Anti-imperialism as a smokescreen?

During the Cold War, many people alleged the US using anti-communism as a smokescreen for imperialism. Let's not deny it, most of what the CIA did then was very morally questionable and has created enemies of the US all the way until now.

But I have to wonder, is anti-imperialism, mostly but not necessarily only against the US, itself being used frequently nowadays by these same enemies as a smokescreen to hide one's own crimes, human rights problems and abuses of power?

edited 18th Apr '11 10:08:09 AM by Exploder

Sure. Just look at Gaddafi and Gbagbo. Of course, that doesn't mean that complaints about and actions against imperialism are necessarily just that. Imperialism, unfortunately, still exists.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

There is no cause, no ideology, no philosophy so pure it can't be abused.

Are there people complaining about being oppressed by the American boot who just use it as an excuse for their own crimes? Sure. Doesn't mean much about the boot though.

The Soviets spent decades whining about how imperialist the US was. Russia still does it. But the fact is, the US always has been and for the foreseeable future will be a demonstrably better government.

Edit: I agree with , though. It doesn't mean imperialism is all right.

edited 18th Apr '11 4:52:26 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

This won't turn into a "Imperialism: Pro/Con" thread, will it?

edited 18th Apr '11 5:03:26 PM by johnnyfog

I'm a skeptical squirrel

You're conflating two issues here. It doesn't matter who had the better or worse government, not for the sake of this discussion. What matters is who behaved better on the international scene. Only there you can have imperialism, after all.

Now, as it so happened, the USA were... less bad during the Cold War. One can only call it that way. The USSR itself of course was plenty imperialist. Basically all other East Bloc states were soviet colonies, directed from the Kremlin, ruled with the help of oppressive and often brutal secret polices. So the USA was only less bad because the USSR set such a high hurdle for being bad.

In the end, though, both were imperialist, brutal and disgusting in their foreign policy throughout the Cold War.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

despite the fact that Eastern Bloc states had plenty latitude in determining their economics and forreign affairs? Remember Yugoslavia, or Albania? They flat out rejected the Soviet models. Don't assume the USSR was completely imperialist and oppressive; otherwise the Soviet Constitution wouldn't have had the right to secede - which was used in its ultimate dissolution.

Not sure about that; the US has had internal imperialism against its' black populations, as well as the Appalachian and Southern regions historically. Heck, it still DOES haha.

edited 21st Apr '11 8:06:57 PM by fourtwenty

Table Flipppin Mad (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Well the thing is that, anything bad that the USA may do is used as ammunition by these regimes to defend themselves. The poor choice of action by the USA is very real but so is the human rights (and otherwise) abuse by the other nation. So they're both an issue. However, one usually ranks as much worse than the other, such as Gaddafi air strafing civilians.

That would be internal repression, not imperialism. And the USSR had plenty of that as well. Just ask all the ethnicity force-resettled by Stalin. It's not part of this discussion, though.

And Albania and Yugoslavia were communist, but not part of the East Bloc, so they are disingenuous examples. Those countries who were part of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON were virtual Soviet colonies, far more so than any US puppet dictatorship in Latin America or whererever ever was. Both is bad, of course, both is imperialist, but the USSR simply was still a notch worse than the USA during the Cold War.

Regardless, both were imperialist, and imperialism existed and exists - it's not merely a smokescreen, even if some people use it that way.

I think that's not really a comparison you can make like that. The bottom line is, as you have said, that both exists. Anything beyond that is impractical and irrelevant.

edited 21st Apr '11 8:49:15 PM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

The examples I mentioned earlier count as 'nations' and the communist theories mentioned a 'negro nation' see Harry Haywood's articles and research on that.

fine then :p

My point re. Albania and Yugoslavia is that they were originally allied with the USSR, but for oen reason or another they broke off (sino-soviet split, Titoist/Soviet split, etc).

Table Flipppin Mad (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Algeria and Yugoslavia were at the margins of Soviet control though. Even an Empire can shrug and say "Not worth the bother" when it feels like it.

Overall, I guess I can't. Sometimes it's pretty obvious, other times it is not.

Albania went out of the block because the bictator wanted more power than bolschievic rulers. This kind of comunism is collet stalinist and means "hellish dictator"

It's a fact..

Robert Mugabe was (and probably still is) talking up British imperialism as an eternal, existential threat that justifies his putting in policies that conveniently let him remain in power.

British imperialism is the go-to phrase of Argentina's Christina Fernandez De Kirchner while enacting policies for isolating and harassing the Falkland Islanders (and she is accused of imperialism in turn).

Al Qaeda, other terrorist groups and several cults routinely bring up US imperialism as justification for horrific and self-serving actions. Extra irony points for many of said groups wanting to take over their parts of the world and install their own empires (for the people's own good of course).

At this point it's just a buzzword used to demonize whatever vaguely powerful government/alliance you don't like (unless you're talking about the actual colonialist era).

LOL yeah. China has just set up a "prefectural government" and have assigned a "military detachment" to defend territory that isn't theirs.

I'm reading this because it's interesting. I think. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over.

Where?

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/38256/china-military-commission-approves-dedicated-garrison-for-south-china-sea

I'm reading this because it's interesting. I think. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over.

This, very much so. Back in the mid 2000's it was a popular thing among African governments (neo-colonialism) but either I've stopped paying attention to African politics or this has died down recently.

Wise Papa Smurf, corrupted by his own power. CAN NO LEADER GO UNTAINTED?!

Speaking of which, check out the Analysis section of this new BBC article about the EU looking to suspend Zimbabwe sanctions, summarised here:

@ Entropy

But... I'm not sure how that is related to this topic. China's actions are on par with everyone else in the region, including our "friendly" buddies the Japanese. It's not like the Japanese aren't trying to take islands from everyone else as well, including taking islands they had only when they occupied Korea.

None of them are justifying their actions via anti-imperialism. They're justifying their actions with "f—k everyone else".

edited 23rd Jul '12 11:31:52 AM by breadloaf

Oh, but it's relevant. It's saying that not all Anti-Imperialism is just a smokescreen. If some of those islands start fighting back, they really could claim it as Anti-Imperialism and be justified. Not that fighting back by themselves would be a good idea, with China being involved and all.

The islands fighting back? Which could could they survive against, is there actually people there to fight back? Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines, Japan, Taiwan and China are all trying to take the various islands over there. :S

edited 23rd Jul '12 1:12:41 PM by breadloaf

It was an example. I have no idea about the populations of the islands, but over the past century there have been several targeted efforts to get Imperial Powers like the Soviets, the Brits, and the U.S. to back off. The ones I'm thinking of (The Afghanis tangling with the Soviets, the mixed Jewish and Islamic forces that irritated the British into relinquishing the Middle East after WW 1, and the domestic efforts to get U.S. forces out of the Middle East) were fairly legitimate. Not that the perpetrators were always good, since that last one is by mini-imperialists, but they could cry Imperialism and have some credibility.

Well, anti-Imperialism is a smokescreen in the sense that it shouldn't cover over the failings of the new non-Imperialist regime. I think it would make more sense as an example if for instance India complained all their problems are really just British legacy problems. While there are many problems in India that are legacy issues with British rule, it's not enough to cover over any failings of an Indian regime.

However, overall, that's not "our" problem in the sense that it is up to the domestic people to form their own better government. What is "our" problem is still making up for the Imperialism that we did engage in and not to pretend it never happened or that it had "negligible" effect. I mean, as an example, there are millions of chemical and biological weapon warheads left in China from the Japanese. Perhaps it may be unfair of the Chinese to say that the region is poor because of the Japanese (though I have never heard of the Chinese government ever using such an excuse), the Japanese should still clean that crap up.