Also that the Pax Americana was just propaganda. The war in Ukraine is pretty obvious. However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region. Sudan is especially bad(chemical warfare, mass starvation and so forth). The Congo conflict is also flaring up again.
I would not be surprised if things get a lot worse in the near future.
I think that’s their point, that a segment of the left thought pax americana was pure propaganda and it wasn’t. It wasn’t benevolent but for years it did keep global conflict tamped down.
Oh right. I guess I really need to focus on my reading comprehension, its been shit for like two weeks now. This is not the first time in recent times that I have completely misunderstood something.
Or maybe I have finally become as stupid as I always thought I was.
Once an empire has subjugated it’s territory by force, there is often a time of “peace,” enforced through domination and the elimination of any threats to the empire’s authority. Of course, empires rise and fall, so it is inevitable that that peace will end, as the empire retracts to deal with internal problems. This generally leaves the subjugated territories in a position of chaos and instability, as the existing power structures no longer have foreign backing to prop them up.
This is why, even the most moral and well-intended empire (if such a thing could exist) is still problematic on a fundamental, systemic level. I actually made a post about this concept a few years ago. Countries and governments need to be able to stand on their own two feet, backed more by domestic popular support than foreign powers. Of course, there are sometimes pragmatic compromises that have to be made, and no country can be fully isolated from “The Great Game.” But I would hardly consider chaos and conflict coming from the retraction of the US empire as a reason to think that empire was a good thing. To me, it just shows that the geopolitical order has been dependent a single point of failure.
There were far fewer deaths in western Europe in 1941-1943 than in 1944. Does that make the “Pax Nazi-Germanica” a good thing?
When an empire built on exploitation collapses, it is almost always a good thing to remove that empire’s puppets and replace them with representative governments. If those puppets desperately cling to power they no longer have the backing to maintain, then it’s usually a good thing to remove them violently to end their exploitative ways.
Thus an increase of violence during the collapse of an oppressive empire is both natural and probably a good thing in the long term.
Also that the Pax Americana was just propaganda. The war in Ukraine is pretty obvious. However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region. Sudan is especially bad(chemical warfare, mass starvation and so forth). The Congo conflict is also flaring up again.
I would not be surprised if things get a lot worse in the near future.
Doesn’t that sort of support Pax Americana being a real thing? If conflicts get worse when America withdraws?
I think that’s their point, that a segment of the left thought pax americana was pure propaganda and it wasn’t. It wasn’t benevolent but for years it did keep global conflict tamped down.
Oh right. I guess I really need to focus on my reading comprehension, its been shit for like two weeks now. This is not the first time in recent times that I have completely misunderstood something.
Or maybe I have finally become as stupid as I always thought I was.
Bro, like, go easy on yourself. The rest of the world is ready to eat you up. Don’t join them in the feasting.
Hehe no worries. I just enjoy self deprecating humor :D I’m actually pretty happy with myself.
Other than the crippling depression and anxiety issues. (:D)
Oh, well those are a given. If you didn’t have crippling anxiety and depression in 2026, THEN I’d be really concerned.
Glad you’re doing (mostly) well :)
Once an empire has subjugated it’s territory by force, there is often a time of “peace,” enforced through domination and the elimination of any threats to the empire’s authority. Of course, empires rise and fall, so it is inevitable that that peace will end, as the empire retracts to deal with internal problems. This generally leaves the subjugated territories in a position of chaos and instability, as the existing power structures no longer have foreign backing to prop them up.
This is why, even the most moral and well-intended empire (if such a thing could exist) is still problematic on a fundamental, systemic level. I actually made a post about this concept a few years ago. Countries and governments need to be able to stand on their own two feet, backed more by domestic popular support than foreign powers. Of course, there are sometimes pragmatic compromises that have to be made, and no country can be fully isolated from “The Great Game.” But I would hardly consider chaos and conflict coming from the retraction of the US empire as a reason to think that empire was a good thing. To me, it just shows that the geopolitical order has been dependent a single point of failure.
There were far fewer deaths in western Europe in 1941-1943 than in 1944. Does that make the “Pax Nazi-Germanica” a good thing?
When an empire built on exploitation collapses, it is almost always a good thing to remove that empire’s puppets and replace them with representative governments. If those puppets desperately cling to power they no longer have the backing to maintain, then it’s usually a good thing to remove them violently to end their exploitative ways.
Thus an increase of violence during the collapse of an oppressive empire is both natural and probably a good thing in the long term.