In order to explain an idea that I believe in, and maybe to foster understanding about the Imperialistic nature of U.S. foreign policy, I've made this very thread. RAWR.

What is the idea of Pax Americana?

Pax Americana is derived from the phrase "Pax Romana", but is more akin to the later "Pax Britannica". All three stand for phases of "peace" in history, where no major wars were taking place in/and between the countries in question. But another similarity is that all three were characterized by smaller wars in easily crushed nations of strategic value, and in the case of Pax Romana, general civil unrest.

Pax Americana, if you believe in this so far, began after the end of World War 2, when America had over half the world's manufacturing and industrial power, along with a almost totally unharmed military and infrastructure in place, and a massive share of the World's wealth, even more than today. From this spawned an era of Imperialism and the idea that we should run the show, along the spreading of American Influence under the guise of "Democracy" through military and economic means that the respective countries had almost no defense against.

For example:

We annexed a large number of Island nations during that period and during World War 2, where we run out simply massive network of Military bases from, and use for furthering the spread of American power.

Along with this, we have propped up Right-Wing dictatorships, as in the case of Haiti, Iraq, the Contras in Nicaragua, and the list could go on and on...

Now, I'll answer any questions you have in more detail.

I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time.

Prooofff!~

Personally, I like imperialism—hell, it gave me my home, until Georgie stopped playing by his own rules and started in with the tyranny. Things only went to hell in Africa and the Mid. East and India (the last of which has only gotten out of his autarkic and socialist policies recently—ironically because of economists who studied in American and British schools and adopted a policy of market liberalism which was SOP for Britannic colonial civilization for. . . well, most of its modern history) after the Great Powers left, I remind everyone.

As a quick example, South Africa's supposed to be this shining beacon of lol african fredumz but it's crime rate is lulzy high, as is its cerebral hemorrhage of Dutch engineers and the rest. The same is true elsewhere on the continent, with varying degrees of severity and corruption, with party, voodoo (OMG AN ALBINO IT'S A MAGIC MAAAAAN let us use his leg in a potion—seriously) and ethnic death squads strewn about for flavor.

Blast wrote:Personally, I like imperialism—hell, it gave me my home, until Georgie stopped playing by his own rules and started in with the tyranny. Things only went to hell in Africa and the Mid. East and India (the last of which has only gotten out of his autarkic and socialist policies recently—ironically because of economists who studied in American and British schools and adopted a policy of market liberalism which was SOP for Britannic colonial civilization for. . . well, most of its modern history) after the Great Powers left, I remind everyone.

Are you being sarcastic or serious? Because that's a huge strech of land! There's also, you know, the mass deaths of the native americans through disease, forced labor and wars from european imperialism of the Americas. Hell, I can't/can barely think of a time when it truly was beneficial and not destructive to the native peoples.

The reason things haven't gone to hell in the non-Africa/ME/India countries is because the locals were to peaceful/inadvanced to fight back with enough force. The natives of other countries, like America
(and possibly austrailia) had their populations reduced beyond repair, and weren't even allowed the supposed benefits of being a member of society, of which they were excluded.

Also, where do you live?

As a quick example, South Africa's supposed to be this shining beacon of lol african fredumz but it's crime rate is lulzy high, as is its cerebral hemorrhage of Dutch engineers and the rest. The same is true elsewhere on the continent, with varying degrees of severity and corruption, with party, voodoo (OMG AN ALBINO IT'S A MAGIC MAAAAAN let us use his leg in a potion—seriously) and ethnic death squads strewn about for flavor.

South Africa and many of the other African countries are significantly messed up due to imperialism in the first place. The European countries set up borders dividing teritories while completly disregarding actualy tribal boundries. The lasting result was forcing several tribes who have experienced hundreds of years of tribal rivalries being forced together in the same area.

Athias wrote:Are you being sarcastic or serious?

Why does everyone think I'm sarcastic? Trust me, you can tell—I make it real easy when I am.

Because that's a huge strech of land!

Wait, what? My home is only like 40 acres.

There's also, you know, the mass deaths of the native americans through disease, forced labor and wars from european imperialism of the Americas. Hell, I can't/can barely think of a time when it truly was beneficial and not destructive to the native peoples.

In a utilitarian and rather calculating sense, it can be argued that it weeded out the weak. Unintended consequences aside—I'd like to see you argue that it was done intentionally without going conspiracy theorist on me—colonists brought the rule of law with them, which was the primary benefit. You hear all the time about how the evil West tempted the Ind—Native Americans with alcohol and corrupted them etc. etc. etc., but you've got to ask...how strong were their convictions to begin with? Knowing enough about edible plants as I do, it's plain that the natives could and did make their own alcohol, which they also got drunk on. And you know, that's just one counterpoint.

The reason things haven't gone to hell in the non-Africa/ME/India countries is because the locals were to peaceful/inadvanced to fight back with enough force.

You know why things were peaceful? Cause things were good under the more liberal conquerers, as opposed to the animist (which are characterized by...well, not caring for or about people, for whatever reason—if you ever get a chance to talk to a missionary who was in Sudan, ask them about how they treat kids from about four on up) or caste-based governments that were there before. The population doesn't rebel when they're treated well—this has been a traditional aspect of conquering since the 6th century BC (Sun Tzu advocates treating captured people with care, so that they can be amalgamated peaceably into their new home, and it works rather well to tell the truth). The British tried to keep the Indians peaceable by force eventually (indicative in their policy of giving the local police rifles one generation behind), but uh...it didn't work at all, once things got beyond the point of "yeh but it's all right guise". :3 It takes far less effort to form a guerrilla force and blow things up than it does to make a regimented army—just ask the Thuggi, or the bluecoats, or the Boers, or the VC, or the contras, or the Tigers, or my improvised explosives and traps books—there are...interesting things that can be done with the simplest of implements and very little knowledge—so the argument that "they couldn't fight back 'cause they just weren't advanced enough!" is just plain hogwash.

The natives of other countries, like America (and possibly austrailia) had their populations reduced beyond repair, and weren't even allowed the supposed benefits of being a member of society, of which they were excluded.

I don't want to sound like James Bradley, who spends something like six chapters of one of his books going into "yeah they were horrible but we were too!", but to be honest, barbarism existed before the Great Powers got to it. I'm not saying I'm defending ethnogenocide, but understand that there have been many ethnicities and societies, unaffected by colonialism, that have been subjugated and brought under in much the same fashion. Let's be clear—I like imperialism, not tyranny. The model colonial state ought to be like British North Borneo (especially this one, where slavery, feuds, piracy and the rest quickly became a thing of the past), or Singapore, or Malaysia in general, where the natives were introduced to a government by the rule of law.

Also, where do you live?

If I pulled any place out of my ass, would it matter?

South Africa and many of the other African countries are significantly messed up due to imperialism in the first place.

That's actually their culture. Colonialism didn't make them murderous or voodoo practitioners. The only exception I will make is Ethiopians, but because they were once a stable Christian kingdom while the rest wasn't...well, you can see where I'm going, I think.

The European countries set up borders dividing teritories while completly disregarding actualy tribal boundries.

Which were as solid as soft cheese, where they even existed as distinguishable boundaries.

The lasting result was forcing several tribes who have experienced hundreds of years of tribal rivalries being forced together in the same area.

They already were "forced" to live in the same area, so the point flops rather hard. With or without borders, people will be neighbors, and some will hate and fight each other regardless of whatever officialdom says "you cannot cross this line".

In a utilitarian and rather calculating sense, it can be argued that it weeded out the weak. Unintended consequences aside—I'd like to see you argue that it was done intentionally without going conspiracy theorist on me—colonists brought the rule of law with them, which was the primary benefit. You hear all the time about how the evil West tempted the Ind—Native Americans with alcohol and corrupted them etc. etc. etc., but you've got to ask...how strong were their convictions to begin with? Knowing enough about edible plants as I do, it's plain that the natives could and did make their own alcohol, which they also got drunk on. And you know, that's just one counterpoint.

Diseases were not intentional, but forced labor and abuse sure as hell were. Also, if a disease is completely foreign to your immune system, it barely matters if you're weak or strong, if you contract it, there's a good chance you're going to die.

Also, we abused tobacco when we first got our hands on it (and still do). They didn't really understand alcohol at that point, and by the time they did, their land was pretty much taken, their rights stripped and their people killed. You would drink to.

You know why things were peaceful? Cause things were good under the more liberal conquerers, as opposed to the animist (which are characterized by...well, not caring for or about people, for whatever reason—if you ever get a chance to talk to a missionary who was in Sudan, ask them about how they treat kids from about four on up) or caste-based governments that were there before. The population doesn't rebel when they're treated well—this has been a traditional aspect of conquering since the 6th century BC (Sun Tzu advocates treating captured people with care, so that they can be amalgamated peaceably into their new home, and it works rather well to tell the truth). The British tried to keep the Indians peaceable by force eventually (indicative in their policy of giving the local police rifles one generation behind), but uh...it didn't work at all, once things got beyond the point of "yeh but it's all right guise". :3 It takes far less effort to form a guerrilla force and blow things up than it does to make a regimented army—just ask the Thuggi, or the bluecoats, or the Boers, or the VC, or the contras, or the Tigers, or my improvised explosives and traps books—there are...interesting things that can be done with the simplest of implements and very little knowledge—so the argument that "they couldn't fight back 'cause they just weren't advanced enough!" is just plain hogwash.

Expect, at the time, people in the Americas and in Australia didn't really have an easy time accessing explosives that didn't even exist.

Also, people were treated poorly, which is why all the African countries fought back, many violently.

I don't want to sound like James Bradley, who spends something like six chapters of one of his books going into "yeah they were horrible but we were too!", but to be honest, barbarism existed before the Great Powers got to it. I'm not saying I'm defending ethnogenocide, but understand that there have been many ethnicities and societies, unaffected by colonialism, that have been subjugated and brought under in much the same fashion. Let's be clear—I like imperialism, not tyranny. The model colonial state ought to be like British North Borneo (especially this one, where slavery, feuds, piracy and the rest quickly became a thing of the past), or Singapore, or Malaysia in general, where the natives were introduced to a government by the rule of law.

Yes barbarism existed before the arrival of the Europeans, the Aztecs killed thousands each year as part of their religion. I'm not denying this. However,the population of the entire continent plummeted soon after the arrival of the Europeans, and not all of it was simply disease. The weakened populations were then put into slavery, and even when they escaped that, they were in the bottom of the group, with no rights whatsoever.

If I pulled any place out of my ass, would it matter?

It wouldn't, I was just curious.

Which were as solid as soft cheese, where they even existed as distinguishable boundaries.

Point being? They didn't even try to understand the tribes or politics of Africa, they simply divided it up amoungst themselves. And while tribal boundries weren't set in stone, they should have at least been heeded, there were boundries because, more often than not, these tribes could not get along.

They already were "forced" to live in the same area, so the point flops rather hard. With or without borders, people will be neighbors, and some will hate and fight each other regardless of whatever officialdom says "you cannot cross this line".

Yes, but when you're forced to live under the same roof as the guy you hate and who hates you, and when you can't find any other house to move to, there are some, shall we say, problems.

I would like to start by saying the Native Americans (though giving a collective name to many many different tribes as disperate as Australia and China in culture is totally stupid) were not some sort of magical, land-loving, perfect humans who are the ideal by which to measure everyone.

No, in fact they were greedy, gluttonous, murdering, over-worked the land, were responsible for a large amount of buffallo killing and in some cases, were cannibals.

However, many tribes were the first to openly except homosexuality and disability. Many had a form of democractic government and equality before Plato's 'Republic' (Seriously, believe it or not) and in some cases they took what they needed and were always careful to replant and recultivate.

But at the end of the day they were, and are, just human beings like anyone else of any nation or culture, and were just as fallible, down-right wrong, selfish and bad as anyone.

However, this does not in any way excuse the clearly intentional mass-forced exodus of their people (see The Trail of Tears for example) which held little regard for life, man woman or child.

It does not in any way excuse the clearly intentional forced political treaties after capitulation in war which gave many tribes land worth little, promises that would never be kept, and unfair and downright indecent theft of their ancestors land (they were not so stupid as to trade for a bead, after many years fighting and trading with settlers they knew the value of our money and our deals, and in any case had already their own form of trade and value, not savages in any way. However they had little choice in the way they were often forced to sign things)

It does not in any way excuse the wanton destruction and ignorance to a delicate and very different eco-system and the almost startlingly negligent and unbelievable disregard of the native tribes own system of agriculture, politics and livestock farming which was tailored to the environment.

It does not in any way excuse the fact that, to this day, 'Native Americans' live on some 90 odd Federally Recognised reservations in North and South America, have little political or human rights, have little chance of work, face heavy discrimination and are bombarded with the same horrible anti-culture that is rotting us all away in Britain, America and other 'Westernised' 'civilisations'.

It does not in any way excuse the fact, that after hundreds of years of violence, spite, hate, trickery and bullying oppression, that the 'Native Americans' are still opressed in a country and a world which claims to have no part in such actions anymore.

It does not in any way excuse the almost complete media black-out to references of the forced reservationism of Native Americans which goes on to this day, and is not the only kind of evil against fellow humans in this world by a long shot.

It does not in any way excuse the fact that the 'Land of the Free' contains the cage of 93 Federally Recognised 'Indian' Tribes. Out of the hundreds of different, interesting cultures that once existed.

And I won't even begin on Apartheid, or slavery, or any other wrong that we've done. And no, its' not just us, yes people have done these things to each other since time began. But frankly nothing quite disgusts me so much as the complete lack of compassion, care or understanding for the rape of the American continent and its indigenous peoples, or the actual wanton de-humanisation and focused hatred that the settlers applied.