How to start? Go back a couple of centuries. Americans reconciling the American mythology with the actions of the American people/government is one of our unspoken national pastimes going back at least to Manifest Destiny in the 19th century.
But on that note I think "every kind of basic human right" is a bit extreme. We have arguably the strongest free speech protections in the world, people are free to move around as they see fit, we're a pretty great place to start a business as we're a massive single market that speaks the same language with relatively lax regulations and low corruption, our higher education is second to none, and most recently we just allowed gay marriage.
Granted some things need a serious overhaul, but while we get a lot wrong we also get a lot right.
And frankly you'll be hard-pressed to find a government that doesn't try to abuse its people when it's convenient. That just a function of power-hungry people typically being assholes. The difference is the US is the world superpower and we wave the flag a lot, not to mention we're just a massive, diverse country. So our hypocrisy is orders of magnitude greater just by virtue of scale, and then on top of that we're held to a higher standard by everybody else.
If you took the government of, say Norway (or some other government that you feel best respects human rights), gave them the size and diversity of the US, and then scaled them up to World Superpower status and gave them some cultural tweaks to actually be able to maintain that status, I think you'd see just as much hypocrisy.
They also point fingers and lip service democracy globally, while having their bases all around the globe, meddling with sovereign countries abroad, helping topple legitimate governments, and funding / being cozy with all kinds of scum, from Suharto and the Shah, to Pinochet and the saudis (not to mention arming and befriending half of today's militant islamists, including the celebrated in the 80s Taliban).
But that was always their deal: the power plus the hypocrisy and the holier than thou attitude that one affords from being top dog with no one to answer to.
(Of course talking about those in power - the normal people are great, just uninformed about most of those things. Then again, if you live in a huge country with no borders with anybody apart from Canada and Mexico, and with no domestic impact in your life of anything that happens outside (except oil prices), why would anybody care about geography and world affairs?).
The Taliban isn't really the Mujaheddin that America funded in the 80's. After the Taliban took over most of Afghanistan, many former Mujaheddin joined the government, but it's leaders were distinctly not Mujaheddin.
In fact, the CIA contacts from the 80's were reactivated after 9/11 because, for the most part, they were in charge of the Northern Alliance forces that were battling the taliban in the civil war.
I'd rather we didn't have any imperialist world power.
And, besides, neither Putin nor China are that. Whether due to being less power, or from a long history of being non interventional and isolationist, at most, they are concerned with their own national interests, in their own backyard (South China Sea, Ukraine, etc). That is, like any other country.
I don't care what they do within their borders and with their neighbour's that they have disputes with -- that's for them to sort out.
But when a country pushes their army bases in my country, controls local politics, or even goes to fund and arm a dictatorship in my own country from half a world away in the name of "their national interests" (as if they are entitled to have any say on how things are run in a sovereign country half a world away), that I don't like.
I also don't care for world cops, especially if they are trigger happy, and hypocritically push their own interests as some holy crusade.
But that wasn't always the deal. The US up until 1900 was not the top dog.
Yeah, the US has a lot of flaws that need to be reformed, but that doesn't make it any different than any more country in history, it makes it exactly like them.
It's not an American problem, it's a human problem. When we understand that and stop pointing we'll all be better off.
I strongly disagree. The US is the most powerful country EVER in human history. It has the ability to invade and influence any country on the planet. No country in the past really had that ability. When Great Britain rules much of the world, they were no superpower like the US today. There were countless countries in Europe which could all challenge Britain militarily. Back then there was many great powers. Today there is only ONE superpower and that is the US.
What is unique about the US historically is that they have always claimed to be spreading freedom while frequently doing the exact opposite. Of course it is really just a new twist to the old western excuse for invading: we are civilizing your, or: we are bringing christianity to the poor masses.
Since the US is the main power today and it is a democracy, it is VERY important to protest the US and make Americans aware of the role the US plays world politics. Today very few Americans know about the countless abuses, power grabs, and human rights abuses the US has engaged in the last 100 years. Instead all around US schools American school children are served up propaganda about the US being the best, freest and most human country ever in existence.
How can America ever change if it keeps brainwashing its population like this?
At least the Germans owned up to their atrocities.
Your point about great Britian isn't completely correct, no power could have stood against the empire at its peak. France could have given it a go perhaps, and did around 1800 and where beaten (Waterloo! Waterloo! Waterloo!).
The differences you talk about now are, in my opinion, down to advanced weaponry. Where before it was about manpower (and England's vast empire made procurement of such very easy) and sailing (another thing England was pretty damn good at), today it's more about who has the biggest and most advanced guns, bombs and delivery technology. America outspends, America wins.
That being said, I'm reminded of a rather apt poem I read somewhere about the British invasion of Afghanistan in the 1800's, basically saying how despite many pounds of expensive training given to English soldiers, they where shot and killed by a Afghanistan pistol in the mountains that only cost a shilling (If anyone has a reference for that I would be very grateful, I cannot find it anywhere)
It seems that way, but Britain was not all in on that war. The 1770s and 1780s was definitely not a peak time for Britain. The government was having financial problems and military spending was very low. The peak for Britain was later on in the 19th century.
I think Britain could have won that war if they had really wanted to, given enough time and resources, but there was a great reluctance to spend the resources to win it, money in particular.
There was lack of will on the part of the British government combined with a low point in British military funding. The British government (Parliament, the King was a figurehead by this time) was simply unwilling to convert the country to a war footing.
The political leaders kept hoping they could win the war with a low level of military funding and save money, which was in short supply. So the war effort was underfunded and undermanned. In the end, the Whig party (who had been against the war) came to power and negotiated an end to it. Wars are expensive, and the Whigs didn't think this one was worth the expenditure.
Compare that sad performance to the Napoleonic Wars 20 years later. Britain was on full war footing and spending huge quantities of money (going deep into debt in the process) on their military. They were cranking out large numbers of ships and training large armies.
When the War of 1812 broke out, the British were uninterested in fighting it. They were busy with Napoleon at the time, and the American war was a sideshow with few resources devoted to it compared to what was being devoted to Europe. Even then, their vastly improved military and lavish spending resulted in a much better performance than the Revolutionary War.
In the end, once the Americans were tired of fighting, a peace was negotiated. The British were uninterested in keeping that war going any longer than necessary. It was costing them money and they had better fish to fry.
I love reading about the War of 1812. I think it is easily the most avoidable of all U.S. wars.
The U.S. declared war on Great Britain as negotiations to roll back impressment and trade restrictions were finally progressing. Then, after some impressive U.S. victories repelling British invasions (following some impressive British victories), none of the original grievances were addressed in the treaty.
Wouldn't that be the definition of a proxy war? However, even that claim is suspect. The Continental Navy was a joke and had zero effect on the war. The French fought a global naval campaign with the world's largest navy. They also supplied the vast majority of gunpowder, cannons, and muskets used in the initial years of the war, and landed several sizable armies. At any point in the conflict the loss of French aid would have meant instant defeat for the colonists. The French or French allies engaged in more or less continuous warfare for decades both before and after the American Revolutionary War.
It's most accurate to say that the American Revolution was a notable but not decisive campaign in the Second Hundred Years War. Americans blow their participation in the conflict wildly out of proportion -- patriotic textbook revision has produced an epic creation mythology. Panamanian schools seem similarly to omit the role of the US in the creation of that country. It's not just that history is written by the winners, it's that it's continually rewritten by the winners.
And do you know, I had started that reply with a fuller explanation, but reconsidered it as a waste of words. I had thought I had been fairly clear: the Continentals did not do most of the fighting, unless you choose to exclude whole categories of other fighting that went on before, during, and after the war.
You mean after they were totally defeated in WW2? Keep in mind it was the European powers who created modern slavery and carved the world up into colonies, and then started two world wars. Easy to point fingers now that you lack the power.
What is unique about the US historically is that they have always claimed to be spreading freedom while frequently doing the exact opposite. Of course it is really just a new twist to the old western excuse for invading: we are civilizing your, or: we are bringing christianity to the poor masses.
But this isn't unique nor Western. The Persians invaded Greece. The Chinese invaded Tibet. Great Britain at the height of its power was screwing over China and India and that's maybe even more impressive from a power projection standpoint considering just how small England was and how much less technology they had.
I don't believe that you actually think that Americans are somehow different from the rest of humanity. Out of 300 million people there are a lot of Americans who don't agree with everything their country does.
There is good and bad, and to act like the US is some kind of extreme outlier is prejudiced and not honest about history. It was less than 100 years ago that every European power had colonies and it was less than 75 that the Japanese and Germans were murdering other peoples in the service of empire.
Score 40-70M deaths for Mao and 3-60M for Stalin too. The last hundred years were ridiculous.
Unfortunately the world needs a police. The UN isn't effective. So the US takes a lot of heat for meddling in other country's affairs.
I'd personally like to see us move off a lot of bases, but when shit hits the fan and history repeats itself, a lot of the anti-US critics are going to jump on the wagon. Reminds me of Billy Madison - "Man, I'm glad I called that guy!".
Actually it is. You see, pointing out that every man is potentially a murderer doesn't excuse those that are actual murderers. Why is it acceptable to do wrong based on others doing the same? I certainly teach my kids otherwise.
Oh that is branding. I am sure you know enough history to take that cheerleading seriously. Then there is united states the noble protectors of the notion of the free market.
Brand making and propaganda comes and goes. Everyone of influence does what is most convenient and beneficial for them to do and leave the rest to the ad agencies. Every empire brands itself as a golden empire. Its nothing new.
Don't let yourself be fooled. China is not being high-minded or altruistic. The Paris Accord was economically beneficial to the Chinese because it explicitly allowed them to increase emissions, to continue their high growth rate and "catch up" to Western economies. Of course they want to tie the hands of their major economic competitors. And now they also see an opportunity to rehabilitate their public image in the minds of Western liberals, all while they keep throwing political dissidents in jail and oppressing religious minorities. And burning more dirty coal anyway too.
I'm not making an argument for or against the Paris Accord here--it's reasonable to argue that it's only fair to allow developing countries more flexibility under it. But please don't let yourself fall for Chinese propaganda that tries to paint them as altruistic or taking a moral high ground, or most absurdly, as the new "leaders" of the green movement.
OP is impressed by the shift in public perception, not in the causes itself. If America was ever the leader of the green movement, it also had its own sinister roots.
Are you sure about that? I didn't read it at all like that.
But it's easy for China to cheer on the Paris Accord, at least for now. Even though they already produce more emissions per capita than the EU average, they get to increase their emissions without a set limit, while competing European countries axe their emissions in half – and Europe pays China for all this while industry flees into Asia of the ever increasing costs of operation. To me it doesn't sound like a good deal at all with us being in recession for most part of the last decade.
Ah, yes, Trump's crazy theory that global warming was invented by the Chinese to cripple the US economy.
If that was the case, China would be charging ahead with fossil fuels and doing nothing with renewables. But instead it is doing exactly the opposite, canceling hundreds of coal-fired power plants, and installing solar and wind energy at a truly amazing rate. And building up huge industries that will make it hundreds of billions of dollars.
>Ah, yes, Trump's crazy theory that global warming was invented by the Chinese to cripple the US economy.
I'd really rather that you didn't put words in my mouth. And the actual risk and necessary responses to climate change are completely orthogonal to the point I was making.
>I'd really rather that you didn't put words in my mouth.
But you said: "Of course they want to tie the hands of their major economic competitors." How is that any different than Trump's crackpot theory that global climate change was invented by the Chinese to cripple the US economy? And you don't reject the idea climate change is a hoax, you try to duck the issue by saying it is orthogonal.
In an case, the question today is not why China signed the treaty back then, but it is doing now. As I explained, it is charging ahead with renewables. They are doing this because they are worried about global climate change doing damage to their own country, because coal is causing terrible air pollution problems, and because they see an opportunity to establish a major global industry. Your idea that they are doing it only to divert attention from their human rights abuses is completely cracked.
Oh, and if you are going to post a link supporting your position, it really ought to be one that is not hidden behind a paywall.
The fact that the Paris Accord demands deep emissions cuts of Western nations but not of China, and therefore economically benefits China at the expense of the West, has nothing to do with whether anthropogenic climate change is real.
The conventional story starts with climate scientists discovering that human action is causing the climate getting much warmer, and this being very bad for humans. This in turn leads to a need to switch off of fossil fuels and onto renewable energy, which would after a while be cheaper than conventional energy and so cause no economic harm. The conventional story continues that nations around the world were persuaded, and so they have set on this path, and as part of this signed the Paris Treaty. China is included as believing climate change is real and supporting moving to renewables, and since the Paris Treaty was signed has done this at a very rapid rate. It is also doing this, as I said, because it has very serious air pollution problems, and also wants to make a lot of money selling technology for renewable energy.
Trump and his millions of supporters tell a completely different story. They claim the scientists did not discover human activity is making the world warmer, but this is instead a lie they made up for illegitimate reasons. They claim that renewable energy is vastly more expensive than conventional, and will continue to be so for a very long time. They claim that the Chinese government knows all this, but is pretending to believe it so as to undermine the US economy by driving up its energy costs. And they claim that China is itself making only minor efforts to convert over to renewables, and is basically charging ahead as fast as ever to increase fossil fuel use.
Now everything you have said fits into the Trump crackpot story, and so I am assuming you believe the whole thing. You claim I am wrong, but you never present anything contrary. My best guess is this is because you really do agree with Trump, but don't want to admit it. Or maybe you are just plain confused.
If you really do think differently from Trump, then you need to lay out your whole story of what is really going on, from the beginning.
And be sure to make clear what you think Trump is right or wrong about (you do care, I assume, about whether the most powerful man in the world is right or wrong on this most important issue).
I think it's really unfortunate that you're more interested in a witch hunt than in actually engaging in the points raised in the discussion. I don't play on those terms. I see no need to prove to you or anyone else that I pass some litmus test that the direct point I was making is not contingent on.
Explanations of reality are not neatly divided into two camps. One can believe that anthropogenic climate change is a major issue worth addressing with vigor, and also believe that the most recent attempts to reach an international accord to that end are terrible for the long term economic and political interests of the West.
I am not engaged in a witch hunt. I am just asking you what you think on some very important matters.
I assumed that you believe the Trump position because it is one of the two main ones, and everything you said fit with it. If you agree with the Trump position on some points, but disagree on others, you should have made that clear.
You know, you have a whole set of views on this matter. I am quite puzzled as to why you don't want to lay them all out, like everyone else does.
>One can believe that anthropogenic climate change is a major issue worth addressing with vigor, and also believe that the most recent attempts to reach an international accord to that end are terrible for the long term economic and political interests of the West.
Ok, you are starting to state what you believe, but it is quite incomplete. To start, when you say, "worth addressing with vigor" do you think that means the world should be working now to rapidly switch off of fossil fuels and onto renewables? Or do you believe this is a terrible idea because you think renewable energy is far too expensive and will be for a long time, or for some other reason?
And if you believe that we should not now be rapidly moving off of fossil fuels and onto renewables, then what specific actions should be involved in addressing climate change with vigor?
I'm guessing you haven't read the Paris accord, China is still considered a developing country so they not only get to increase carbon emissions, but they get paid by the developed world to do it. Why wouldn't they sign the Paris Accord when they get free money for doing it?
Being anxious is something you can work on. Business secrets are perfectly legal to carry across a border. Not wanting the TSA to look at your shit is something I can understand.
I'd basically tell them to fuck off (in a more diplomatic sense) until it reached the point of being either blocked entirely from traveling or detainment. At that point you gotta ask yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze and turn back or play their game.
Also this is more than just an issue with the Trump administration and the TSA... I don't travel to Canada any longer due to the treatment I have received at the border there.
10 years ago I was working in Canada; couple of friends and I (Australian, British and Québécois) decided to go and ski in Montana for a few days. We had a few beers on the way down and stopped just before customs to drop off open cans before we crossed the border. Being 11pm, we were the only people at the crossing. As we circled round they decided something wasn't right (probably justified although not in their jurisdiction) - 4 hours later we were allowed into the US having been fingerprinted and our car searched on a ramp for what I assume was explosives or drugs.
3 days later we returned to the border travelling the other direction - the CBSA officer looked at the cover of all three different nations' passports before saying "I'm sure there's a visa in there somewhere, have a nice day."
