You're viewing a single thread.
"Become a world power"
You know, we've had that experience before, "everywhere else" would pretty much prefer that didn't happen again, thank you very much.
lol yea. I’m an American and fully support other nations boycotting our goods but I’m noticing an overlap with these boycotts and nationalist-imperialist sentiments.
THIS; I feel deranged, not hearing anyone else say they've noticed it.
Weirdly enough, from what I've seen, European nationalists tend to be very much against the EU.
That's not entirely true. Europeans tend to dress up racism as national pride and concern for cultural norms (with a few exceptions). So it isn't so much "I'm proud of my country" as "I don't want Arabs and Africans on my street".
A lot of European countries have a long and detailed history that paints a grim picture that most people like to distance ourselves from.
you're missing Euronationalism as category.
Seriously. Why do people genuinely think this is a good idea? Colonialism and imperialism is bad.
People should have learned after the US's faults, and overreliance of it due to being a world power; but people just want to do it again???
Yes and no. Countries like Russia and China are always going to exist. That means places like the Philippines, Taiwan, Ukraine, and Georgia are always going to need a strong ally if they don't want to be invaded. There are a lot of countries that are going to be very worried now that America has turned heel (Especially Taiwan). Europe has mostly grown out of the need for constant expansion, so having them take on the role of world police wouldn't be the worst thing to happen.
Yeah, i know ☹️ Life's unfair. While the idea of one incredibly powerful union scares me (see what they did in the middle east) the other countries are always going to fuck up the balance.
Yeah the middle east is a giant shit show that's about to get even worse if trump has anything to say about it. But if it were a union of smaller countries like the EU, they'd (hopefully) keep each other in check.
But if it were a union of smaller countries like the EU, they’d (hopefully) keep each other in check.
Since the Romans withdrew circa 450 the European Nations were almost always at war with one another until 1945; nearly 2,000 years of conflict! The peace they've enjoyed post WWII is because they were focused on an external threat (U.S.S.R.) and the United States functioned as a playground monitor.
So historically speaking they will absolutely NOT "keep each other in check".
We have 2 external threats now. Russia and the USA.
While the idea of one incredibly powerful union scares me (see what they did in the middle east)
America's adventurism in the ME was but a blip compared to the literal centuries that the Brits and the French have spent fucking up that area of the world. Does no one study history anymore?
Until the 1st world war most of the middle east was controlled by the ottoman empire.all that fucking up by Britain and France was managed in a couple of decades.
I was talking about the french and british, though?
Uh... How exactly is China historically expansionist? Isn't Europe much, much worse by any metric at basically any point of history you choose?
Annexation of Tibet (1950-1951)
Invasion of Paracel Islands (1974)
Southern Mongolia Annexation (1947-1949)
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute: China claims the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands), which are currently controlled by Japan but also claimed by Taiwan.
PROC claims Taiwan as a province, but Taiwan operates as a de facto independent country.
South China Sea (Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia), PROC claims nearly the entire South China Sea under its "Nine-Dash Line", leading to conflicts with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and others.
India - China claims Arunachal Pradesh as "South Tibet."
But it's important to point out that "China" isn't a country, rather a region. The country people generally refer to when they say "China" is the PROC. If you go back 1000 years there was no "China" country, there was the Ming Empire in the China region. I understand this perspective bothers people, but consider this, if you need to reduce countries to regions then you're going to be bothered for the rest of your life.
Annexation of Tibet (1950-1951)
Southern Mongolia Annexation (1947-1949)
Civil-war era. Calling the liberation of Tibet expansionism is wild.
The rest are basically border conflicts which literally every country in the old continent have.
If you go back 1000 years there was no "China" country, there was the Ming Empire in the China region
You'd be hard-pressed to find a big country with such preservation of language, traditions, culture, architecture and artistic styles, etc. the way China does, idk what's your point
How exactly is China historically expansionist?
Tibet used to be a seperate contry. The Uygurs were a Turkic Khanate to themselves.
Bejing's aim is to homogenise those regions instead of preserving their culture and integrate them further economically to China as a whole, which would have the benefit of improved economic outcomes to both "parties" and maintain arts, culture and liberties of the people there.
Not to mention China making artificial islands around it's coast line to expand it's territory. Boarder clashes with India, territorial disputes with the Philippines, taking over Hong Kong, and ofcourse the constant threatening of taking over Taiwan.
Tibet used to be a seperate contry
300 years ago
and the rest of my post regarding how they're being treated?
As far as I know, they Tibetans still speaking Tibetans and practicing their own religion, unlike Okinawans or ainus in Japan who culture and language got wiped out so clean that they couldn’t even sing their old folk songs in their native languages.
Tibet used to be a seperate contry
Tibet used to be a feudalist dictatorship where 80% of the population were essentially slaves legally bound to the land of landowners.
Bejing's aim is to homogenise those regions instead of preserving their culture
How many official languages are there in your country?
How many official languages are there in your country?
a million billion
Nah, I'm not doing a whataboutism, I'm saying that your white ass doesn't have a remote understanding on what "homogenisation" means. Go to a history museum in China, and in most exhibits they'll have some remarks of the history in different places of modern China, and to the different ethnicities of the country, to the point that it would be categorised as PC-inclusivism in the west. And they don't have a far right party fighting to destroy that :)
You don’t know much about history of China do you?
How does this have anything to do with colonialism?
Have you... studied history?
Is being a super power inherently inclusive with having colonies? I have never heard of that definition before.
People should have learned after the US’s faults
The U.S. huh? That's who you are going to go with during a discussion of European Imperialism and world power? The Euro's were out fucking up the world before the United States existed and a full half of the world is still desperately fucked up from literal centuries of horrifically brutal European Imperialism.
If you need lessons on anti-imperialism you don't need the United States, just take a gander at the Europeans own histories.
? I think you misunderstood me. I know, the british and french have caused way more damage than the US has caused here. By the US's faults specifically, i was talking about it caving into fascism (arguably has been rotting for a long time, just finally shown face) and europeans getting away from it. And since the US is a global power, they overrelied on it. Their solution? Just be their another global power, surely nothing bad will happen.