They’re both evil - evil people can do good things, but doing those good things doesn’t negate the evil things. Take the US: it’s done undeniably evil things, but at the same time it’s (by several measures) the #1 contributor of humanitarian aid to the world. So does this mean we be praising the US since by that metric it’s undeniably the global paragon of humanitarian charity? Or should we maybe be glad that the US is doing something not awful, while not accepting it as justification to dismiss the evil it also does?
The aid the US gives out is usually just given to compradors as bribes, it isn’t done with humanitarian intent but to keep the world under the thumb of imperialism.
Okay: while I’m not arguing that it definitely happens, or arguing that if altruism can even exist, I’d like to point out that both those articles are written to present the perspective about why it happens, they do not present evidence for either how it happens nor it’s effectiveness in furthering imperialist goals.
It’s a bit of a gotcha question on my part, I admit - the evidence you would need to present to conclusively prove those claims doesn’t exist (or, rather, it does exist and it’s not reported). There’s many reasons for that, the first ones people arrive at being usually “that would prove it and the US obviously doesn’t want it proved” (legit) and “reporting which NGOs have cash on hand would make them targets” (also legit but a lot more complicated, leat of all because imperialist countries generally use the turmoil/“lawlessness” that created the problem itself as a tool of imperialism).
Sure, and I quite agree that it happens - the only thing I’ve claimed is that the claim you’ve made (that it’s “usually just given to compradors as bribes”) is unsubstantiatable. You can’t prove it because nobody can, and what you provided me to support that claim is not actually evidence. It’s theory, not analysis, but it’s still important to be discussed.
Regardless of that though, I think you’ve misunderstood my initial point - That eventually there are sacks of grain with comedy US flags printed on them given out and that the existence of those grain sacks, or how they are used, does nothing to negate the myraid of crimes the US has committed. Much as how the Yemeni government joining a military coalition with a noble goal does nothing to erase the three decades of human rights abuses that has followed Yemeni unification.
If we are to hold ourselves over our enemies as morally superior, we have to hold ourselves to the same standards we condemn them with. Otherwise, we’re just the hypocrites so many people accuse us of being.
The US Empire isn’t giving out true aid, though. Even if we can find minor instances of aid, it’s done in the purposes of perpetuating imperialism, which aligns with the genocide. The centuries of human rights abuses by the US Empire, domestic and foreign, are aligned on that.
Yemeni human rights abuses are in the context of victims of imperialism, and the strong nationalism that springs in resistance to that. Yemen has every reason to improve socially as imperialism falls, their social conservativism isn’t intrinsic to being Yemeni but is a consequence of nationalist resistance to imperialism. Once free of imperialism, social progress can continue at far faster a pace.
Let me check my evil meter to find out if homophobia is worse than literal genocide against brown Untermenschen to create an ethnostate
They’re both evil - evil people can do good things, but doing those good things doesn’t negate the evil things. Take the US: it’s done undeniably evil things, but at the same time it’s (by several measures) the #1 contributor of humanitarian aid to the world. So does this mean we be praising the US since by that metric it’s undeniably the global paragon of humanitarian charity? Or should we maybe be glad that the US is doing something not awful, while not accepting it as justification to dismiss the evil it also does?
So the USA and it’s allies create chaos then act like the saviors and you expect us to say thank you the United Snakes?
That’s the exact opposite of the point I was making.
The aid the US gives out is usually just given to compradors as bribes, it isn’t done with humanitarian intent but to keep the world under the thumb of imperialism.
Okay. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Here’s an article from Jacobin, and here’s an article from The Nation. If you want a deep-dive on how the US Empire functions, Super-Imperialism by Michael Hudson is a good read.
Why would the US Empire give so much aid? To further its imperialist ambitions by solidifying a class of compradors and puppet states.
Okay: while I’m not arguing that it definitely happens, or arguing that if altruism can even exist, I’d like to point out that both those articles are written to present the perspective about why it happens, they do not present evidence for either how it happens nor it’s effectiveness in furthering imperialist goals.
It’s a bit of a gotcha question on my part, I admit - the evidence you would need to present to conclusively prove those claims doesn’t exist (or, rather, it does exist and it’s not reported). There’s many reasons for that, the first ones people arrive at being usually “that would prove it and the US obviously doesn’t want it proved” (legit) and “reporting which NGOs have cash on hand would make them targets” (also legit but a lot more complicated, leat of all because imperialist countries generally use the turmoil/“lawlessness” that created the problem itself as a tool of imperialism).
You can read the book I linked if you want more depth than internet articles can provide. This is a well-documented process.
Sure, and I quite agree that it happens - the only thing I’ve claimed is that the claim you’ve made (that it’s “usually just given to compradors as bribes”) is unsubstantiatable. You can’t prove it because nobody can, and what you provided me to support that claim is not actually evidence. It’s theory, not analysis, but it’s still important to be discussed.
Regardless of that though, I think you’ve misunderstood my initial point - That eventually there are sacks of grain with comedy US flags printed on them given out and that the existence of those grain sacks, or how they are used, does nothing to negate the myraid of crimes the US has committed. Much as how the Yemeni government joining a military coalition with a noble goal does nothing to erase the three decades of human rights abuses that has followed Yemeni unification.
If we are to hold ourselves over our enemies as morally superior, we have to hold ourselves to the same standards we condemn them with. Otherwise, we’re just the hypocrites so many people accuse us of being.
The US Empire isn’t giving out true aid, though. Even if we can find minor instances of aid, it’s done in the purposes of perpetuating imperialism, which aligns with the genocide. The centuries of human rights abuses by the US Empire, domestic and foreign, are aligned on that.
Yemeni human rights abuses are in the context of victims of imperialism, and the strong nationalism that springs in resistance to that. Yemen has every reason to improve socially as imperialism falls, their social conservativism isn’t intrinsic to being Yemeni but is a consequence of nationalist resistance to imperialism. Once free of imperialism, social progress can continue at far faster a pace.