It Was Never a War. It Was an Invasion and We Are the Empire.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

There is a whole bunch of signifiers used by the UN Human Development Index, including infant mortality, bribery rates, democratic participation, women's rights, and so on.

It can be argued that these are all predicated on a subjective moral relativism based on western values and therefore irrelevant.

But I don't believe that.

**Manchu**

Kilkrazy wrote:It can be argued that these are all predicated on a subjective moral relativism based on western values and therefore irrelevant.

Appropriately enough, that relativistic criticism is often used by governments with absolutist moral/social outlooks.

**Easy E**

So, really it is not "Cultural" superiroity, but economic superiority?

**BrassScorpion**

And the horrors continue to be revealed. "Documents reveal testimony of Marines describing killing civilians on a regular basis."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/21/in_exiting_iraq_us_military_discards

As the U.S. military leaves Iraq, the New York Times has recovered hundreds of pages of documents detailing internal interrogations of U.S. Marines over the 2005 Haditha massacre of Iraqi civilians. The documents — many marked secret — were found among scores of other classified material at a junkyard outside Baghdad as an attendant used them as fuel to cook his dinner. The documents reveal testimony of Marines describing killing civilians on a regular basis. "In some ways, this is one of the most grotesque episodes of the entire war in Iraq and I’m afraid to say this is part of our legacy," says Time magazine contributor Tim McGirk who first broke the story of Haditha in 2006. It was November 19, 2005, when a U.S. military convoy of four vehicles driving through Haditha was hit by a roadside bomb, killing Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. The next night, Marines burst into several homes in the neighborhood, killing 24 Iraqis — including a 76-year-old man, and women and children who were still in their nightclothes when they died. "Nobody is behind bars for this," McGirk notes. Charges from the episode were dropped against six of the accused Marines, one was acquitted, and the final case is set to go to trial next year.

**Manchu**

Easy E wrote:So, really it is not "Cultural" superiroity, but economic superiority?

No, not even close.

**biccat**

Easy E wrote:
Albatross wrote:Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.

How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?

You measure it by metrics that the culturally superior deem to be significant.

Premarital birth rates are not significant. Access to abortion is significant.

Church attendance is not an indicator of cultural superiority. Level of government participation is an indicator.

Fortunately, every country has people who label themselves culturally superior and meet these metrics, so when they get together and determine that these metrics are relevant, there's an international consensus.

Presumably you could get the same level of international consensus on entirely different metrics if you only asked subsistance farmers. But they're not culturally superior, so their opinions don't count.

**Manchu**

biccat wrote:Presumably you could get the same level of international consensus on entirely different metrics if you only asked subsistance farmers. But they're not culturally superior, so their opinions don't count.

You pose it as a sarcastic sneer; to me, it is a self-evident fact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there's this:

Manchu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:It can be argued that these are all predicated on a subjective moral relativism based on western values and therefore irrelevant.
Appropriately enough, that relativistic criticism is often used by governments with absolutist moral/social outlooks.

**Samus_aran115**

albatross wrote:This sums it up perfectly. And it's worth pointing out that I am strongly in favour of imperialism. Though it may be paternalistic (some would even probably, though mistakenly, consider it racist), there are parts of the world that would, without question, be better off being run along American lines, and under American rule. It's just a simple fact. The same was true of Britain in the preceding 300 years. It has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with culture - there are places where corruption and brutality are the order of the day, where starvation, pestilence and civil war blight the lives of millions. It's not evil to want to change that. It's not wrong to create industry, investment and opportunities in places where there was none.

It could work. Americans just have to believe in themselves the way our forefathers did, and embrace their destiny.

You can keep Ke$ha, though. No really, you can. We're fine.

Yup, agree.

**biccat**

Manchu wrote:
biccat wrote:Presumably you could get the same level of international consensus on entirely different metrics if you only asked subsistance farmers. But they're not culturally superior, so their opinions don't count.

You pose it as a sarcastic sneer; to me, it is a self-evident fact.

I understand that. But the logical conclusion of your argument is Pax Americana.

It's easy to make the argument of "cultural superiority" between the slums in Rio de Janeiro and the Upper West Side. It's a lot more of a close call between the slums of Rio and the slums of East St. Louis. Or between the Upper West Side and Kensington.

Also, I'm not sure why the "culturally superior" should have any superior claim to leadership under a system of self determination simply due to cultural differences.

**Manchu**

Again, I don't believe we're dealing with a fine scale. I'm not trying to decide between a Ming vase and a Faberge egg. To use your own example, I truly believe that subsistence farmers are not capable of governing any society beyond their own household (to some extent). To me, the contrary is merely a Maoist fantasy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to self-determination, I think that concept is a bit of a farce.

**Jihadin**

Buy American. Makes the transition smoother

**Manchu**

biccat wrote:I understand that. But the logical conclusion of your argument is Pax Americana.

Yes, I am a confessed American Imperialist.

**biccat**

Manchu wrote:As to self-determination, I think that concept is a bit of a farce.

Yes, I am a confessed American Imperialist.

Fair enough. I disagree, but it's good to know where you're coming from.

**Easy E**

Manchu wrote:
Easy E wrote:So, really it is not "Cultural" superiroity, but economic superiority?
No, not even close.

Then I am confused. You showed a picture of a slum as an example of cultural superiority? Is that culture or economic?

**Manchu**

@Easy E: What do you think culture is?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Manchu wrote:As to self-determination, I think that concept is a bit of a farce.

Yes, I am a confessed American Imperialist.
Fair enough. I disagree, but it's good to know where you're coming from.

Out of sincere curiosity, what about self-determinism strikes you as coherent/practical/ideal/etc?

**biccat**

Manchu wrote:
biccat wrote:
Manchu wrote:As to self-determination, I think that concept is a bit of a farce.

Yes, I am a confessed American Imperialist.
Fair enough. I disagree, but it's good to know where you're coming from.
Out of sincere curiosity, what about self-determinism strikes you as coherent/practical/ideal/etc?

I think people should be free to choose the type of life that they want to live in the environment that they want to live in. This isn't an anarchist ideal where everyone does whatever they want, but rather a macro idea that governments "by the people" are ideal. Democracy is one expression, but it could also be an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

Basically, I reject the idea of any claim of authority that is not based on the consent of the governed; which is usually evidenced by the use of force (either police or military) to suppress dissent.

edit: fixed wording

**CT GAMER**

American citizens are not oppressed and murdered by their own government as a matter of its definitive practice

Up for debate as far as oppression goes...

**Jihadin**

Up for debate as far as oppression goes...

OWS opening here....still have dibs on the water cannon

**Manchu**

biccat wrote:Basically, I reject the idea that any claim of authority that is not based on the consent of the governed, which is usually evidenced by the use of force (either police or military) to suppress dissent.

First, I think that may be an incomplete sentence. Second, I don't think you can simply disclaim anarchism. Third, do you think democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination?

**biccat**

Manchu wrote:
biccat wrote:Basically, I reject the idea of any claim of authority that is not based on the consent of the governed, which is usually evidenced by the use of force (either police or military) to suppress dissent.
First, I think that may be an incomplete sentence. Second, I don't think you can simply disclaim anarchism. Third, do you think democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination?

Hm...You're right. Fixed in the quote.

You're right that anarchy would be a self-deterministic government. I was saying that self determination does not require anarchy.

And yes, I think that democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination. However, I would restate it as the American system of government is reflective of self-determination. We're not really a democracy.

**Easy E**

Manchu wrote:@Easy E: What do you think culture is?

Hey, your the one claiming you can somehow determine one culture is superior to another, not me.

However, I'll take the bait and reach for this definition:
-The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization, or group

So about that slum? Are you saying that the shared values of that community is to create systems that perpetuate slums, and therefore; since our US system does not try to perpetuate slums that we are Culturally superior?

**Manchu**

@Easy E: I had to ask because I suspected, correctly, (but did not want to assume) that you felt culture was something intangible and therefore "subjective" in the sense of being immeasurable. Culture is expressed materially as well as through values; in fact, these are interrelated. A neat row of houses in suburbia implies a very different culture (yes, even in the sense of social values) to the squalor of the pictures I posted.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:And yes, I think that democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination. However, I would restate it as the American system of government is reflective of self-determination. We're not really a democracy.

Can you extrapolate a bit? If not via representative democracy (which I would argue does not really entail self-determinism as practiced) than how is our system self-determinative?

**Albatross**

Easy E wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Easy E wrote:So, really it is not "Cultural" superiroity, but economic superiority?
No, not even close.

Then I am confused. You showed a picture of a slum as an example of cultural superiority? Is that culture or economic?

Culture is the way we make meaning from (and of) our environments via means of lived practice. That's the most succinct way in which I can describe it. It's both the way we do what we do, but also the things we choose to do, or not to do.

Democracy is part of human culture, as is female genital mutilation. So are slums and high-rises, Beethoven and Bieber. Mods and rockers, Hutus and Tutsis.

**biccat**

Manchu wrote:
biccat wrote:And yes, I think that democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination. However, I would restate it as the American system of government is reflective of self-determination. We're not really a democracy.
Can you extrapolate a bit? If not via representative democracy (which I would argue does not really entail self-determinism as practice) than how is our system self-determinative?

We have a system where people agree to live under the decisions made by a majority of our elected representatives and where everyone is free to participate in the government to the extent that they're interested in shaping the laws and policies of the country.

If you're not happy how the system is being run, you're free to campaign to get others to support you, or leave the system entirely for another.

Systems that deny speech critical of the government, organized political opposition to the current form of government, or substantially limit (yes, this is a bit weasely) participation would not meet this standard.

**Jihadin**

think technology plays into cultural superiority theory.

**CT GAMER**

Jihadin wrote:
Up for debate as far as oppression goes...

OWS opening here....still have dibs on the water cannon

Difference is Im not some eighty year old lady who is gonna stand there while you pepper spray me.

Real freedom fighters carry weaponry of their own...

**Manchu**

I daresay a major difference in our viewpoints has to do with the social contract. My own view is that it's a post hoc rationalization and, more currently, a kind of sentimentality but that it does not reflect actual political circumstances.

As for those systems which suppress opposition, I would consider them to be culturally inferior.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:think technology plays into cultural superiority theory.

Absolutely yes.

**Jihadin**

Real freedom fighters carry weaponry of their own...

Show and tell on our privately owned um...arsenal is another thread....but I'ma bit leary on playing that....never kow who might be monitoring looking for...you know

**CT GAMER**

Jihadin wrote:
Real freedom fighters carry weaponry of their own...

Show and tell on our privately owned um...arsenal is another thread....but I'ma bit leary on playing that....never kow who might be monitoring looking for...you know

This thread has taken some amusing turns.

It was claimed just a short ways back that the US is spreading democracy and that other "inferior" places in the world that we invade/occupy/bomb the feth out of deserve it because they don't allow people freedom, etc., etc. and are inferior.

Then the second someone tries to exercise those same rights/freedoms (freedom of speech, right of assembley, demands for justice and equality) and questions this government the first response is a call to break out the water cannons.

So which is it? Freedom of speech and democracy only as long as it supports and blindly obeys the status quo? I don't think that is true freedom or democracy.

Glass houses?

**Jihadin**

Do I own the glass house?