"We don't want to live in a world where the Chinese are the dominant country," says US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns (twitter.com)

submitted 1 year ago by nekandro@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] MarcoPOLO@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 year ago

"the Chinese"

Not China (the country), not the PRC (the country), but "the Chinese."

Because that's what the US ambassador thinks of Chinese people.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

"Hate the government not the people" proceeds to bomb/sanction/sabotage the people

[-] Neon_Shadow@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

They only want a world controlled by white men. They'll bomb and kill anyone that threatens their fascist utopia.

[-] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

What do you expect when their last and next president calls them chinamen?

[-] WheelcharArtist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Fuck china, the prc and the chinese. Nuke it and make it a parking lot.

[-] chayleaf@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

least genocidal liberal

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago

If that is the case, you probably should have thought about that 50 years ago when "you" allowed and encouraged industries to out-source. But it's too late now.

[-] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Uh, too late? By like 300+ years?

[-] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Well, we can work towards changing that, and judging by this article we're well on the way it seems.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

But assuming that one has to be dominant, which would you choose of the ones that are realistic possibilities?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Whoever promises more support to anti-imperialist efforts, so that the world may build itself up together.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Who is that? Certainly none of the countries that could actually take up the mantle. And I fear that any country that could would finally become imperialist. If we say that the top 3 competitors are US, China, and Russia, there's only one that hasn't actively attempted conquest and annexation of their neighbors.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

All 3 have, what are you smoking? The US is one of the most imperialistic nations on Earth. That's not to say Russia and China aren't either, but to pretend the US didn't forcibly annex territories is to wash away the centuries of genocide and Conquest as "okay" because it was done successfully and more than a few years ago.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Do you consider things which happened hundreds of years ago to be of the same weight as things that are happening as we speak?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Do you consider things which happened merely decades ago, even up to hundreds of years ago, have lasting impact on generations that follow?

If you successfully do Imperialism, such that the colonized can no longer resist, does that erase the sin?

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I don't, but if given a choice between living under a power that's actively attacking and subjugating its neighbors and committing genocides and one that's not, I'll take the one that's not.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

They all are.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Interested to hear which countries the US has attempted to annex in the last century.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Is that the only expression of Imperialism you personally accept? Literal annexation? Hawaii. Vassal states? Cuba. The notion that Imperialism is just Conquest is laughable.

Edit: crickets...

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Definition of imperialism: The extension of a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations.

Definition of hegemony: The dominance or leadership of one social group or nation over others.

I would be a little more nuanced with my definitions personally. I think Russia is textbook imperialist. I think China is borderline imperialist, and I think the USA is more hegemonic.

I think all 3 play all the same games except that the USA doesn't play in territorial expansion, which for me is a big improvement over those that do.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

The US is built on territorial expansion, lmao. Indigenous Americans who had their land stolen from them have been generationally impacted! The consequences of slavery have set Black Americans back centuries economically! Hawaii was forcibly annexed very recently in a historical frame of viewing!

The US is perhaps one of the most Imperialist countries on the planet, just because it now fights proxy wars rather than direct Conquest doesn't make it any less evil. Here's a hint: the US stopped using Conquest for land acquisition because it already succeeded, not because it's a morally superior Imperialist power.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

That's a false equivalence. Every country is imperialist if you go back far enough. My concern is about today's political and security situation, not that of 200+ years ago.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Buddy, do indigenous people no longer exist? Are Hawaiians extinct? Do black Americans no longer exist? These events have lasting impacts! Despite the entire UN council except the US and Israel voting to open the Cuban blockade, the US is continuing it!

Secondly, if our conversation is about choosing which Imperialist power to live under, you must see why each country is doing what it's doing. The US already conquered the surrounding areas, and now expresses Imperialism through puppet states like Israel.

Your concern is nothing, you just refuse to believe that America is one of the most brutal empires the world has ever known.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

So basically ongoing imperialist conquest and subjugation in modern times is justified because anyone did it in the past? Bullshit.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Fucking no the hell it isn't justified, what are you talking about? You're the one justifying ongoing genocide in Gaza because the US already finished most of its domestic Conquest and genocide.

[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why? Are you afraid they're going to treat you as poorly as you treated them? They won't, but they absolutely should.

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024

72 points (100.0% liked)

World News

36907 readers

329 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

jackmarxist@lemmy.ml

zephyreks@lemmy.ml

OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml