Why China Won't Rule the World

[Razgovory]

I have found it interesting that the definition of "colonization" proposed by the radical Left has now become so accepted that people here are arguing that it is "surely" true... despite the fact that it does not involve "colonies" at all.

In the world of the less politically-inclined historians, "colonialism" refers to the establishment of colonies (ie subordinate geographic and political entities which may or may not be expected to go off on their own, like Carthage).  National expansion (like "Drang Nach Osten,""manifest destiny" or the current Han efforts in Tibet) is national expansion, and the areas being expanded into are not colonies, but national territory.

To the hard Left, of course, just about any injustice is "colonialism."  The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

I think you lost me here.

[ulmont]

The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Do you have a link or cite for this proposition?

[Malthus]

I have found it interesting that the definition of "colonization" proposed by the radical Left has now become so accepted that people here are arguing that it is "surely" true... despite the fact that it does not involve "colonies" at all.

In the world of the less politically-inclined historians, "colonialism" refers to the establishment of colonies (ie subordinate geographic and political entities which may or may not be expected to go off on their own, like Carthage).  National expansion (like "Drang Nach Osten,""manifest destiny" or the current Han efforts in Tibet) is national expansion, and the areas being expanded into are not colonies, but national territory.

To the hard Left, of course, just about any injustice is "colonialism."  The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

The purpose of the comparison is essentially perjorative. The reason to bring up "colonialism" at all is the assumption that "colonialism" is morally "bad". The reason "colonialism" is morally "bad" is not that it is a system whereby a metropolitan sets up a subordinate entity known as a "colony", but rather because in so doing the "colonizer" is generally subordinating or dispossessing some existing persons. It is this process of subordinating or dispossessing that creates the moral "bad-ness" or injustice of "colonialism".

A national group engaging in some form of "Drang Nach Osten" is generally speaking indulging in exactly the same "bad-ness" of dispossessing or subordinating existing groups - they simply are not travelling to some geographically remote location to do so.

Thus, if someone was to say "China never engages in the evils of colonialism - only those nasty Europeans and Americans are that vicious", while what they are saying is true in one sense - China does not, in fact, set up geographically remote colonies - it is obviously and blatantly untrue in another, in that the premise on which the statement is based (that "colonialism" is morally wrong) is based on behaviour that China is in point of fact engaging in with enthusiasm on its borders.

In summary, such a statement is a sort of bait-and-switch in which the whole point is to emphasize a distinction quite irrelevant for the moral analysis being performed - the geographical remoteness of a "colony" from the "metropolitan power" - in favour of deliberately obscuring the relevant similarity - that in both cases, the reason for complaint is the suppression of the locals. 

[Lettow77]

I want the West to do well.  I want China to do well.  I want Russia to do well.  I want the Islamic world to do well.  I want India to do well.  I don't see the contradiction here.

Really, Queequeg? India is practically the West, and is one of our bastions on that continent. But Islam and China are rival civilisations; their advances must neccesarily be our reverses. Western civilisation has the potential to dominate the entire world, and it should.

Russia I am loathe to call a 'civilisation', just a band of perpetually treacherous thugs. If they stand for anything, it is naked opportunism and brutality. They are a villain on the world stage, and must be contained.

[Admiral Yi]

Really, Queequeg? India is practically the West, and is one of our bastions on that continent. But Islam and China are rival civilisations; their advances must neccesarily be our reverses. Western civilisation has the potential to dominate the entire world, and it should.

Russia I am loathe to call a 'civilisation', just a band of perpetually treacherous thugs. If they stand for anything, it is naked opportunism and brutality. They are a villain on the world stage, and must be contained.

China's goal is to get richer.  That is not a zero sum game.

[grumbler]

The purpose of the comparison is essentially perjorative. The reason to bring up "colonialism" at all is the assumption that "colonialism" is morally "bad". The reason "colonialism" is morally "bad" is not that it is a system whereby a metropolitan sets up a subordinate entity known as a "colony", but rather because in so doing the "colonizer" is generally subordinating or dispossessing some existing persons. It is this process of subordinating or dispossessing that creates the moral "bad-ness" or injustice of "colonialism".

A national group engaging in some form of "Drang Nach Osten" is generally speaking indulging in exactly the same "bad-ness" of dispossessing or subordinating existing groups - they simply are not travelling to some geographically remote location to do so.

Thus, if someone was to say "China never engages in the evils of colonialism - only those nasty Europeans and Americans are that vicious", while what they are saying is true in one sense - China does not, in fact, set up geographically remote colonies - it is obviously and blatantly untrue in another, in that the premise on which the statement is based (that "colonialism" is morally wrong) is based on behaviour that China is in point of fact engaging in with enthusiasm on its borders.

In summary, such a statement is a sort of bait-and-switch in which the whole point is to emphasize a distinction quite irrelevant for the moral analysis being performed - the geographical remoteness of a "colony" from the "metropolitan power" - in favour of deliberately obscuring the relevant similarity - that in both cases, the reason for complaint is the suppression of the locals.

Exactly.  The term "colonialism" is used by the Left to indicate "bad" - just as "imperialism" is used as loosely and for similar situations.

[grumbler]

The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Do you have a link or cite for this proposition?

Is there a reason for this question?  Do you seriously doubt my statement?  If I have a cite, will it change anything?

[Barrister]

The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Do you have a link or cite for this proposition?

Is there a reason for this question?  Do you seriously doubt my statement?  If I have a cite, will it change anything?

When I saw your statement I had my doubts that any actual leftist had said any such thing.  Of course there are plenty of leftist loons so I guess it's possible, but it doesn't strike me as a very rational thing to say (even by a leftist).

[ulmont]

The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Do you have a link or cite for this proposition?

Is there a reason for this question?  Do you seriously doubt my statement?  If I have a cite, will it change anything?

Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

[grumbler]

Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

[grumbler]

When I saw your statement I had my doubts that any actual leftist had said any such thing.  Of course there are plenty of leftist loons so I guess it's possible, but it doesn't strike me as a very rational thing to say (even by a leftist).

There are as many loons on the left as on the right, and those who think gentrification is "urban colonialism" are probably less loony than others.  Of course, they think that it is a useful term for the emotive rather than semantic content, but that is precisely why I mention it in the context of the emotive context of the use of colonialism.

I dunno why you or ulmont really thought this somehow significant, but I am sure that ulmont will now explain it, since he said that it did change things.

[ulmont]

Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

1) I note you provided no more pinpoint cite other than an entire book, which is a bit useless.

2) I also note that the title is not related to Detroit or the "failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit."

3) I further note that the book, as evidenced from its title and the front matter, relates purely to gentrification and not to the general hellhole that Detroit has become.

4) I additionally note that no single page in the book where the term "Detroit" appears (as verified through "search inside the book" and the index) blames the federal government for not rescuing and stabilizing Detroit.

So now I think you're lazy in addition to making things up, is what's changed.

[grumbler]

1) I note you provided no more pinpoint cite other than an entire book, which is a bit useless.

That is what has changed?  Seems a bit useless.

2) I also note that the title is not related to Detroit or the "failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit."

That is what has changed?  Seems a bit useless.

3) I further note that the book, as evidenced from its title and the front matter, relates purely to gentrification and not to the general hellhole that Detroit has become.

That is what has changed?  Seems a bit useless.

4) I additionally note that no single page in the book where the term "Detroit" appears (as verified through "search inside the book" and the index) blames the federal government for not rescuing and stabilizing Detroit.

That is what has changed?  Seems a bit useless.

So now I think you're lazy in addition to making things up, is what's changed.

So, as I expected, you actually didn't care about sources, and simply were going to believe what you believed no matter what!    That's kinda what I thought; I suspected that the call for a citation was not honestly meant.

h, and yes the book does deal with gentrification and refers to it sometimes as "urban colonialism."  It does regard the failure of government to support the crumbling infrastructure of any city (including Detroit) until the gentrification is complete as an aid to such "colonization."  You can argue that no (or "not many")  "leftists" would sign on to such a concept (especially those in certain types of community development movements, as gentrification is seen as an enemy), but I would need to see a cite.

[Barrister]

Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

Reading through a portion of the book (via google books) the author's main point is gentrification=colonialism.  He almost seem to imply that neighborhoods should not be rescued or gentrified.

So it doesn't make the exact point you were attributing to leftists (that the failure to rescue Detroit = colonialism) but it is close enough and crazy enough for me to concede that someone, somewhere almost certainly has said such a thing.

[The Brain]

I love the smell of frantic googling to find flimsy shit to support points made in haste.