| | It is interesting to see how people with supposedly the same philosophy have different opinions. Compared to other systems, Objectivism is rather closely defined, and yet, we have basic disagreements.
We could go deeply into this and eventually expel each other to the Dissent Forum.
Personally, I share the anti-imperialist sentiment. If Germany or Japan had taken the Philippines, it would have been wrong and the USA's taking it instead was not right. "Protecting American trade" is a thin excuse. I just finished a course in History of China -- it was grim -- and in preparation for that, I assembled some surprising materials. For instance, the first Yankee ships went to China on the heels of American independence, 100 years before the highpoint of imperial encroachments.
Furthermore, I have to agree that Western (European and US) expansion into Africa and Asia had its upside. In China, in particular, while the Manchus (Qing Dynasty) wrung their hands, the fact is that thousands, perhaps millions, of Chinese in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tsingtao, and other ports were happy to enjoy Western modes of thinking and acting, including the privilege of holding an independent opinion. Even more interesting, while Chinese did indeed travel abroad for two thousand years, it was only with the coming of Western "imperialism" that they were ready, willing, and able to leave by the thousands. The creation of outland Chinese (or overseas Chinese) communities came at this time.
So, it was a mixed bag. How you view it is pretty much a matter of who you are.
Myself, I prefer to err on the side of liberalism and I am less impressed by military power. "And then conquer we must when our cause it is just" rests firmly on the next line "and this be our motto: In God is Our Trust." So, again, we see that politics rests on metaphysics. As a metaphysical Objectivist, I am opposed to imperialism.
You may perceive the same reality differently.
|
|