On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > But imperialism has changed a lot since 1900. The main story during > the last 50 years or so has been a political-economic hierarchy of > countries with the US as hegemon. Though clearly WASPs such as > myself[**] dominated the government of this system and racism has been > central to the normal operations of the US economy, it's simplistic to > say that it was a racist empire: the US pulverized Vietnam not because > it was populated by an "inferior race" as much as because the North
I agree with the above. Indeed in the 20'th century, overt racism has been substantially eliminated. I think the letter of the law (though maybe not the practical enforcement) in most Western countries today is completely non-discriminatory. Note that imperialism has also substantially declined in the same time-frame. Still remnants of both racism and imperialism persist today in milder and subtler forms, and to the extent imperialism still exists, racism remains at the core of it. The US responds to an economic crisis in a European country (currency swap arrangements) very differently from say a Latin American or African country (IMF). Travel and immigration is far more restrictive for the Third World than for Europe. And of course the US has never dared to attempt a "regime change" in Europe (except perhaps Serbia?) > Just as it's arguable that the US has to some extent enjoyed a > "declining significance of race" (to use William Julius Wilson's > phrase) while remaining capitalist, I don't see why we can't have a > similar declining significance while remaining imperialist. I don't think capitalism depends on racism to the same extent that imperialism does. > Of course, it does matter how one defines "imperialism." What's your > definition, raghu? I see imperialism as a political-economic system of > domination, not a type of government policy. Simple definition: a system of international power relations under which one ethnic group systematically dominates and exploits another for economic gain. > [*] I found this: >>Is history repeating itself? Note quite 2000 years > ago, the Roman hegemony got its first black leader - a former senator > whose father was African and mother was white. Septimius Severus > inherited a failed military campaign in Iraq and an ailing economy. He > first resolves the situation in Iraq, undertakes a number of new > building projects, stamps out governmental corruption, raises taxes to > pay for wage increases (and kicks British arse a few times). > Ultimately though, it all might have only hastened the Empire's > decline.<< from: > http://www.metafilter.com/77225/Septimius-Severus-the-Barack-Obama-of-the-Roman-Empire > This is very interesting. Thanks. -raghu. -- Q: What did the apple say to the orange? A: Nothing, apples don't talk. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
