{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Diplomat:
5/4/2013 10:12:58 PM
11
White Man's Burden and American Foreign Policy
I've been grappling with this idea for quite some time now, which is the notion that the American foreign policy paradigm is a manifestation of white man's burden. Our country, according to this idea, believes that we have a moral obligation to prevent "lesser" nations from making mistakes. This results in a slew of military interventions (i.e. Kosovo, Libya, or Somalia) and economic assistance (i.e. USAID), because we believe that they are incapable of finding a solution themselves.
I'm not entirely sure if I believe this, but what do you think? If our foreign policy really is a nationalistic offshoot of white man's burden, is it bad? I mean, we are only helping to develop stability in order to prevent the deaths of more people and open up markets for American businesses. Of course, that can easily be misconstrued as civilizing the savages, can't it?
EDIT: I forgot to add in economic reasoning
-
[quote]I mean, we are only helping to develop stability in order to prevent the deaths of more people and [b]open up markets for American businesses[/b].[/quote] That's the bad part. American businesses want to operate in these areas because they aren't subject to the workers rights and tax laws that they would be in the US.
-
"It's not racist, it's just motivated by self-interest." - Seggi Aussie
-
1 Reply[quote]I mean, we are only helping to develop stability[/quote]You might have a point if the US actually cared about stability. The US only supports stability if it serves our interests. There are numerous instances of us deliberately destabilising countries or regions because such an outcome better served our interests.
-
Just imperial America being imperial.
-
If the plan was to open up markets for American businesses its worked to an extent - weapons suppliers and private military contractors have become very wealthy, whereas the US has to deal with rising debt due to their financing of the various 'War(s) on terror.'
-
Edited by Seggi: 5/5/2013 10:37:18 AMIt's not racist, it's just motivated by self-interest. Edit: What Phil said.
-
Edited by Gabriel Eisen: 5/5/2013 2:24:08 AMThe liberalization of labor, trade and investment have guided American policies, both foreign and domestic, for decades. As mentioned earlier, destabilization (Kermit Roosevelt Jr.'s political action in Iran in the 1950's is a prime example and the template for much of the policies that would follow into the present), aiding and encouraging multiple opposing factions in conflict, and numerous cases where democracy is dumped out the window when it was not useful to these interests (much of Central and South America in the mid to late 20th century) are common elements of the paradigm. White man's burden may be one of the ways these vastly unpopular ideas are rationalized.
-
2 RepliesI wouldn't label assisting developing nations as a "white man's burden". There's more than just morals and ethics in helping nations develop. The theory is that in assisting the nation to develop, we'll have opened a developed market and typically a decent to strong ally in a crucial region. It's a very long term plan. But obviously, the way certain officials go about it will effect the outcome. There's [i]always[/i] a motive, no one uses those amounts of resources because it's their "moral duty", anyone who believes that is kidding themselves.
-
[quote]If our foreign policy really is a nationalistic offshoot of white man's burden, is it bad?[/quote]In my eyes, no. [quote]Of course, that can easily be misconstrued as civilizing the savages, can't it?[/quote]Yes it can, I suppose.
-
The White Man's Burden poem is hilariously accurate in this case.
-
I'm not sure what to say exactly without being flamed to death by every user and their dog. So I'll just say the NATO forces did a bang up job in Libya.
