In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism.

Bob Ross

In western culture, it is exceedingly common to despise and oppose nationalism and imperialism; for it tends to be barbaric, supremacistic, unnecessary and exclusive. Instead, westerner’s are more and more apt to accepting a version of cultural relativism. Viz., why should I be proud of my country? Why should my country start wars in the name of its values? It is just a nation meant to facilitate the protections and needs of the people—after all!

However, I think the western, liberal principles of tolerance and inclusiveness, although to some degree are perfectly warranted, have gone too far: there is such a thing as having an inferior culture (e.g., the Nazis), and there is such a thing as having a view which should not be tolerated (e.g., a supporter of sex offenses). One of the things I appreciate about Nietzsche, is how painfully down-to-earth the man was in his philosophy. We are still in a jungle: the in-group is more important than the out-group—even though no Westerner likes to say that anymore (although they will still act like it when push comes to shove).

I submit to you, that you should accept a sense of nationalism in two respects. The first, in the sense that whatever nation you belong to you must have a vested interest in its flourishing and protection against other nations—or move to a different one (if you can). The second, in the sense that, if your country has substantially better politics than other ones, you should have a pride in it and want to expand its values to the more inferior ones (which leads to imperialism).

For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. Some societies are so obviously structured in a way antithetical to the human good, that it is virtually impossible to justify leaving them be in the name of anti-imperialism. E.g., if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences (such as nuclear war), then it is obviously in our duty to do so—and this is a form of imperialism. Why would you not be a Western supremacist?

Now, I will end this OP by noting that I see the obvious downsides of nationalism (when it becomes radical), like fascism, but it seems wrong to go to the opposite extreme and deny any nationalism and imperialism whatsoever. Who would like to try and change my mind?

Srap Tasmaner

↪Bob Ross

Two questions.

1. How do you impose democracy upon a people by force?

2. Should all nations think this way? Should all of them declare war upon all the others to impose their values upon other nations by force?

Shawn

I submit to you, that you should accept a sense of nationalism in two respects. The first, in the sense that whatever nation you belong to you must have a vested interest in its flourishing and protection against other nations—or move to a different one (if you can). The second, in the sense that, if your country has substantially better politics than other ones, you should have a pride in it and want to expand its values to the more inferior ones (which leads to imperialism). — Bob Ross

I suppose this is the thesis of the OP. I have some questions about how nationalism is usually seen-as. One, would be the aspect of nationalism enabling negative consequences. I don't think this issue can be seen deontologically, with the baggage of human history in mind. The second question is whether if you don't accept the consequentialist assessment of the merits of nationalism, then on what merit do you asses its morality or goodness to a nation defined as nationalist?

ChatteringMonkey

For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. Some societies are so obviously structured in a way antithetical to the human good, that it is virtually impossible to justify leaving them be in the name of anti-imperialism. E.g., if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences (such as nuclear war), then it is obviously in our duty to do so—and this is a form of imperialism. Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross

I would be in favour of some kind of in-group supremacism for all groups, a healthy culture should celibrate itself, but I would be against imperialism because of issues of scale and cultural context. The justification for anti-imperialism would be the scale of imperialism. I believe a "culture" is something that is tied to a specific land and everything that comes with that, a certain climate, what kind of foods you can grow etc etc... There also need to be a certain sense of being culturally unified to speak of a culture, which implies that you cannot spread it to thin geographically. The problem of imperialism is that it disconnects peoples from the traditional ways of their land and their context, which typically causes problems done the line for centuries to come no matter the intentions.

Bob Ross

↪Srap Tasmaner

How do you impose democracy upon a people by force?

Enforcing, similarly to how we do in the West, the idea of liberties, rights, and equal representation. As a side note, most of the time; the people want it—the government is just oppressing them, and so the solution tends to be just overthrowing that government.

Should all nations think this way? Should all of them declare war upon all the others to impose their values upon other nations by force?

Very good question: yes. If a nation believes that they have an importantly better position than another one, then they should think this way. Otherwise, you are saying, e.g., that a country which values democracy is equal to a country that actively oppresses its people. That's nonsense.

To be clear, I am not arguing that nations should go to war over trivial things—and some cultural differences are just that; but if there are two nations so fundamentally different than each other, morally, then there should be an proportionate response by each to each other. Again, e.g., North Korea deserves to be usurped; and I cannot say that only Western countries should think this way—as that would be inconsistent and arbitrary. I just think that countries should imperialize for good reasons and in proportionate manners in relation to what is actually good.

Vera Mont

For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. — Bob Ross

Partly because 'degeneracy' is far more evident in some western countries than in some you consider inferior. If you were serious about promoting democracy, you would work for reform in your own country.
Because western leaders and nearly all of their people lack the drive to conquer. Because 'democratic values' are not robust enough to transplant: democracy survives only where it grows from a unique seed, in conditions appropriate to the climate.
Because it can't be imposed. Imposition is the opposite of democracy.
Because no western nation is powerful enough, no matter how many people it kills, cripples and displaces, no matter how much land it renders uninhabitable, how much of its resources are sacrificed, to attain, let alone maintain, such an empire. No nation is asks a foreigner to relieve it of its own government; even the most unhappy population will fight for its identity.

if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences — Bob Ross

That if doesn't bear scrutiny - in relation to more countries North Korea. That, too, is a good reason: consequences to the aggressor. What's the point of an empire of radioactive rubble and rotting corpses?

Now, I will end this OP by noting that I see the obvious downsides of nationalism (when it becomes radical)

That's the inevitable destination: jingoism, exceptionalism, xenophobia, militancy, ethnic cleansing, oppression and/or civil war.

Bob Ross

↪Shawn

I suppose this is the thesis of the OP

There’s essentially three theses:

1. The western supremacy thesis: western values are objectively better than many, if not all, non-western values which have historical arisen and, consequently, those values are superior.

2. The nationalism thesis: you should have some sense of pride in your country insofar as you have a vested interest in it and that, if applicable, it has superior values to other countries. Nationalism, to a certain extent, unites its citizens in a common good.

3. The imperialism thesis: imperialism is not per se wrong, as a proportionate response to inferior values is necessary and obligatory. The problems with imperialism was historically the immorality which came frequently with it: the West didn’t go in and free less-powerful groups but, rather, actively enslaved them for profit.

One, would be the aspect of nationalism enabling negative consequences

What do you mean?

I don't think this issue can be seen deontologically, with the baggage of human history in mind. The second question is whether if you don't accept the consequentialist assessment of the merits of nationalism

I am not sure I am following: I am neither a deontoligist nor a consequentialist—nor does the OP presuppose either of them.

then on what merit do you asses its morality or goodness to a nation defined as nationalist?

Most abstractly, based off of what is actually good. If you mean to ask what normative ethical theory I subscribe to, then it is a form of Virtue Ethics.

Bob Ross

↪ChatteringMonkey

The problem of imperialism is that it disconnects peoples from the traditional ways of their land and their context, which typically causes problems done the line for centuries to come no matter the intentions.

That's partially fair; but I would note that imposing important and vital political systems is good. E.g., if you are against imperialism completely, then we wouldn't have any justification to take over North Korea, Talibanian Afghanistan, etc. Nations have a moral obligation to imperialize sometimes.

Bob Ross

↪Vera Mont

Partly because 'degeneracy' is far more evident in some western countries than in some you consider inferior; most western leaders and nearly all of their people lack the drive to conquer. Because 'democratic values' are not healthy enough in the west to survive transplanting.
But mostly because it can't be done. No western nation is powerful enough, no matter how many people it kills, cripples and displaces, no matter how much land it renders uninhabitable, how much of its resources are sacrificed, to attain, let alone maintain, such an empire.

I can foresee, as a possibility, a nation which comes up with a better economic system than capitalism; and if that happens then, yes, they should imperialize everyone else (assuming it drastically fixes the gaping issues with capitalism without introducing new catastrophic issues like communism). Either way, if I grant your point or not, it results in my OP being right.

That if doesn't bear scrutiny - in relation to more countries North Korea. That, too, is a good reason. What's the point of an empire of radioactive rubble and rotting corpses?

I didn’t follow this at all. What do you mean?

That's the inevitable destination: militancy, exceptionalism, xenophobia, ethnic cleansing, oppression.

Why? You can take over a country with the sole purpose of giving it the gift of democracy and then trying to salvage the culture as much as possible to keep the traditions. You are confusing the immoral acts of many instances of imperialism with its generic idea. If the West took over North Korea, e.g., we would not, in all probability, do anything remotely similar to what Columbus did to the Natives. Wouldn’t you agree?

ChatteringMonkey

↪Bob Ross

That's partially fair; but I would note that imposing important and vital political systems is good. E.g., if you are against imperialism completely, then we wouldn't have any justification to take over North Korea, Talibanian Afghanistan, etc. Nations have a moral obligation to imperialize sometimes. — Bob Ross

I would say they only have a moral obligation to conquer other land if it's in their own vital security interests. But to the point of imposing political systems, would you say historical track records are good for these kind of projects?

Vera Mont

I can foresee, as a possibility, a nation which comes up with a better economic system than capitalism; and if that happens then, yes, they should imperialize everyone else — Bob Ross

Like the USSR appointed itself liberator of the world's exploited proletariat? It's not easy to see the log in one's own eye. Whenever economic parity is approached, the capitalist nations smother it in its cradle. No such country could survive a single generation, let alone grow powerful enough to threaten other regimes. Even if it wanted to, which fair and decent governments don't.

What do you mean? — Bob Ross

What I said:: there are always consequences. Consequences are inescapable. These days, consequences tend to come in the form of nuclear warheads, which several of your 'inferior' societies possess.

You can take over a country with the sole purpose of giving it the gift of democracy and then trying to salvage the culture as much as possible to keep the traditions. — Bob Ross

No, I can't. And neither can a functional democracy. In order to have a government that's both arrogant and blind enough to try to impose itself on other sovereign nations, first, you need either absolute monarchy or a military-backed dictatorship.

jingoism, exceptionalism, xenophobia, militancy, ethnic cleansing, oppression — Vera Mont

is the sequence of event leading to the prerequisite populist dictatorship. Let's see how Mexico and Canada fare in the next four years.

If the West took over North Korea, e.g., we would not, in all probability, do anything remotely similar to what Columbus did to the Natives. Wouldn’t you agree? — Bob Ross

Oh, yes, I agree. All Columbus did was report back to the monarchy. You would do to the Natives pretty much what China, Rome and Britain did.

AmadeusD

A surprisingly sane thread. Nice one Bob! Particularly at this time.

Shawn

Most abstractly, based off of what is actually good. If you mean to ask what normative ethical theory I subscribe to, then it is a form of Virtue Ethics. — Bob Ross

Yes, I understand. I believe a normative theory has applications on the very governing of a nation. I think my point is that nationalism, and the currents of history seem to indicate that certain ideologies should be viewed in terms of their consequences that they may entail towards a nation. Regarding which, nationalism has been historically viewed as a source of ills towards any country aspiring towards a democratic state.

Tzeentch

For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. Some societies are so obviously structured in a way antithetical to the human good, that it is virtually impossible to justify leaving them be in the name of anti-imperialism. — Bob Ross

The fact that you would name countries like Iran, China and India in this list betrays an ignorance that is hard to explain in mere words.

Meanwhile, the US is aiding and abetting genocide in Palestine as we speak, and has a well-documented track record of genocide running throughout its history. (Native Americans, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, East-Timor, countless conflicts in the Middle-East with death tolls running in the millions, etc.)

This thread reads like a bad joke - the last spasms of a morally bankrupt empire whose outdated propaganda apparently still holds some unfortunate souls in its grasp.

T Clark

I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. — Bob Ross

Oh good, an easy one. I don't even have to try to address your nauseating rhetoric. Here's the answer - it won't work. We weren't even able to "forcibly impose" our values on rinky-dink third world countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua even though we killed millions of people, mostly civilians, trying to do it. Generally, our interference has made things worse, e.g. our party in Iraq ended up sending millions of refugees into Europe. Just running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time overtaxed our armed forces.

Bob Ross

↪ChatteringMonkey

I would say they only have a moral obligation to conquer other land if it's in their own vital security interests

So, if the Nazis would have stayed in Germany, then you think no one would be warranted in stopping them?

But to the point of imposing political systems, would you say historical track records are good for these kind of projects?

I don’t think there’s a particularly good track record, no. However, that’s because countries were taking each other over for bad reasons.

Bob Ross

↪Vera Mont

Like the USSR appointed itself liberator of the world's exploited proletariat?

Not at all. I am evaluating the justifiability of imperialism via a moral realist theory: I am not saying that every country should just take each other over for any willy-nilly reasons. The problem with your view, is you have to deny obvious cases where a country should intervene. For example, if the Nazis stayed in Germany (in the sense of not invading other countries), then would you say that no country should have invaded Germany to stop the Holocaust? That’s the consistent conclusion of your argument here.

What I said:: there are always consequences. Consequences are inescapable. These days, consequences tend to come in the form of nuclear warheads, which several of your 'inferior' societies possess

Oh, are you noting that, in practicality, there would be some consequence to invading another country? I agree with that. There would be consequences to invading Germany to get rid of the Nazis.

No, I can't. And neither can a functional democracy. In order to have a government that's both arrogant and blind enough to try to impose itself on other sovereign nations, first, you need either absolute monarchy or a military-backed dictatorship

It wouldn’t be blind: it would be operating under policy guidelines; just like the Geneva convention or how the UN tries to enforce universal rights—instead, though, we would actually do something about it when it happens.

is the sequence of event leading to the prerequisite populist dictatorship

Imperialism does not presuppose a dictatorship. It never has and never will.

Oh, yes, I agree. All Columbus did was report back to the monarchy.

Uhhh, no he didn’t, lol. He would literally cut the hands off of slaves if they didn’t meet their daily quotas when mining. The dude was brutal.

Bob Ross

↪Shawn

Regarding which, nationalism has been historically viewed as a source of ills towards any country aspiring towards a democratic state.

I could see that, insofar as it is fascistic: are you claiming that nationalism and fascism are the same?

Lionino

The fact that you would name countries like Iran, China and India in this list betrays an ignorance that is hard to explain in mere words. — Tzeentch

Leave it to Burgerlanders to say the most ignorant, barbaric rubbish on a daily basis. They are born with an incurable sort of brain virus that leaves them unable to perform the most basic rational operations. What great philosopher or artist came from that place? Truly a stain on mankind.

The most offensive part is that those blobs of seed oil like to pretend they are allies of Europe, and many idiotic Europeans fall for it, when their shenenigans in the Middle East are the direct cause of the refugee crises that has resulted in the rape and death of thousands and thousands of European women.

the last spasms of a morally bankrupt empire whose outdated propaganda apparently still holds some unfortunate souls in its grasp — Tzeentch

North Koreans at least know that they live in a horrible place. Meanwhile yankees pay the government to take their own children away and put them on hormone blockers. What can I say? God is punishing them lavishly.

are you claiming that nationalism and fascism are the same? — Bob Ross

This sort of 8th grade question really is only seriously stated in places where the majority is of a culture summarised by carbs and rap and no basic education. The funny part is that this is the standard in any webspace where English is the common language. Curious.

Bob Ross

↪Tzeentch

The fact that you would name countries like Iran, China and India in this list betrays an ignorance that is hard to explain in mere words.

This must be a joke.

China has concentration camps; harvests the organs of North Korean defectors for the black market; uses North Korean defector women in sophisticated sex-slave rings; denies people the right of privacy, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.; uses child labor in factories; … need I go on?

Iran has a moral division of the police that is designed to prosecute women that don’t follow Islamic tradition (like wearing Hijabs); has temporary marriage laws so that men can rent daughters from families for sex slavery; brutally kills homosexuals; … need I go on?

India, although it is now illegal, still has a very much enforced caste system where the lowest caste is called the untouchables, which are considered so worthless that they are not actually in the caste system (according to other classes in that system).

These countries are one’s you would...defend?!?

has a well-documented track record of genocide running throughout its history.

True, but they don’t do it anymore. Those countries I listed do still do it.

Meanwhile, the US is aiding and abetting genocide in Palestine as we speak

I don’t about that: it’s much more nuanced than that.

Lionino

By the way, the keyboard warrior over here is supporting imperialism, but they have no empire. All they have is falling apart Hollywood for spreading sodomy and georgefloydism worldwide and a pitiful army that got kicked in the ass by divided rice farmers and desert sheep herders. I can only imagine a war against a real country like Canada or Mexico. It would be great humiliation.

China has concentration camps — Bob Ross

Your political and social elites have several pedophile rings, buddy.

Someone defending imperialism should at least have their physique on show, but I guarantee that OP is out of shape.

Bob Ross

↪T Clark

We weren't even able to "forcibly impose" our values on rinky-dink third world countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua even though we killed millions of people, mostly civilians, trying to do it. Generally, our interference has made things worse, e.g. our party in Iraq ended up sending millions of refugees into Europe. Just running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time overtaxed our armed forces.

This is a fair point; but don’t you think we have a duty to try?

If I take your argument seriously, then we should stop the Nazis if they were to stay in their own country; we shouldn’t stop North Korea from literally torturing their own people; etc.

We should want to expand western values as much as possible. Perhaps, in some situations, it is not feasible to go to all-out-war. I agree with that; but there’s others tactics we can deploy, which are equally imperialistic.

Tzeentch

it’s much more nuanced than that. — Bob Ross

Oh, of course. Your portrayal of countries like China and India as 'degenerate, inferior societies' sure puts you in pole position as an expert on nuance. :lol:

Bob Ross

↪Lionino

By the way, the keyboard warrior over here is supporting imperialism, but they have no empire. All they have is falling apart Hollywood for spreading sodomy and georgefloydism worldwide and a pitiful army that got kicked in the ass by divided rice farmers and desert sheep herders. I can only imagine a war against a real country like Canada or Mexico. It would be great humiliation.

My OP is about Western values; not specifically the US. However, the US could wipe Mexico and Canada off the map—that’s not even a fair fight. You are confusing wars that the US was in where they were fighting something other than the actual people there with a full-out war with another country. The US got there butts kicked, many times, because of the dynamics of navigating the innocent civilians and the gorilla fighters (and what not). In a full out war, the US would just obliterate their opponent (with a few exceptions).

EDIT: I should also mention that nuclear war evens out the playing field quite a bit, which I excluded from my analysis above.

Anyways, this isn’t relevant to the OP.

Your political and social elites have several pedophile rings, buddy.

Show me evidence of a major, Western nation that ITSELF sactioned, officially or unofficially, child sex offenses. There’s not a single one.

Bob Ross

↪Tzeentch

I would like to hear your nuanced defense of the accusations I made to each of those three countries. I am open-minded; but I cannot envision such a defense.

Vera Mont

Not at all. I am evaluating the justifiability of imperialism via a moral realist theory: I am not saying that every country should just take each other over for any willy-nilly reasons. — Bob Ross

They're not willy-nilly, they're at bad guys. Every imperial aspiration is fed by some self-perceived need, threat, imperative or benevolent wrapping on a greed motive. Your moral justification isn't mine; America's is not Britain's or Russia's. There is no 'objective' realism.

For example, if the Nazis stayed in Germany (in the sense of not invading other countries), then would you say that no country should have invaded Germany to stop the Holocaust? — Bob Ross

No country did; most wouldn't even take in refugees. It wasn't until after they themselves felt threatened that the allies confronted Germany. No country is stepping in to stop Russia or Israel today. And stopping a genocide is not equivalent to imposing one's own political system on a non-belligerent nation.

It wouldn’t be blind: it would be operating under policy guidelines; just like the Geneva convention or how the UN tries to enforce universal rights—instead, though, we would actually do something about it when it happens. — Bob Ross

Who "we"? Under what mandate? The UN is a legitimate international organization that is poorly supported by its western members; "we" could only be vigilantes.

Imperialism does not presuppose a dictatorship. It never has and never will. — Bob Ross

You read this in history, or tea leaves? How else do you get the majority of a people to volunteer for extreme hardship and danger, for the purpose of imposing one government's will on another? If you can manipulate people into believing their own country is in danger, yes; otherwise, you have to coerce them. As in Korea and Viet Nam.

The dude was brutal. — Bob Ross

He wasn't alone; the regime was brutal. He reported to Ferdinand II and had the use of soldiers, administrators, overseers and priests sent by the monarch. Is there any record of the common people of Spain or Portugal clamouring to bring civilization to the Americas? D you truly believe they would have voted for the conquests on moral grounds?

T Clark

If I take your argument seriously, then we should stop the Nazis if they were to stay in their own country; we shouldn’t stop North Korea from literally torturing their own people; etc. — Bob Ross

I assume you meant to say "not stop the Nazis." Again - both pre-WW2 Germany and today's North Korea have or had formidable militaries - North Korea has nuclear weapons. China would never let us attack without a response. They've already done it once. Also, South Korea would be destroyed in any war. This is a fantasy.

Has a military intervention to protect tyrannized people ever worked? Maybe - What is history's judgment of the Balkan intervention in the early 1990s? We tried something similar in Libya and destabilized the whole region. We imposed sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s and early 2000s. Hundreds of thousands of people died while the Hussein family continued to eat foi gras and bon bons.

Vera Mont

And let's cast a brief glance at Saudi Arabia.... How are "we" doing there, morally?

Vera Mont

I can only imagine a war against a real country like Canada or Mexico. — Lionino

I'm not exactly looking forward to that. In the case of Canada, they probably don't need to invade; they're imposing their 'values' on us through money, propaganda, infiltration and appeals to the meanest, dumbest factions. But at least we get the best of their defectors.
Mexico won't need invading, either; it will be inundated with poor migrants from all over South ans Central America. As per current Western Nationalism.

Moliere

I suppose I don't really care if we call it democracy or whatever -- if our political actions lead us to war I take that as a sign that something is wrong. But imperialism demands war until everyone is eliminated.

I think once we start justifying the horrors of war in the name of the good we've lost sight of the good.

ChatteringMonkey

So, if the Nazis would have stayed in Germany, then you think no one would be warranted in stopping them? — Bob Ross

I don't think you have to invade them, no, if they have no intention of attacking you or your allies... there are other measures. Besides avoiding WWII seems like another solid argument no to do it.

He's a question for you. Now Trump is elected one could make an argument that the US poses a treat to the health of earth's biosphere, as it is one of the biggest polluters and under Trump it also has no intention of doing something about it. Are other countries morally obliged to attack the US in order to prevent further damage to earth's biosphere?

However, that’s because countries were taking each other over for bad reasons. — Bob Ross

The reasons for the war don't necessarily have a lot to do with successful installation of a new political system... it's one factor of many maybe.

In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions