And if you put the opposite spin on the latter statement, you get the tea party view that we are the good guys trying to bring democracy to the middle east while Obama apologizes about it. I don't agree with that spin, but I can where it comes from.Anonymous wrote:We may not paint as bald a face on it as "annexing territory". But I'd say our interference in the middle east is an example of our manipulating and exploiting foreigners for our own gain, thus, "colonialist".Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?
Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?
exactlyAnonymous wrote:To many Marxist political scientists, "colonialism" is a whole ball of things. But in an economic sense, it refers to how the colonial powers (the "center", think U.K. or France or even Portugal in the 1950s) suck economic resources from the colonized countries (the "periphery", think pre-independence India, Kenya, Algeria or Angola). In short, the rich countries exploit the poor countries in order to get even richer.
The EnglishAnonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?
We're rabidly against giving Puerto Rico independence or DC representation, so I'd say we're still a colonialist nation.[/quote]
+1.
Anonymous wrote:Is there someone who can be described as colonialist? Are we in the business of annexing territory?