We are at a point in our history where the poor who stay here in the US can't really survive except by the public's largesse (through charity or government give-aways).
There are plenty of poorly run countries on the planet. We have people living in horrid squalor elsewhere who could certainly benefit from an infusion of American know-how and capital.
Frankly, we are exporting jobs and harming our own working poor in the process.
So, the question before us is: Should the US embark on a program of expansion?
In another sense, we have this view that we know best how to run a country, right? So, wouldn't EVERYONE benefit from our know-how and excellence in national management?
Maybe rather than colonize, we should simply offer our services in government administration? We send our excess administrative staff overseas and the US government gets a 10% overhead to run the program?
<insert -- where's the tongue-in-cheek graemlin when you need it?>
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Colonize the Moon!
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
The US should stop trying to convince itself and others that it is a passive democracy. The reason all these military campaigns fail is that the US occupies only reluctantly and apologetically. Proclaim the American Empire, and start annexing upstart nations outright. That way there's no ambiguity, and you'll be much more effective.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah, send the 38% who think that Dubya is doin' a fine ol' job to Iraq. That way they can do the job -- by outnumbering the Iraqis if nothing else -- insteada just "rah-rah-rah sis-boom-bah"ing the underpaid&overworked UStroops over there.
What with all their hollering about wanting to establish one in America, I'm sure they'll appreciate living under the religious theocracy that'll end up being established should they fail.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
*shakes head*
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, I know... Giving Dubya supporters what they claim they want would be cruel beyond any liberal's or moderate's capacity. Nonetheless, just thinking about the absurd is kinda fun.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
*patpat*
These disgruntled Democrats are so cute.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Democrats are too right-wing for me to be be a registered party member. I register Republican (and contribute) to influence their primaries leftward. Then if my Republican choice hasn't won the nomination and there is a tight race, I (contribute to and) vote for the Democrat. If the race isn't tight, I throw my (support and) vote to the Green or similar candidate.
[ October 01, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
How perfectly twisted.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
There's a certain irony in the fact that a nation that was formed partially because it didn't want to be part of somebody else's glorious empire has been an empire, in at least one definition, for a large part of its history...
--j_k
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Actually, I find it somehow sad, like a missed opportunity, that a nation that is in a better position to form a wide-reaching empire than any other in history has been so self-conscious and squeamish about asserting itself when it gets right down to it. America is not an empire, it's a missed empire.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
True, digging_holes, but then politics is always very twisty. Problems arise when people lock on to a party as "my side", then vote for "my side" without regard to the qualities of their party's nominee, or how their vote might affect the balance of power.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I must agree with you on at least that point, aspectre.
In fact, I've considered joining the Liberal Party in an attempt to influence them towards the right, but at present my problem is not solely with the Liberal Party's policies, it's with the Party itself. It has grown so corrupt and arrogant from 12 years in power that I couldn't see myself voting for them, even if the candidates were remarkable, until they had had a suitable time out of power to cool their heads.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The problem with an official empire is that the government is then responsible for what happens to the citizens of the empire.
It's easier to be an unofficial empire, and let others take the blame while still exploiting the resources one wants.
Irresponsible, but easier.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Actually, it's much better to be a declared Empire, because then you don't have to worry about what others think, and you don't have to go through the pesky formality of elections and such.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
A continuous (though scheduled) revolution by ballot is a lot less pesky than having random revolutions by bullet.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I bet it's more expensive in the long run, and less interesting for future history books.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Whenever people talk about America in my classes they use the word Empire to describe it.
I've only recently noticed it, too. I think something switched in people's minds and they thought, "what the heck, let's just call it an Empire because it's clearly the most powerful country in the world."
Two Canadian Diplomats who I heard speak on Thursday night used the word Empire to speak about America.
It's a strange feeling. It never occured to me before that in many ways America rules the world, but it does. Being right next door is like being Gaul on the edge of the Roman Empire, only without the actually political ruling aspects. Every other country spends a minute fraction of what America does on the military per capita. Something like 80% of Canada's exports go into America!
O.o
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: Being right next door is like being Gaul on the edge of the Roman Empire, only without the actually political ruling aspects.
In other words, it's almost like an Empire, except that it isn't at all.
quote: Every other country spends a minute fraction of what America does on the military per capita.
This is simply false. Canada spends a minute fraction of what America does on its military. Canada is not every other country. In fact, Canada spends the smallest percentage of it's gross national product on military than any developed country in the world. And while the US has certainly been the most insistant about us increasing defense spending (simply because they're the ones who are most affected by it), they have not been the only ones to give diplomatic slaps on the wrist to Canada for it's military negligence.
quote: Something like 80% of Canada's exports go into America!
Closer to 85%, unless I am very much mistaken.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Less interesting for the history books, digging_holes, but economicly unsound, eg: The AmericanRevolution cost about a quarter of (what would now be called) the GrossDomesticProduct, stopped what had been a fabulous rate of economic growth, and left the States with a crushing debt load which caused a major depression (which in turn forced the ContinentalConfederation to become the UnitedStates). Similarly, the Union could have bought&freed the slaves then have given the newly emancipated citizens their "forty acres and a mule" for a lesser fraction of what it cost the North to fight the CivilWar. Admittedly at this time in the North, conditions were ripe for rapid industrialization, for which the War provided incentive. And due to the new industrial capacity, Northerners ended up so flush in capital that they could invest to such a free extent that the ReconstructionEra brought the greatest period of growth that the South had ever experienced. The South's growth rate tanked after the FederalOccupation ended, and remained slow until the CivilRightsAct was passed -- and more importantly, enforced -- in the 1960s.
Which leads to the correlation that when citizens can vote -- eg the ReconstructionEra and after the CivilRightsAct -- the economy prospers. And when they can't -- eg preCivilWar and JimCrow South -- the economy severely underperforms.
[ October 01, 2005, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I misspoke.
This is the graph I was referring to, not the per capita graph which only has the U.S. at number three.
Now, I know it says to treat the numbers with caution but I think that the little green bars do mean something and do speak for themselves. Also, I think the data of military spending for the U.S. comes from 1999, so I imagine there have been a few changes since.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: It's a strange feeling. It never occured to me before that in many ways America rules the world, but it does. Being right next door is like being Gaul on the edge of the Roman Empire, only without the actually political ruling aspects. Every other country spends a minute fraction of what America does on the military per capita. Something like 80% of Canada's exports go into America!
I wouldn't say that at all. People say no to America all the time when we ask for something, and we don't execute them, we don't invade them (Iraq being the exception to a 230 year old rule). Perhaps you can call them a 21st century FORM of Empire, but they certainly aren't an empire in the sense of the ancient world's empires, or even the more recent Napoleonic Empire.
Second, I'm surprised to hear anything but support coming out of Canada for the US military preparedness. If someone invaded Canada, who do they think would be doing the defending? Our Coast Guard and Air National Guard and Reserve Units have more military power than their entire military armed forces. They could never defend themselves from a serious threat, and we would be there to help them, which is I think something they count on. Seems a little dishonest to call someone an Empire, especially if its meant disparingly, and then pin any hope at all on that Empire helping you in any situation at all.
Further, are you complaining that 80% of Canada's exports go to America? If it helps to fuel your economy, you should be thankful.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
No, I'm not complaining. I'm saying that it shows how much of an economic dependence Canada has on America. That's not a bad thing or a good thing, it just makes Canada very vulnerable to certain aspects of American policy.
And I'm not comparing America to the Roman Empire in terms of rampaging or contol, only in terms of next-door-neighbour power.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It is 100% true that Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, and Australia are more enlightened than almost any other country in the world.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: And I'm not comparing America to the Roman Empire in terms of rampaging or contol, only in terms of next-door-neighbour power.
That's a fairly loose comparison then. During the height of the Empire, Rome's only real neighbors were the Germans to the north, and the Persians to the east, neither of which ever listened to or were influenced by Roman policy, except to fight wars that Rome ended up losing.
I don't think you can compare America to any past empire or kingdom. Too much has changed, outside of direct military power, about what we think of as power and influence in international relations for them to fit together.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
A lot of the Romans' success lied in the fact that they incorporated themselves into other cultures and vice versa rather than taking over more directly. Yes, there were still revolts, but indigenous cultures like the Britons, etc. weren't crushed and obliterated as much as they were subtly taken over and changed to work with the Roman government. Local governmental systems still existed, but they were incorporated into the larger Roman system.
I admit I know very little about American or Canadian politics, but from my general public person's viewpoint, an Empire is similar in many ways to how I view America. Its pop culture is prominent globally to a degree few if any other cultures are, and other countries are dependent on working with the American government to survive economically (ie. the 80% of Canadian exports example), even if they're technically independent. The difference is that I don't think America is trying to take over the world as actively as the Romans were, but I wonder sometimes.
quote: Second, I'm surprised to hear anything but support coming out of Canada for the US military preparedness. If someone invaded Canada, who do they think would be doing the defending?
quote:Seems a little dishonest to call someone an Empire, especially if its meant disparingly, and then pin any hope at all on that Empire helping you in any situation at all.
But...that's what an Empire does. It expands and takes over other places and defends them. And who would invade us? I'm not joking, here. I don't know. Are there threats posed to Canada? If anyone does invade, I assume it will be to claim part of the Northwest Passage, and will America be there to defend our right to that? Is that an American priority? (These are serious questions; I don't know how the whole we'll help the neighbours out deal works when it comes to it).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Okay, forget I said the Roman Empire thing. It wasn't supposed to be a fullproof comparison just great power vs. smaller power.
quote:Second, I'm surprised to hear anything but support coming out of Canada for the US military preparedness. If someone invaded Canada, who do they think would be doing the defending?
I don't feel in danger of invasion. Terrorism, maybe. Economic damage, maybe. Invasion... not really.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Arguably Canada faces no serious threats of invasion right now because of its neighbor. For the time being, there really aren't any First World Western nations facing a threat of invasion from anyone, Astaril.
Do you think that will last?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think that Canada would be invaded even if it was alone in North America.
I'm not saying that in the case of an invasion, if the world was like that, I wouldn't be pleased to have a lot of firepower in my nextdoor neighbour's back yard, but since I don't feel like anyone really wants to invade Canada right now the phenomenal amount of power that the U.S. has makes it the largest most powerful nation in the world. And that, you have to admit, could be somewhat unnerving.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If Canadians voted to close down their government and become Chinese, do you think that the US would just shrug it off?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Er-
Why would we want to do that?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Better food.
Chinese food > Canadian food
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, there is that totally logical option.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, I'm curious, is there such a thing as roast beaver? And have you tried it?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Um... I have never heard of anyone eating beaver. I'm sure it would be stringy. Besides, it would be kind of sacreligious, you know?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why? Do you worship beavers?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, it seems kind of weird that no one eats beaver. Not that I'm advocating eating beavers, but still, people eat gators and snakes, but not beavers?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Why? Do you worship beavers?
Well, they are the national animal and all. They may also be partially endangered.
Perhaps beavers don't taste very good? They always remind me of large rats with flat tails.
quote:Because they breed only once a year, require streamside habitats, and two-year-olds leave home each spring to find their own territories, beavers rarely overpopulate. They are limited to a small fraction of the landscape that is close to waterways. Kits have many predators including hawks, owls and otters. Bears, wolves, dogs and coyotes can also take adults that are especially vulnerable each spring when two-year-olds seek new territories. Accidents are another frequent cause of mortality, including falls into abandoned wells, and traffic accidents. Trapping is the most common source of mortality.
Like many wildlife species, beavers self-regulate by starting to decrease their rate of reproduction when occupancy reaches a certain level. In vast areas without trapping, beaver populations may peak, and then slowly drift down to a sustainable level. By the early 1900s, beavers were almost extirpated from North America due to trapping and draining of lands for agriculture. Estimates of the current population are as low as five percent of those present prior to European settlement. Nonetheless, as beaver reclaim some former territory, conflicts with humans arise.
From here Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Now that you mention it, I do seem to recall beavers not breeding very well in captivity or something.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
For the dining pleasure of "true blue Canucks"...the piece de resistance...includes moose stroganoff and roasted beaver tail."
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
Rakeesh: I really don't know. I know so little about contemporary economics and politics that I don't know of any problems other countries might be likely to develop with us, which is why I had to ask if there were actually any threats to start with. Like I said, I can see some head-butting over the Northwest Passage but I think so few provincial-residing Canadians really notice anything in the territories anyway, that it wouldn't have anything like the effect of the sort of invasion you seem to be talking about. Also, I don't think the countries claiming it are likely to start bombing Toronto or Montreal as part of their effort to win. But what do I know? Besides the fact that moose meat actually kind of tastes like roast beef, if I recall, and that I've only really heard of people eating the bread type kind of beaver tails.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I think that America has already become an Empire, and that we're only currently reluctant to admit it. America has attempted to conquer Cuba several times and not because Cuba offered any sort of economic advantage (other than really good cigars) but because there was a genuine belief that it was the destiny of America to do so.
This same destiny is part of what drove people to move to the west coast, and also prompted our acquisitions in the Pacific during the Imperialist expansion.
Also, (and I don't mean to open another can of worms,) from the Native American's point of view, we've been conquerors from the begining.
Admittedly, I can't think of an instance where America has acquired territory by force (unless you count Texas, but they were technically an independant republic at the time) or when America has colonized another land, unless you count the settling of the west.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, our takeover of the Hawaiian islands was pretty much a land grab. Just because there was a vote doesn't mean it wasn't pretty fishy.
But that's okay, 'cuz now Japan owns it anyway.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And our acquisition of texas, arizona, new mexico, and california, was also pretty much a land grab. Heck, we started the mexican war so polk could buy the southwest.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"People say no to America all the time when we ask for something, and we don't execute them, we don't invade them (Iraq being the exception to a 230 year old rule)." Actually, Lyrhawn, if you had lived in Latin America at any point from about 1869 onward, you might have something different to say about this. The US has had a policy for a very long time that sort of defines them as an Empire. It's called Manifest Destiny, and it's still a live and kicking part of US foreign policy.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
That's funny. I don't remember the US annexing any new territory for some years, now.
Which is precisely the problem. We're bored, we want to see some action. When will you invade Prince Edward Island? They have great potato farms there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
America does have a shady past when it comes to land grabs. The death of millions of Indians is still on our hands in the west. Hawaii was a land grab.
However this:
"America has attempted to conquer Cuba several times"
Is not true. If we had tried in any serious fashion to conquer Cuba, it would be ours. We've tried third party attempts to get a revolution started there, which is serious meddling, but we haven't landed troops there since the Spanish American War, which doesn't really count, not in the sense that we were trying to conquer it.
If you really want to look at an example of American colonization, you'd have to go to the Philippines, and that was brutal. But that was our only real attempt at it.
Amazing we still get blamed for most of the ills in the world, but no one really every points a finger at Western Europe for the troubles in Africa, much of which resulted from their meddling, not to mention the way they carved up the Middle East, that's all our fault too.
Empire acquire land and subdue people through force. Look at all the times we've gone to war in the 20th century, then tell me how much land we acquired as a result of those wars. Now look at other nations of the world who went to war in the 20th century, and how much land they acquired. What you'll find is that western Europe was far more interested in Empire than America ever was.
By what definition of Empire is America?
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
quote:We're bored, we want to see some action. When will you invade Prince Edward Island? They have great potato farms there.
Hey now! You don't want to try that. Islanders are *feisty* little potato farmers. Besides, then where would all the Japanese tourists go? Or would the Anne of Green Gables industry be allowed to stay? Wait. You'd make us into a Green Gables theme park, wouldn't you? The whole Island, one big theme park, and we'd all have to wear red wigs and be nice to children and pretend we were Megan Follows every day while we sell t-shirts and Oh God! NOOOOO!!!!!!
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: "America has tried to conquer Cuba several times."
Is not true. If we had tried in any serious fashion to conquer Cuba, it would be ours. We've tried third party attempts to get a revolution started there, which is serious meddling, but we haven't landed troops there since the Spanish American War, which doesn't really count, not in the sense that we were trying to conquer it
Sorry, I got two seperate wars mixed up in my head. There has been only one attempt on Cuba.
However, I am still curious how our landing in the Spanish American War was not an attempt at conquest. The Cuban rebels at the time were just a small movement that the American Press distorted into a full blown revolution, complete with death camps where cuban revolutionaries were being slaughtered.
First, it seems strange that the American Government should just buy into this propoganda. They didn't, but the war was still fought.
Second, Spain gave into America's demands before any military action was taken. Only afterwards did McKinley ask congress for permission to use force.
My point is not that America actually made a concentrated effort to conquer Cuba, our army was still too devastated and unorganized from the Civil War, but that the Spanish American War was a symptom of Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is what has made America an Empire, in my mind. Yes, it's arguably been about a 130 years since we made any blatant conquests, but the attitude is still there. Think about the phrases "spreading" or "defending democracy", "making the world safe for ect. ect." What are these but thinly veiled excuses to use our military and spread our political influence? It's kind of like the Romans did in their conquests.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Except when Rome conquered they took over body and might. They left those nations with a local government under Roman jurisdiction. Any disagreements with Rome was met with serious consiquences and loss of local power.
When the U.S. "conquered," and that hasn't happened since WWII (we have lost or came to a stalemate since), the U.S. has given it back to the people to govern. True, you could say those nations became a democracy through the actions of the U.S. However, those same nations over the years have defied U.S. expectations and gone against "The U.S. Empire" without any action besides a few harsh words. They could, and to a degree a select few have, become communist and the U.S. wouldn't do anything.
If the U.S. is an Empire, than it is a reluctant and weak form of one. A true Empire has and excertes political and military control outside its own boarders. America only has influence because nations (who claim to hate the U.S. as much as they do) like U.S. culture. They aren't forced into having it. Since you mention "pop-culture" as the ultimate Empire register of U.S. power today, it is more realistic to say that Hollywood is an Empire more than the U.S.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Well, they are the national animal and all.
We eat our national animals.
In fact, there is a quite popular dish called the "Coat of Arms" featuring Kangaroo and Emu.
(For the record - kangaroo is a very nice meat. Emu is not. )
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Please correct the thread title to "should the US(A) colonise", because America is a continent and a physical geographical area can't really colonise.
Now, to the point:
No. no no no. Absolutely not. The US is widely criticised for it believing that it has the best management in the world, and that it is fighting to librate the world into the capitalistic world of democracy, helping the world. Now, I don't know how true or false that stereotype is, but there's something of truth in that sensation. I felt it when Iraq was invaded, I felt it when reading history books, and I feel it now.
I'm not blaming that culture, and I'm not against anyone who preaches without urge that his/her way (religion, governmental system, whatever) is the best and "why". But one thing is for certain: foreign compulsion is not very successful, very unethical and can backfire. If the United States colonises with the reasoning that it is bringing its form of utopian peace to the world (just like Nazi Germany and the USSR did) it will only mean that the nation's driving forces are those of ostentation, pride and self-confidence.
While this is a fine move, the age of colonisation is over. The US cannot "tame" the barbarian lands, and we've seen proof in Iraq, where it has been done the hard way. Also note that one of the things that made the US so dominanat is the decline of the British Empire, which was the focus a century ago. The British Empire failed because it provided the cultural framework and technology for its own noose.
If the US goes to colonise, the first step is to clear the land for settlement. We've seen that fail in Iraq, we've seen that fail in other places too. The Sun has finally set on the British Empire, let's not make that mistake (i.e. India, Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, The United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Uganda, Kenya, Sri Lanka, etc) again.
Would you like another 04/07/1776 to happen? I'm telling you ahead of time - it won't work for long. France in North Africa (1950s), Germany in Europe (1940s), Austria in the Balkans (1900-1914), Russia in the Balkans (1850s), Turkey in the Balkans (1453-1923), Spain in South America (1503-1800s), Spain in the Benelux area (1580-1648), France in Iberia (1808-1814), England in Ireland (1200s-1921), Spain in Portugal (1580-1640), Europe in Africa (1500s-today).
Too many times, too many failures. And that's only off the top of my head. Not worth the hassle.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It seems a little nitpicky to change it from America to USA. So far as I can tell, no one from any other country in north or south America refers to themselves as American, whereas AMERICANS, actually do. No one else even has America in the name of their nation, as the USA does, thus, the nitpickiness seems a little out there.
This is a fun discussion I guess, but I don't even see where the roots of it are. On the scale of evil colonizers of the modern world from industrialized nations, America ranks somewhere near last.
Jonathon Howard, clear land for settlement? Americans don't want to settle in the Middle East, or anywhere else. Part of the stereotypical view of Americans anyway is that they think America is the best, and that everywhere else sucks, so why would they clear land in a foreign crappy nation to go live there, when they could live here?
Besides, I think the best example of settlements causing violent uprising and reaction is Israel/Palestine.
America is fickle about its wars. In World War 2 we could stomach all the blood we had to, because it was a war of vengeance. In Iraq, it was a war of disinformation, and our threshold diminished. It'll be a few decades before another such war could be gotten away with, making this whole argument rather moot.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
So why even have colonisation as an option for the US?
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
America has already colonised most of the western world anyway, if not politically most definitely culturally.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think it IS an option. Not one that most Americans are seriously or even half heartedly considering.
And come on, politically colonized the Western world? What are you on? The Western world says "No" and "Screw you" to America more than any other part of the world except maybe East Asia. You can't even USE colonized in that sense. Pick a random country, Britain, or France, did we invade them, force our cultures down their throats, and then post troops all over the place to suppress anti-American opposition to our culture?
American culture is so prevelant because of economics. Because for the fifty years after World War Two, our economy was in part, the most responsible for driving the world economy, and as a result everyone got twined with America's culture. If you guys want to go back in time and have us return to isolationism then fine, you take the consequences that come with it.
Why does the majority of people in the world act like America is out to intentionally stamp out the cultures of foriegn people? You don't like our culture? Fine. Do what China does and have the state monitor everything to make sure American culture doesn't seep into your lives. Somewhere along the way, parts of American culture were deemed desireable enough to meld with other foreign nation's cultures, and thus it happened.
I guess my post could be summed up in three words: Quit your bitchin'.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Who's bitchin', Lyrhawn? I didn't say the US had politically colonised the Western world, I said it HADN'T, but that it has colonised the Western, indeed virtually the entire, world culturally. That may or may not have been intentional, but nevertheless it's happened. And I made no inference whether I saw that as a good or bad thing, so get off your high horse about "going back in time to isolationism" and the rest of us poor non-Americans suffering by having to put up with our own meagre cultures (which is the inference you're making). I happen to LIKE American culture. Don't be so damn sensitive!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think it's time to find us a new solar system and start terraforming, before Earth-that-is becomes Earth-that-was.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, that isn't the reference I was making at all. My reference is that people chose to take the American culture into their own, so don't complain that it's there. We didn't force it on anyone, which would have been a type of colonization.
And it's hard not to be sensitive, when I rarely ever see anyone talking positively about American culture, and mostly see people lamenting the fact that it's so prevelant.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I'll give you my wholehearted support on the last point. I get sick and tired of hearing people criticise America while grabbing aspects of American culture with both hands.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)