?
Who is it that can't engage in robust debate?
The odd brush I have had with moderators have been minor but sadly those moderators have tended to be involved in the discussion themselves and at a given point changed to moderator mode to straighten the "opposition" out. Rule 1 should be that moderators who are personally involved in a particular thread must not act as moderator when it suits them. In true coyboy style I note moderators have a tendency to be trigger happy and too quick on the draw - if you know what I mean. The bias is disgraceful, but then again that is to be expected.
I've yet to see anyone here chastised by a moderator for the substance of their arguments. Those who go all blustery and ad hominem when someone points out flaws in those arguments tend to draw fairly rapid reactions. In my experience you can say pretty much any damned thing you please as long as you say it politely and it's not totally irrelevant to the discussion, which seems a reasonable rule set that should not be too difficult to adjust to.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
I'm sure you will have scored points with the moderators with that comment. Never know when you may need to call in that marker, hey?
Post 82 question;What was the Peshawar Incident?
Ken,
You cited, with my emphasis:I've done some reading on Imperial India and have been to the city. What was the Peshawar Incident?However, in addition to Jallianwala Bagh I think you could add Peshawar and, outside south Asia, several in Burma and Malaya -- without getting into the 1857 battles and aftermath.
The British ruled the city for nearly one hundred years (1849-1947) and I exclude, as you do, the 1857 Indian Mutiny period - when the punishment for mutiny was - well - harsh and vivid:From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshawar...where freedom fighters of the 1857 independence movement were blown from guns
davidbfpo
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks