[HN Gopher] Invade Haiti, Wall Street Urged. The U.S. Obliged
___________________________________________________________________
Invade Haiti, Wall Street Urged. The U.S. Obliged
Author : acqbu
Score : 174 points
Date : 2022-05-22 13:51 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| sorokod wrote:
| Obligatory reference to Smedley Darlington Butler
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
| rayiner wrote:
| Haiti was independent for more than a century before the US
| invasion. What was it like before that?
|
| As someone from a third world country, I'm ambivalent about these
| "blame the white people" stories.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I think you should read up more on the history of Haiti.
| viksit wrote:
| The article that should have been posted is this :
| https://nyti.ms/3G3zNKB
|
| Tldr - France and french banks forced haiti to pay reparations
| for having earned their freedoms for so long that 2.53 out of
| every 3 dollars they made for centuries went to "white people".
| This led to a loss of 25 billion dollars conservatively or 200
| if you're being real.
|
| The US just took over as the next colonial power.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| It was once maybe the richest and most densely populated place
| on earth.
|
| http://cyberspacei.com/jesusi/authors/chomsky/year/y501_008....
| samatman wrote:
| Searching for "rich" and "wealth" in that document doesn't
| turn up a demonstration of the claim, which I find
| extraordinary. Would you mind quoting the part which you
| believe does?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >Saint Domingue was the wealthiest European colonial
| possession in the Americas," Hans Schmidt writes, producing
| three-quarters of the world's sugar by 1789,
|
| Though I believe the poster was asking about the economy
| post independence.
| rayiner wrote:
| So was Bangladesh (where I'm from). But because of natural
| bounty and resources, not technology or social organization.
| That's why the Europeans were able to establish colonies in
| the first place. And even if restored to that level of wealth
| that would make them desperately poor by European standards
| today.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Bengal was actually quite advanced, orior to colonisation
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| The comparison with other countries tends not to be made.
|
| Germany took huge amounts of money from the US, Japan (the CIA
| were rigging elections in Japan until a few decades ago), South
| Korea...in the 1940s, 100% this argument was justifiable.
|
| But after that point, particularly if you look at what happened
| in Central and South America, it is very clear that other
| explanations pre-dominate (and, not coincidentally, some of
| these places have been content to blame others all the
| way...Singapore was poorer than any country in Africa 60 years
| ago, had race riots worse than any place, they are now richer
| than most of Europe).
|
| Also, I did my PG thesis on this specific issue: whether you
| think it is right or wrong, this is how sovereign debt crises
| were resolved at the time. Egypt, Ottomans...there were few
| other options that creditors had because most of these places
| weren't nation states in the way we perceive them today. So
| passing financial management over to creditors or hypothecating
| specific revenues (something not mentioned in the article, but
| which happened in Haiti) were the only way that people agreed
| to lend...and they lent, they provided financing for
| everything. The article doesn't invert their question
| (deliberately, I think we all know what the agenda is here...it
| relates to contemporary politics only): if the US and France
| didn't lend, how does Haiti industrialise? The population had
| no savings, do you think roads and hospitals just spring up for
| free out of nothing? The US, Germany (in part), Australia, New
| Zealand, Japan, South Korea...they all industrialised using
| foreign capital.
|
| Finally, I think forced labour was used in road construction in
| almost every country (certainly in the US). The implication
| today has to be that this was because of racism or some
| inherent desire for evil...it wasn't, it was because (once
| again) of the lack of reasonable alternatives.
| tptacek wrote:
| Can you help me understand what your last paragraph is
| saying? There's a way to read it as a justification for
| forced labor, but I feel like I must be misunderstanding it.
| rayiner wrote:
| Thank you, this is an insightful comment.
|
| > The comparison with other countries tends not to be made.
|
| I find that problematic because it reduces the situation in
| these developing countries to a moral narrative with the
| ultimate purposes of embettering descendants of european
| countries. But these narratives don't facilitate solutions.
| The French are not, for example, going to ever pay back the
| $20 billion or so in reparations they demanded from Haiti.
| Nor are the British going to pay back the $1 trillion+ they
| expropriated from India.
|
| I'm much more interested in cross comparisons to industrial
| development to European countries. Bangladesh is currently
| industrializing using foreign capital. What parallels can be
| drawn to Germany or the US that would help keep that going?
| Because at the end of the day, the 6-7% annual GDP growth the
| country is currently enjoying is more significant to
| Bangladeshis than the combined effect of all the moral
| narratives ever penned about the country by the likes of the
| New York Times.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Bangladeshis seem perfectly happy with a "Pakistan invested
| nothing in us from 1947-71" narrative while buying air
| defense systems from them well into 21st century.
| rayiner wrote:
| And they're downright gleeful about the recent divergence
| in GDP per capita growth between Pakistan and
| India/Bangladesh, as well as Pakistan's inability to get
| their birth rate down to replacement levels.
|
| But that doesn't top India's recent preoccupation with
| being mad not about the 700 years of Muslim rule prior to
| British colonization...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I don't worship Aurangzeb and neither should anyone else.
| What's going on is about erasing Muslims rather than
| moving forward (moving the buildings or building a new
| mosque on a different site, etc). Inventing sacred sites
| (and I am not saying this about Kashi/Mathura because
| those are well documented) is the oldest trick in the
| book (see attempts at Charminar in Hyderabad by Hindus,
| Shab Bhar Masjid in pre-Partition Lahore, etc)
| TMWNN wrote:
| >Haiti was independent for more than a century before the US
| invasion. What was it like before that?
|
| After two centuries, one might start to think that the problem
| with Haiti is Haitians, were such a concept not wrongthink and
| therefore _verboten_.
|
| Relevant Reddit post:
|
| >TIL that Haiti has had 23 constitutions since 1801, with the
| most recent being enacted in 2012. At least two have declared
| the country to be an empire. <https://www.reddit.com/r/todayile
| arned/comments/3t5wzt/til_t...>
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The US has had what, 29? Articles of Confederation, US
| Constitution, and then 27 amendments. I guess several of the
| amendments came together so it'd be slightly lower.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| This article is heavily infused with the bias of the article
| with the authors' opinion of "USA bad".
| Voloskaya wrote:
| You might want to read the article you are commenting on a bit
| more carefully, since this is explicitly mentioned. While Haiti
| gained independence from France in 1791, France demanded
| "reparation" from that loss under the threat of a war.
|
| > They reveal a debt so large, and so lasting, that it would
| help cement Haiti's path to poverty and underdevelopment. Haiti
| became the first and only country where the descendants of
| enslaved people paid the families of their former masters for
| generations.
|
| > In 1825, France demanded five annual payments of 30 million
| francs. The amount was far beyond Haiti's meager means. The
| first payment alone was about six times Haiti's entire revenue
| that year, according to the prominent 19th-century Haitian
| historian Beaubrun Ardouin.
|
| https://archive.ph/9InwY#selection-851.0-908.0
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Haiti has been taken advantage of many times in history. Here's a
| more recent example:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Why hire an artist to draw portraits of the scumbags responsible?
| Surely the pictures used for models are available if you need to
| show them at all. Printing that next to an American showing off
| his "hunt" of Hatians is just bizarre.
| robonerd wrote:
| Four of those five illustrations is a redrawing of the public
| domain photographs wikipedia has for each (Roger L. Farnham
| doesn't have a wikipedia page, but I bet his portrait was
| redrawn from a public domain photograph too.)
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Not sure if it's public domain but I found the Farnham
| reference photo on image search, complete with the polka dot
| bowtie. A strange use of an artist's time
| [deleted]
| lizardactivist wrote:
| I wonder what nation will be the U.S. governments next target now
| that they're finished with Afghanistan.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| In the balkans, people actively rooted for trump, because they
| were afraid that another clinton will start another war here.
|
| What I find really sad is, that the same people who have
| ukraine flags and "putin bad" everywhere, ignore eg. US
| soldiers that were just sent to somalia, and a bunch of other
| us/nato missions, eg syria, libya, not to mention "allies",
| from saudis to israel.
| ciphol wrote:
| By "the balkans" I presume you mean Serbia? The country that
| twice committed ethnic cleansing and genocide against its
| neighbors until the Clinton administration made them stop?
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I live in slovenia. And I still don't want the clintons in
| europe. Nor do I want the american army here, including
| american army bases. Maybe if you guys stopped destroying
| random countries all around the world (you're sending
| troops to somalia right now, while pointing the finger at
| putin), people would like you more.
| pessimizer wrote:
| People don't have the time or inclination to understand the
| world, so they focus on the targets pushed out in front of
| them, especially if you can paint them as comic book villains
| so people don't have to take too much time figuring out who
| they side with.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| It's not that... if americans kept to themselves and dealt
| with their internal politics (like massive student debt,
| screwed up health system, etc.) noone from outside would
| care about the american presidents. If one of the options
| like to drop bombs all over the world, to "protect americas
| freedom" (or whatever the excuse is), then even the outside
| people start caring.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| If there is a comic book villain in modern leaders then
| it's Putin; belligerent, racist, sexist, using religion to
| justify his white supremacist policies, referring to Stalin
| as his favorite leader, etc. I mean there is literally
| nothing "good" about him.
| ciphol wrote:
| Maybe the next nation to attack the World Trade Center
| lizardactivist wrote:
| Remind us again, who attacked the WTC? Was it Afghanistan?
| Libya? Syria? Iran? Iraq? Kuwait? Vietnam perhaps? Which one
| of the dozen countries that the U.S. has bombed, invaded, or
| wrongfully accused in the last decades of some wrong-doing
| was it?
| sitkack wrote:
| That wasn't an invasion, that was just Civil Asset Forfeiture.
| That is a difficult read on a Sunday morning.
|
| > Some historians cite tangible gains, like hospitals, 800 miles
| of roads and a more efficient civil service, but they also point
| to the American use of forced labor, with soldiers tying up
| civilians in ropes, making them work for no pay and shooting
| those who tried to flee.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jovenel_Mo%C3...
|
| Those old black and white photos of troops boarding a ship to
| Haiti in 1915 is focused through a lens to arrive at the present
| here,
| https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1439989195871825921
|
| The phrase "America is the worlds police" is now understood in
| its rightful context. America keeps its own peace by killing and
| shaking down those who it can.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Smedley Butler had some things to say about this too:
|
| https://man.fas.org/smedley.htm
| sitkack wrote:
| I had never heard of Smedley Butler before, powerful speech.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
|
| The excerpt isn't long.
|
| > War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I
| believe, as something that is not what it seems to the
| majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it
| is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at
| the expense of the masses.
|
| > I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing
| else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
| The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6
| percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to
| get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the
| soldiers follow the flag.
|
| > I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some
| lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we
| should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the
| other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is
| simply a racket.
|
| > There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the
| military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point
| out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain
| men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-
| Nationalistic-Capitalism.
|
| > It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a
| comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three
| years and four months in active military service as a member
| of this country's most agile military force, the Marine
| Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second
| Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent
| most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big
| Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I
| was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
|
| > I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I
| am sure of it. Like all the members of the military
| profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the
| service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation
| while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with
| everyone in the military service.
|
| > I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American
| oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent
| place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
| I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American
| republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of
| racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
| international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912
| (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to
| the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916.
| In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way
| unmolested.
|
| > During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room
| would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I
| could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do
| was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on
| three continents.
|
| You can see him in archival footage talking to the Bonus Army
| in Washington DC.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ
|
| Analysis of speech to Bonus Army
| https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/marine-medal-of-honor-
| sm...
|
| 10 minute newsreel https://youtu.be/Q_vJH2nrMl8?t=120
|
| This is phenomenal, MacArthur, Patton and Eisenhower led the
| removal of the Bonus Army from Washington DC and showed their
| colors.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Angelo
|
| This is shit we should have learned in history class.
| brnaftr361 wrote:
| This is exactly the shit they standardize out of history
| class. What they tend to cover is wars. It makes for a good
| militaristic political nationalist student that gives
| credence to the idea that the US Government is a moral
| authority.
| suture wrote:
| I grew up in the Canal Zone (former American colony in Panama).
| We Americans built roads, sewer, water systems, etc. in Panama.
| We paid good wages by Panamanian standards. This is the
| standard imperial justification. We thought Panama would never
| be able to run the canal without us. We were wrong. Panama
| ended up much better off without our presence. While we were
| "benign" colonists we held the country back.
|
| Someday, hopefully, powerful nations will not feel the need to
| be in control of other nations even when those nations do
| uppity things like control their own destiny.
| pirate787 wrote:
| The US is still heavily involved in Panama and used force to
| remove the narco-authoritarian leader Manuel Noreiga. Panama
| received a huge gift in the form of the canal. Panama still
| uses the dollar as its currency. Without US involvement
| Panama would look more like the other country considered for
| a canal -- Nicaragua. Panama's per capita GDP is 6x
| Nicaragua. US imperialism was fantastic for Panama.
| bannedbybros wrote:
| eloff wrote:
| Having that canal here in Panama and having the guarantee
| that the US will intervene with force of the security of
| the canal is threatened is the best thing for Panama.
| Without the ousting of Manuel Noriega by military invasion,
| this country would look a lot more similar to Nicaragua or
| Venezuela. There are still people here that are bitter
| about it, but there are also many that recognize that
| Panama owes much of its success and stability to the US.
| ben_w wrote:
| Hmm.
|
| A guarantee of force by a _different_ nation isn't always
| in the best interest of a nation: the comparison that
| comes to my mind for external application of force when a
| canal's "security" was threatened, is the Suez Canal.
| eloff wrote:
| I agree in general that it could be a bad thing. But in
| the case of Panama and the US I see it as a very positive
| thing.
|
| For one, Panama doesn't have a military anymore since
| Noriega was ousted in the invasion. That's a huge
| blessing of stability to the country. You don't have to
| look far in Latin America, Asia, and Africa to see how
| dangerous a military is to democracy. And we don't need a
| military for defence, because everyone knows the US will
| rush to the defence of Panama if the canal were
| threatened. Purely from self interest, but that aligns
| nicely with the intersts of Panama in this case.
| jeromegv wrote:
| Always hilarious to see people justify colonialism /
| controlling another country. I'm sure you wouldn't feel
| that way if this was your own country that would not
| control its destiny and was controlled from imperial powers
| abroad.
|
| Ask anyone in Panama, they feel much better being
| independent. Yes Panama is obviously still having strong
| ties with the US, but they are happy that their own land is
| not owned and managed by of a foreign army.
| bombcar wrote:
| By that argument California would be much happier being
| independent and not under the boot of a federal power.
| suture wrote:
| After a while assimilation and integration occurs and
| thus the argument would not apply to present day
| California. The U.S. made no attempts to incorporate
| Panama, as a whole, into the U.S. Poor Panamanians were
| prevented from getting mangoes in the Canal Zone. It took
| rioting and deaths before the Panamanian flag was flown
| in the Canal Zone. I don't think the comparison to
| California is apt.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Nicaragua was also subject to American imperialism, with
| entire cities razed to the ground.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_War
|
| Several other Central American states are still extremely
| poor due to the banana republic economic imperialism
| supported by the United States.
|
| Neighboring Costa Rica avoided that.
| ls-lah_33 wrote:
| Nicaragua is not such a good analogy since US foreign
| policy had a deliberate negative effect on Nicaraguan
| politics:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States. A
| better analogy would be a country that was non-aligned but
| didn't experience much interference. I can't think of many
| examples, aside from maybe Botswana or something.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I wouldn't consider the return of stolen property a "gift"
| regardless of how much it may have been improved by the
| thief.
| eloff wrote:
| I disagree with that characterization. The Panama canal
| was a huge gift to Panama, and the country has benefited
| immensely from it (I live in Panama.)
| suture wrote:
| I think that Panama would not be any near as well off had
| the Canal Zone remained. We stunted Panama's political
| and national growth. It's not a coincidence that the
| Thatcher Ferry Bridge was the only bridge across the
| canal on the Pacific side while America was in control.
| The political will to develop the infrastructure of the
| country simply was nonexistent until after we left.
| eloff wrote:
| I agree with that, but it doesn't take away that giving
| the canal to Panama was a gift. One might argue a
| deserved gift, since it's Panama's territory, but it was
| a gift nonetheless. Panama wouldn't necessarily exist as
| an independent country were it not for US imperialism and
| constructing that canal in the first place.
|
| However, the Noriega business would have the death of
| Panama had it not been for the US intervention. That was
| some necessary tough love for Panama.
|
| You're right though that, at the end anyway, the canal
| zone was holding the country back. In the early days it
| may have been different. It's tough to say.
| suture wrote:
| I understand better your point and agree with it. I have
| been concentrating in my remarks in the tail end of U.S.
| control of the Zone. It was beneficial to Panama to get
| the Canal as a result of the treaty.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| How was Colombia going to govern it with the Darien Gap
| still being a thing?
| zajio1am wrote:
| It was not stolen, the lease was based on mutually agreed
| treaty, which has also advantages for Panama (by US
| providing support during its independence revolt).
|
| (Although one could say it was stolen from Colombia,
| through support of Panama independence.)
| TMWNN wrote:
| >(Although one could say it was stolen from Colombia,
| through support of Panama independence.)
|
| The Panamanian independence movement from Colombia had
| existed for decades. Did the US leverage it to obtain
| territory for the canal? Yes. Did independence reflect
| local sentiment? Yes.
| suture wrote:
| I grew up there and came to the United States to go to
| college. I was there during the Noriega years but was in
| the U.S. during Just Cause. As I recall Panama uses the
| Balboa as its currency and the Balboa is pegged to the
| dollar. Panama does not make paper currency but it does
| have its own coins (which are the same size, weight as
| American coins).
|
| As one rabiblanco put it to me the last time I was there,
| "When America left we had to grow up." Therein lies the
| pernicious nature of benign colonialism.
|
| You have no idea what Panama would look like had the canal
| not been built. Maybe it would be more like Costa Rica than
| Nicaragua. The difference between Costa Rica and Nicaragua
| is that Nicaragua had the temerity to get a government we
| didn't like. Heck, you don't even know if Panama would be a
| country in the alternate timeline where the canal isn't
| built.
|
| How do you know the extent of my knowledge of Panama's
| history based on my original response? Must I be ignorant
| simply because I believe the U.S. ended up being bad for
| Panama by the time of the Treaty? Who propped up Noriega
| and encouraged the expansion of the PDF? Who wanted
| Battalon 2000 to be in Amador and was fine with the PDF
| being the de facto rulers of Panama? (Until Herrara Diaz
| made his accusations and the people rose up.)
| jcranmer wrote:
| > Heck, you don't even know if Panama would be a country
| in the alternate timeline where the canal isn't built.
|
| I mean, the US more or less sponsored Panamanian
| independence from Colombia solely because they didn't
| like Colombia's terms on offer for acquiring the land for
| the Panama Canal.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| You probably want to explain to them that rabiblanco is
| slang for white Panamanian elite (ie not Noriega and co)
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| But Costa Rica is so rich because it's a western tourist
| state. It's entirely white settler colonialism behind
| Costa Rica AND panamas relative success...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Haitians of German descent* had a stranglehold on Haitian ports
| and maritime commerce. Wasn't that a casus belli? We could have
| de-Germanized those industries, handed them back to majority
| along with Haitian government and it would have been a win-win
| without occupation.
|
| *Yes I know what Haitian constitution said about everyone being
| black but unlike Polish Haitians German Haitians resolutely
| intermarried only with each other to the point of inbreeding
| like Greeks in Ancient Egypt.
| viksit wrote:
| An amazing article that should be required reading apart from
| this one is this : https://nyti.ms/3G3zNKB (Part of the same
| series on Haiti, and truly shows the scope of the rot).
|
| TL;DR - France and french banks forced haiti to pay reparations
| for having earned their freedoms for so long that 2.53 out of
| every 3 dollars they made for centuries went to "white people".
| This led to a loss of 25 billion dollars conservatively or 200
| billion if you're being real.
|
| The US just took over as the next colonial power. They even
| helped get rid of the only President in decades to have brought
| this whole thing up as an issue again.
| 1024core wrote:
| > Haiti became the first and only country where the descendants
| of enslaved people paid the families of their former masters for
| generations
|
| This just makes me so sad.
|
| Here's the thing: what's in the past is over; what can we do
| about it _today_ is all that matters.
|
| Wouldn't be great if the French decided to spend a couple of
| billion dollars to set up schools, hospitals, colleges, etc. in
| Haiti?
|
| Everybody makes mistakes. But it takes real courage to own up
| your mistakes and fix them.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| The US often skips many many chances to help our fellow new
| worlders in the south both in the caribbean and mexico on down.
| It will definitely come home to bite us in the future.
| _gabe_ wrote:
| > Everybody makes mistakes. But it takes real courage to own up
| your mistakes and fix them.
|
| Yes, but like you said, this happened in the past. The current
| French citizens are not the ones who made these mistakes.
|
| For the same reason that we don't punish the children for the
| crimes of their parents, we shouldn't be accusing people today
| of the crimes of their ancestors. I agree that it would be
| amazing if the French decided to help restore Haiti, but it's
| not beneficial to cast blame on the French people of today and
| demand reparations.
|
| At the very least, if we demand reparations of them today how
| far back do we go and who else do we demand reparations from?
| The Germans committed atrocities against the Jews less than 100
| years ago, but nobody is demanding reparations there? What
| about Mao Zedong, also less than 100 years ago? Or how about
| the evils going on right now in places like Saudi Arabia[0],
| Afghanistan[1], or the very alive slave trade of over 21-45
| _million people right now_ [2]?
|
| [0]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/30/saudi-
| arabia-10-reasons-...
|
| [1]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/18/afghanistan-taliban-
| depr...
|
| [2]: https://www.endslaverynow.org/blog/articles/human-
| traffickin...
| DFHippie wrote:
| If your grandfather robbed a family and left them
| impoverished, yes, you are not responsible for the theft, but
| you continue to benefit from it, and you are the one who can
| choose to make amends, not your grandfather.
|
| If a Swiss banker today is in charge of the gold extracted
| from the teeth of Jews, Romani, communists, homosexuals, etc.
| murdered in concentration camps, must he give it back to the
| descendants of the victims? He was neither a Nazi nor the
| banker the Nazis sent the gold to originally. He is not
| responsible for their actions, but he is now the steward of
| this stolen wealth. What is his responsibility at this point?
|
| Money seems different from gold because it is fungible and
| abstract. Your standard of living may be based in part upon
| some historical theft, but _which_ part and how much? There
| isn 't a particular dollar bill or pound note you can point
| to as stolen. Gold melted down from fillings isn't like that.
| But this just speaks to the poverty of our imagination, not
| anything morally relevant.
| Mlller wrote:
| > The Germans committed atrocities against the Jews less than
| 100 years ago, but nobody is demanding reparations there?
|
| As it seems, reparations were demanded (and payed) sometimes,
| cp. e.g. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/german-
| holocaust-repara...
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| "American interests", an euphemism used to this day to refer to
| whatever's most profitable for american capitalists and
| industrialists. It can be found in actual government documents
| released today. The context almost always consists of some
| country not making life easy for some american "stakeholder".
| Makes me cringe every time I read those words.
| elliekelly wrote:
| You should read "The Fish that Ate the Whale" by Richard Cohen.
| The American government did insane things in Central and South
| America for/on behalf of the banana industry.
| sofixa wrote:
| Alternatively there's also "I Was a Gangster for Capitalism"
| by Smedley Butler, who was actually in Haiti.
| car_analogy wrote:
| Make sure that after Wall Street hijacks your government and
| uses your taxes and lives to terrorize some poor country you've
| barely heard of, for the benefit of bankers and capitalists you
| haven't heard of at all, that you, _personally_ , feel guilty
| about it.
|
| That is the most crucial part, because _you_ will have to
| repent and atone for those deeds, never them.
| [deleted]
| FargaColora wrote:
| sofixa wrote:
| Conspiracy theory? I thought it was common knowledge and
| accepted fact. Haven't you heard all the oil jokes? "Oil
| discovered in Antarctica, the US says it will liberate the
| penguins from the fascist tyranny with WMDs of the snow". And
| that's only for the obvious stuff, banana republic was
| _literally_ coined after US companies ' exploitation.
|
| I can recommend "I was a Gangster for Capitalism", really
| good book.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| There's nothing extraordinary about historical facts. The
| U.S. propaganda machinery has not yet been able to erase all
| its wrongs and crimes from history, even though it's actively
| working at it.
| miltondts wrote:
| From [1]: "economic elites and organized groups representing
| business interests have substantial independent impacts on
| U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and
| average citizens have little or no independent influence."
|
| And "The bigger spender wins congressional races 91 percent
| of the time" [2].
|
| But if that's not credible enough for you maybe go see the
| speech by President Eisenhower [3].
|
| Don't you remember the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?
|
| There are so many examples that I have no idea how you think
| this is a conspiracy theory. There is no need for that,
| people just act on their perceived best interest, and when
| you have the top ~1000 people controlling almost every asset,
| isn't it obvious that they will dictate the course of
| history?
|
| [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
| cage/wp/2014/04/0...
|
| [2] - https://www.vox.com/2014/10/27/7077647/midterms-
| spending-mon...
|
| [3] - https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-
| warns...
| FargaColora wrote:
| Thanks for actually posting links, although none of them
| show that "US foreign policy exists to make corporations
| rich". They are just vague general warnings about
| concentration of power.
|
| The US has a huge and robust left-leaning press. I would
| have expected extensive wall-to-wall reporting if "US
| foreign policy exists to make corporations rich". Yet I see
| none. In what way is this not a generic "america=bad"
| conspiracy theory?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The US Trade Representative publishes a naughty list of
| countries every single year pointing out nations that
| aren't conforming to american intellectual property laws.
| These reports are riddled with language such as "our
| stakeholders say", implying rich corporations and
| industries are telling the US government what to do and
| who to target. As a result, countries with high crime
| rates and without universal basic sanitation have to
| waste resources policing imaginary american property
| within their borders.
| uoaei wrote:
| The coup in Bolivia in 2019 was also for American, and more
| broadly, transnational corporate, interests, primarily related
| to privatizing publicly-owned natural resources like lithium.
| Elon Musk literally said "We will coup whoever we want" when
| asked about it.
|
| See also the efforts for years now that US govt officials have
| been pushing for the "recognition" of the "interim government"
| of Venezuela, who sits on large publicly-owned oil reserves.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| So I take it I'm supposed to feel guilty for something my
| ancestors did? Sorry but I don't. Take it as a warning that corps
| have government tied around their finger and have for centuries,
| sure I can agree with that. I looked up some other articles by
| the authors they all seemed to have a heavy handed opinion
| overlaid over what should be simple reporting, so take this
| article with a grain of salt.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _In September 2003, Amiot Metayer was found dead, his eyes shot
| out and his heart cut out, most likely the result of machete-
| inflicted wounds. He was, prior to his death, the leader of the
| Gonaives gang known as "The Cannibal Army." After his death, his
| brother Buteur Metayer swore vengeance against those he felt
| responsible for Amiot's death--namely, President Jean-Bertrand
| Aristide. Buteur took charge of the Cannibal Army and promptly
| renamed it the National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of
| Haiti._
|
| Well then...
| bombcar wrote:
| Sounds like one of the more successful rebranding efforts,
| thought Cannibal Army has a certain ring to it.
| muro wrote:
| The word "zombie" also has origins in Haiti.
| themgt wrote:
| US troops are still (illegally) occupying territory in Syria to
| "protect oil fields" or something - odd how we never hear about
| that in the context of our newfound deeply held belief in
| inviolability of national sovereignty and borders.
|
| Anyhow, Haiti is a truly tragic story. Just in terms of the real
| estate it's sitting on there's a massive opportunity for anyone
| who could get the country semi-functional to build a thriving
| tourism industry.
|
| Haiti's GDP per capita in 1990 was higher than China's[1]. I'm
| skeptical of the ability of history from 100-200 years ago to
| explain why there's been such a massive divergence since. Put
| another way, if you looked at the picture in 1990 where China and
| Haiti GDP per capita have been similar for decades with Haiti
| often in the lead, what facts would have led you to correctly
| predict the massive divergence over the next 30 years? The events
| of 1914 or 1803 in Haiti? But the opium wars, China being
| subjugated by Japan, Mao killing ~45 million of his own people
| would not similarly handicap China? See also Vietnam, Laos,
| Thailand, Cambodia, etc.
|
| [1]
| https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=gdp+per+capita+haiti%2C...
| raegis wrote:
| > ... what facts would have led you to correctly predict the
| massive divergence over the next 30 years? The events of 1914
| or 1803 in Haiti?
|
| The U.S. has been meddling in Haiti's affairs ever since,
| threatening leaders who dare to raise the minimum wage, among
| other things. Your skepticism of "history from 100-200 years
| ago to explain" seems more like a straw man argument. The
| comparison between Haiti (10 million residents) and China (1
| billion residents) is kind of strange, for GDP per capita is
| not dependent on the work of independent individuals. You take
| the total for the country and divide by the number of
| individuals, so any country with a billion residents and the
| ability to produce and set wages without restrictions has a
| massive advantage over any country with 1 percent of their
| population. Lastly, your comparison with China could be done
| with a hundred other countries, so you could easily dismiss
| their history just the same. There's a lot going on you might
| not be aware of.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Interesting. I'm reading "Harsh Times" -- an awesome novelization
| of essentially the same phenomenon in Guatemala.
|
| Independence. Was that a trap for Haiti? Would they have been
| better off as a vassal state of France? Should they have just
| fought the French again? Is there a counterfactual that suggests
| what could have been done differently?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| While it's possible to imagine a history where the French free
| the slaves and somehow still convince them to work on the sugar
| plantations, resulting in a better outcome for everyone,
| reaching such a set up would have been a Herculean task. It's
| hard to view independence as a bad outcome for the slaves
| without such a scenario.
|
| >Should they have just fought the French again?
|
| Without the distraction of the French Revolution, I can't
| picture France losing that war. From the article, the US lost
| ~15 men in the 1915 war to ostensibly conquer the country,
| throughout most of the 19th century France likely could have
| won with similar ease. That's surely what the Haitians
| believed, as they only agreed to the indemnity due to gunboat
| diplomacy.
|
| > Is there a counterfactual that suggests what could have been
| done differently?
|
| The best counterfactual is the US, where the French
| acknowledged and supported us allowing a new nation to be
| built. Nobody gave Haiti support, save a couple thousand Polish
| soldiers.
|
| At most, maybe without the 1804 massacre of the French the
| Haitians would have gotten somewhat better treatment. But as
| they were already given such poor treatment, I doubt it'd have
| vastly improved things.
| funstuff007 wrote:
| They would have been better off being a member of the
| Commonwealth.
| dan353hehe wrote:
| https://archive.ph/eq9C0
| jmyeet wrote:
| Nothing has changed.
|
| For all the polarizing division in US politics on the issue of
| foreign policy (and even on many domestic issues) the two major
| parties are completely aligned to protect and benefit the
| capital-owning class.
|
| Sanctions on Cuba? This is not because Cuba or Castro is "bad".
| We have absolutely no problem propping up horrific dictators as
| "allies" when it suits us (eg Pinochet, MBS, Saddam Hussein until
| it didn't suit us, even Erdogan, arguably even Netanyahu). What's
| the real issue with Cuba? Castro nationalized assets and
| resources that belonged to US corporations.
|
| Sanctions on Venezuela? Again, Venezuela took the unacceptable
| step of nationalizing their oil assets. And with Russia's
| unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine now threatening the energy
| sector, suddenly the Venezuelan sanctions aren't as important as
| we made out [1].
|
| Sanctions on Iraq following the first Gulf War? Consider the
| words of our then UN Ambassador later Secretary of State Madeline
| Albright [2]:
|
| > In that now-iconic interview, veteran journalist Lesley Stahl
| questioned Albright - then the US ambassador to the United
| Nations - on the catastrophic effect the rigorous US sanctions
| imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had on the Iraqi
| population.
|
| > "We have heard that half a million [Iraqi] children have died.
| I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima," asked
| Stahl, "And, you know, is the price worth it?"
|
| > "I think that is a very hard choice," Albright answered, "but
| the price, we think, the price is worth it."
|
| The US government works for the Bezoses, Gates, Buffetts and
| Musks of the world. Never forget that.
|
| [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/17/venezuela-
| oi...
|
| [2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/25/lets-
| remember-m...
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The problem with Cuba is Florida. It's a politically powerful
| state and the Cuban community owns the GOP.
|
| Ethnic voting blocs are truly powerful. Religious fanaticism
| waxes and wanes, but strong ethnic identity endured for a few
| generations. That's why southern baptists are suddenly sucking
| up to Catholic judges - it's seen as a way to connect to
| Hispanic voters as conservative boomers die off.
| jmyeet wrote:
| I don't disagree about the power of the Cuban voting bloc in
| Florida. Had they voted more in line with, say, other
| Hispanic voters we may well have avoided a 20 year water in
| Iraq and Afghanistan [1].
|
| > Ethnic voting blocs are truly powerful.
|
| I'd generalize this further. Any substantial voting bloc is
| powerful, ethnic or otherwise. The NRA and, anti-choice
| lobbies and the pro-Israel lobby, for example. There is
| generational voting patterns (as you mention) but this seems
| to a subset of single-issue voters.
|
| There's a reason we can precisely draw Congressional maps to
| gerrymander the electorate: voting patterns are _highly_
| predictable.
|
| But a voting bloc can be a double edged sword. Cubans in
| Florida only hold power because they're the difference
| between the state being red and blue. It's why certain states
| are completely ignored in the election. One party or the
| other will comfortably win. Nothing will change that.
|
| Disproportionate power only comes when you're the balance of
| power.
|
| [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanista
| n.te...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| To borrow an (apocryphal) line from Paul Revere (with
| apologies): "The Puerto Ricans are coming, the Puerto
| Ricans are coming!"
| pphysch wrote:
| There is a lot of speculation in the replies here that the US
| strategy towards Cuba revolves mainly around electoral
| posturing.
|
| Here is the actual strategy laid out in an official government
| document:
| https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/20/2017-22...
|
| This policy was released in 2017. In 2021, there was a brief
| and ineffective attempt at a color revolution in Cuba.
| rajin444 wrote:
| The US has been an oligarchy for a good bit now. Politicians
| have shifted from discussing how to make our country better and
| replaced it with why you should hate their political opponents
| (both sides - ever wonder why it seems like neither political
| party has a message aside from "at least I'm not the other
| guy"?). Democracy ends in oligarchy.
|
| It's not like this is new. John Bagot Glubb talks about this in
| "The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival". Our ruling class
| is showing the same patterns of those ruling an empire at the
| end of its days. Squabbling over the riches earned by those who
| came before with no regard for their people or the future.
| DFHippie wrote:
| > both sides - ever wonder why it seems like neither
| political party has a message aside from "at least I'm not
| the other guy"?
|
| This is pure cynicism. It is both lazy and false.
|
| Democratic goals: - address climate change - extend the
| social insurance programs that are foundational to the
| welfare state: social security, the ACA, medicare, etc. -
| election integrity: ensure equal access to the ballot,
| eliminate gerrymandering, eliminate the electoral college -
| legislative reform: eliminate the filibuster - education:
| address educational debt - address inequality through tax
| measures and public expenditures - appoint liberal judges -
| preserve access to abortion and contraception - reform
| policing, making it more community based, less punitive, more
| accountable in the case of police wrongdoing, etc. - etc.
|
| Republican goals: - facilitate resource extraction -
| privatize public assets - roll back environmental protections
| and regulations of all sorts - roll back the social insurance
| programs that are foundational to the welfare state: social
| security, the ACA, medicare, etc. - reduce taxes,
| particularly on the wealthy - roll back commitments to
| international agreements and organizations - enshrine
| Christian morality and customs in law - roll back protections
| for historically disadvantaged groups - reduce ballot access
| for constituencies that tend not to vote Republican -
| preserve the electoral college and gerrymandering (see
| previous point) - prevent the teaching of anything touching
| on diversity or historical prejudices or injustice - appoint
| conservative judges - prevent access to abortion and
| contraception - reform policing, making it more lethal, more
| punitive, less accountable in the case of police wrongdoing,
| etc. - etc.
|
| This lists could be much longer. There are thousands of
| passionate politicians and activists for both parties who
| work on these things all the time. However, people are more
| motivated by negative partisanship than anything else. It
| turns out listing good stuff you intend to do on behalf of
| your voters is much less motivating than detailing the
| perfidy, real or imagined, of the other party and promising
| to punish it.
|
| False equivalence is the way you create oligarchy, not how
| you fight it.
| robinsoh wrote:
| > Nothing has changed.
|
| China?
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Fair is fair: capital is what builds economies, capital wins
| wars, capital allows culture to form, capital makes resources
| available. And capital will go where it is best protected.
|
| So a country that lets it's capital get destroyed is pretty
| much fucked.
|
| This is the fundamental issue with most forms of communism,
| socialism and theocracy: they're perpetually short of capital.
|
| Places like Northern Europe work very hard to simultaneously
| protect capital and human assets. And that's good. And we
| should emulate that. But all to often people try to down grade
| capital instead of upgrading people.
|
| The places people so often think of as alternatives (Venezuela
| as a recent example) all too often fall for this error and doom
| themselves.
| philipov wrote:
| I think you are conflating capital with "the capital-owning
| class" but they are not the same thing.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Not really. If you can keep your capital from fleeing but
| do away with them then good for you. Cuba and Russia have
| both made a good stab at that. Saudi too. But again, it's
| very difficult.
| meric wrote:
| The most notable theocracies - Iran and Saudi Arabia, do
| fairly well compared to the other two forms of government. I
| wonder why they're do better than one might expect.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Having billions of dollars of black gold gush out of the
| ground makes many things easy. What happens to them post
| oil?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Oil.
| jl6 wrote:
| Do fairly well for whom?
| thematrixturtle wrote:
| Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy, it's a regular old
| monarchist dictatorship with some window dressing, and on
| pretty much any measure they do worse than their capitalist
| competitors like the UAE or Qatar.
|
| Iran, Afghanistan and the Vatican are the only modern
| theocracies.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| This is a great post about the open and obvious actions the US
| government has done to protect capital's interest, but to truly
| go down the rabbit hole and understand the evil we have done in
| service of profit, check out what the CIA did in Central and
| South America, fighting "land reform"
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >The US government works for the Bezoses, Gates, Buffetts and
| Musks of the world
|
| the tax department maybe but America's billionaire tech
| entrepreneurs have barely any relationship with America's
| foreign policy establishment. It's not clear to me what Bill
| Gates gains out of subduing Latin American countries and Musk
| and Cook seem to be pretty positive on China given that they
| make and sell a lot of their stuff there.
|
| America's foreign policy establishment consists of think tanks,
| intellectuals, politicians, paperbelt types, ideologues and so
| forth but America's tech sector is to a large extent
| disconnected from this stuff if not straight up an alternative
| power center which routinely makes foreign policy hawks very
| mad.
| rland wrote:
| I think he was using those examples because they're
| billionaires that everyone knows.
|
| The energy/construction/resource extraction sector is very
| closely tied with US foreign policy.
| steve76 wrote:
| andreilys wrote:
| _The US government works for the Bezoses, Gates, Buffetts and
| Musks of the world._
|
| Yes they definitely work for three new-money tech billionaires
| and not the old money generational wealth families that nobody
| talks about.
| zajio1am wrote:
| > Sanctions on Cuba? This is not because Cuba or Castro is
| "bad". ... What's the real issue with Cuba? Castro nationalized
| assets and resources that belonged to US corporations.
|
| It is not surprising that US reacts more harshly when a foreign
| country violates human rights of US citizens than when it
| 'just' opresses their own citizens.
| DANK_YACHT wrote:
| Sanctions on Cuba could also be due to the Cuban missile
| crisis. That was a pretty big deal.
| warning26 wrote:
| _> Sanctions on Cuba? This is not because Cuba or Castro is
| "bad". We have absolutely no problem propping up horrific
| dictators as "allies" when it suits us (eg Pinochet, MBS,
| Saddam Hussein until it didn't suit us, even Erdogan, arguably
| even Netanyahu). What's the real issue with Cuba? Castro
| nationalized assets and resources that belonged to US
| corporations._
|
| Close, but not quite right. Castro nationalized assets and
| resources that belonged to _various people all of whom now live
| in Florida and vote as a bloc_. Note that Obama actually tried
| to end the Cuban embargo, but was stopped due to politicians
| afraid of upsetting the various people-who-hate-Cuba-for-this-
| specific-reason.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > Close, but not quite right. Castro nationalized assets and
| resources that belonged to various people all of whom now
| live in Florida and vote as a bloc.
|
| A bloc that resides in Florida is not responsible for the US
| policy against Cuba over the last 60+ years. Not to say it's
| not an element, but it's simply impractical as a flat
| reasoning. The nearby danger narrative is useful is another
| aspect. There are a few in aggregate.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Bingo. Well organised single-issue swing-state voting blocks
| are incredibly powerful. Particularly when they care strongly
| about an issue most Americans couldn't give two fucks for.
| uncletaco wrote:
| I wonder if they'll be more willing to revisit sanctions now
| that Florida is all but a red state. Given that bloc isn't in
| a swing state anymore it makes sense on the surface.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Florida is still too close for any party to take for
| granted. Also those anti-Castro Cubans in FL are single-
| issue voters, and also can't be taken for granted.
| digisign wrote:
| Curious, how would a single state have a huge influence
| in DC?
| [deleted]
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Because it's still "sort of" a swing state, and there is
| a lot of money in Florida and they have a LOT of
| lobbyists in Congress handing out money to critical
| senators and reps for their votes. Also in general MAGAs
| don't like brown people so it's easy to convince them
| that "Cuba bad"
| vhgyu75e6u wrote:
| There is also a small cluster of Venezuelans that will
| vote GOP because they have, historically, a harder stance
| on Cuba and the Dictatorship in Venezuela.
|
| Funny how left leaning voters call out imperialism but
| forget that Cuba, Russia and China have been doing that
| in Venezuela the last 30 years
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| A Democracy listens to voters? That's terrifying!
| robonerd wrote:
| Sanctions against Cuba likely continue because those sanctions
| are popular with an influential demographic in a swing state,
| namely Cuban Americans in Florida. In 2020, 58% of Cuban
| Americans affiliated with the GOP, while only 32% of non-Cuban
| Hispanics did. Furthermore, Cuban Americans have high voter
| turnout relative to other Hispanic demographics in America.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/02/most-cuban-...
| yyyk wrote:
| >What's the real issue with Cuba? Castro nationalized assets
| and resources that belonged to US corporations... Sanctions on
| Venezuela? Again, Venezuela took the unacceptable step of
| nationalizing their oil assets.
|
| Also set up one party states which ideologically align with
| every US enemy out there including USSR/Russia while completely
| ruining their own countries.
|
| > We have absolutely no problem propping up horrific dictators
| as "allies" when it suits us (eg Pinochet, MBS, Saddam Hussein
| until it didn't suit us, even Erdogan, arguably even Netanyahu)
|
| MBS doesn't even rule Saudi yet, despite having a lot of power.
| Erdogan is likely to lose the next election. Nethanyahu is out
| of office and facing charges. Leaders can suck without being
| dictators or preventing fair elections.
|
| >And with Russia's unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine now
| threatening the energy sector, suddenly the Venezuelan
| sanctions aren't as important as we made out
|
| Don't make too much of it. The admin will soon find out that
| Chaves/Maduro ruined the energy sector so thoroughly there
| isn't any oil to pump in the next decade.
| random314 wrote:
| > ideologically align with every US enemy out there including
| USSR/Russia while completely ruining their own countries.
|
| "Ideologically align" ==> Bequeath all ownership of a
| developing country's national resources from citizens to NATO
| corporations. You have to be really blind to not have
| realized what Ideological alignment with United states
| actually means. Hint: it's not democracy.
|
| NATO places world wide economic sanctions on small countries
| that are "ideologically misaligned" with NATO to devastate
| their economy, reduce it to ruins while simultaneously
| organizing coups. They have no option to trade with the other
| block to survive. Its either gives us control over all of
| your natural resources OR trade with Russia to survive.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| You skipped Pinochet. Thoughts?
| yyyk wrote:
| It's well known the US supported useful dictators during
| the Cold War, nothing new there. That should not imply
| simping for every anti-US regime out there, or badmouthing
| every country which has decent relations with US. It should
| be possible to oppose US policy without supporting one's
| own set of dictators.
| random314 wrote:
| Ever considered that you are projecting. That you are bad
| mouthing every country that doesn't have decent
| relationships with the US and simping for every pro US
| dictatorship out there!
| robinsoh wrote:
| > Also set up one party states which ideologically align with
| every US enemy out there including USSR/Russia while
| completely ruining their own countries.
|
| It is unclear if you're referring to Cuba or to Venezuela or
| both. What exactly does "ideologically aligning" mean? Also
| does actions taken by a global superpower's military on
| behalf of elites in that superpower (I'm referencing the
| article here, "Invade Haiti, Wall Street urged, the US
| obliged") to steal, confiscate, block trade count towards
| "ruining their own countries"? My guess is that you're kind
| of trying to imply they caused their own ruin and deserved it
| by not being "ideologically aligned" with the US (does that
| mean Wall Street?), is that inaccurate?
| yyyk wrote:
| Castro was aligned with USSR from day 1 and kept this
| alignment long after the Cold War. The consequent economic
| policies had the expected effect on Cuba. Chavez was also
| always aligned with the anti-Western bloc, and his policies
| led to 1 in 6 Venezuelans being a refugees. Both are
| unrelated to Haiti and as far as I know never cared much
| for it.
| simoom22 wrote:
| I'm not sure this is true. I recall from listening to the
| Blowback podcast that Castro initially tried to align
| with the US, and there was disagreement among US leaders
| about whether he was friend or foe. But we had a bunch of
| people in Florida, among them the dictator he ousted,
| offering to try and kill him, so we just went with that.
| swearwolf wrote:
| Think about the core idea that you're defending: that
| nations do not have freedom of association if the choose
| to be friendly with regimes the United States doesn't
| like, and it's fine for the US to use it's cultural and
| economic hegemonic power to crush those states for making
| the wrong friends or choosing the wrong ideology. Does
| that not strike you as an immoral thing for the US to do?
| yyyk wrote:
| >it's fine for the US to use it's cultural and economic
| hegemonic power to crush those states for making the
| wrong friends or choosing the wrong ideology
|
| There's making different choices and there's 'being
| friendly to the Soviets which were also very much into
| overthrowing the US' or 'Driving double digit percentage
| of your own population out to the point you're a foreign
| policy problem' or 'undermining neighbouring states due
| to your 'wrong' ideology'.
| fragmede wrote:
| In the abstract, that sounds kind of right, but
| concretely, how about when that ideology is being actual
| Nazis? As in WWII and the Axis powers? Is the US wrong
| for lumping Italy along with Germany?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Cuba policy may have made sense in the 60s and even 70s
| but 80s and onward it makes zero sense, just like our
| Venezuela policy makes zero sense. Follow the money and
| you'll find out that it's just corps blocking it.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Erdogan isn't going to lose the next election. He has too
| much power and likes it too much. The only way he gives that
| up is he knows he has a terminal illness.
| brokenkebab2 wrote:
| It's oversimplification which can only lead you to the foggy
| world of conspiracy theories. Modern society is complex, and
| full of conflicting interests, and that's why two evil
| dictators may have different kind of favors from US, or
| whatever country. There's for example a significant voting
| block which supports sanctioning Cuba, and absolute majority of
| them are not billionaires. Taking Venezuela case: as potential
| Russian win would send an encouraging signal to other
| expansionist regimes, including some who are absolutely willing
| to be US enemies, and big enough to make troubles, it's
| becoming more important to deal with bigger problem (compared
| to Venezuelan regime). There's an obvious solution to these
| ugly choice of whom of all bad guys to pay more for oil: let
| domestic extraction industry to increase development. But it
| happened so that a significant voting block supports
| diminishing of domestic extraction, and the ruling party
| doesn't want to annoy them as they have enough troubles without
| it. So suddenly its not only a game of capitals, but also of
| ideologies, family roots, voting strategies, and a lot of other
| elements. Some people say that is how democracy works in every
| big society. Also, on a side note: Netanyahu may be good, or
| not, but he is most definitely not a dictator.
| hueyluey wrote:
| >Netanyahu may be good, or not, but he is most definitely not
| a dictator
|
| He's not a dictator for the israelis, but let's not forget
| that he rules over an apartheid state and for the
| palestinians (who don't get to vote, don't get to have their
| own country and yet get opressed by his rule) he is a
| dictator.
| jmyeet wrote:
| > ... absolute majority of them are not billionaires.
|
| I see two big factors in play here:
|
| 1. The widespread belief in American exceptionalism, once
| characterized as every American thinks of themselves as a
| temporarily embarrassed millionaire [1]; and
|
| 2. The power of propaganda. The number of low-income people
| who will fight to the hilt that Jeff Bezos shouldn't pay
| slightly more taxes to pay for the society that made his
| wealth possible and continues to make it possible is
| astounding.
|
| [1]: http://www.temporarilyembarrassedmillionaires.org/
| jrsj wrote:
| I think 2 can be complicated as well. Increasing his tax
| liability along with many other very wealthy people
| basically requires taxing unrealized gains, which if
| applied to less wealthy people in the future could be very
| bad for them.
|
| I'd like to see something that specifically targets the
| loophole of borrowing against stocks & repaying by taking
| additional loans and selling only assets which have
| declined in price.
| propernoun wrote:
| [2] is only "astounding" if you don't take the time to
| understand peoples' political philosophies, and I can
| probably guess your political leanings if you believe [1]
| causes [2] or that "poor people" can only be intrinsically
| motivated. I don't know any millionaires but I know plenty
| of people who think it's wrong for the government to
| confiscate wealth, who you seem to classify as "temporarily
| embarrassed millionaires." I'm sure some people think
| they'll get rich (looking at you crypto bros) but a lot of
| people simply think it's none of your or the governments
| business how much money other people have and what they do
| with it.
| rafaelm wrote:
| The sanctions on Venezuela have nothing to do with
| nationalization. Our oil industry was nationalized in 1976.
| pphysch wrote:
| > The sanctions on Venezuela have _nothing to do with
| nationalization_.
|
| > Section 1. Purpose: The United States recognizes the need
| for more freedom and democracy, improved respect for human
| rights, and _increased free enterprise_ in Cuba
|
| https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/20/2017-22.
| ..
| SaintGhurka wrote:
| Are you responding to the right comment? Venezuela does not
| appear in the document you linked.
| rnk wrote:
| Cuba does treat their people in horrible ways, oppressing
| anyone who resists. But yes, we support plenty of countries
| that do that - like Turkey! Cuba comes into the 'legacy
| countries we hated in the past', communism division.
| random314 wrote:
| Agree with everything but the last line.
|
| They work for banks and resource mining corporations. They
| don't work for software technology new money titans.
| jcranmer wrote:
| So why didn't the US impose sanctions on the Saudis after they
| nationalized US oil companies in Saudi Arabia? Or (checks notes
| [1]) Sri Lanka, Turkey, Bolivia, Bahrain, etc.?
|
| The problem with this theory is that it doesn't account for all
| of the nationalizations that the US _didn 't_ respond to with
| sanctions or invasions. Which is, I believe, larger in number
| than the reverse.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_co...
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| For Saudi Arabia, it seems they didn't nationalize anything
| but demanded 50 % of profits, which is not too far off from
| being considered a tax. They then bought the other 50 %
| decades later.
|
| For Sri Lanka, it seems it wasn't oil production but merely
| the domestic petrol distribution? Also unclear how much of it
| was British and not American.
|
| For Turkey I can't find the company at issue, but it
| apparently happened before the Second World War and I'd guess
| American interests just weren't very substantial at the time?
| The article suggests the US was supporting Turkey in getting
| out from under existing relationships with the old powers of
| Europe.
| [deleted]
| jmclnx wrote:
| Interesting read, I never understood why Haiti has had so many
| financial issues over the years. I think France and the US should
| pay off all its debts as restitution to what was done over the
| years.
| 0des wrote:
| > I never understood why Haiti has had so many financial issues
| over the years
|
| > I think France and the US should pay off all its debts
|
| Is this satire?
| brnaftr361 wrote:
| Well for one, it's a nation, which is a legal fiction. Haiti
| and Haitians are not the same thing. That is to say all the
| previous action of said nation, including the accrual of
| debts, hadn't ought to be a real liability to the Haitian
| people. It's precisely inheriting your parent's debt on a
| magnitude that is baffling. Moreover if one examines the rate
| of interest it's quite probable that the sum total of
| principal has been paid. Finally, they had ought to be
| allowed to default. Risk is one of the reasons given to
| justify interest, if the lender isn't actually accepting
| risk, the interest should be close to nothing. If anything
| such debts had ought to be forgiven simply as a product of
| the moral imperative of noblesse oblige.
|
| What it really is, is a smokescreen for imperialism to keep
| the capital gradient in check and forward the Western agenda.
| sitkack wrote:
| Righting a wrong is never satire.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Why should I pay something that happened centuries ago and I
| have nothing to do with it?
|
| Collectivism at its worst.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I agree. I am all for helping struggling nations move forward
| but when I hear reparations, I just change the channel. Come
| back and talk to me when you remove that from your
| vocabulary. Reparations just beget more reparations and don't
| fix the rot at the core of the Haitian government or any
| other. Just like removing all college debt would just be a
| bandaid and the problem would still be there. It requires
| fundamental chance to fix things, throwing cash at it and
| changing nothing won't
| uoaei wrote:
| Because you benefit from the society those actions created.
|
| There is a direct causal through-line between those actions
| and some of the benefits you enjoy.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I'm an immigrant to USA.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| So, you are benefitting.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| How? Precisely?
|
| I'll vote unequivocally against any reparations. It's
| illogical, immoral and unjust.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| By redistribution of wealth that was gained from theft
| and exploitation.
|
| I'm an immigrant too, and I am definitely benefitting.
| Not as much as some, but it would be closing my eyes to
| ignore how I benefit from past and present imperialism.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Transitivity. I think if you can't take responsibility
| for the sins of the US, you shouldn't get a vote. Votes
| are for people who are all-in.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Revoking my vote is the very opposite of the spirit of
| American democracy. The biggest problem America faces is
| the rise of collectivism (and also Fascism from the
| right). California leading the pack. I didn't come to
| America to be part of a socialist nation which wants
| equality of outcome. The strength of USA, and I would say
| uniquely, is in individualism, freedom, rights and its
| core founding principles.
|
| This is probably the most offensive thing you can say to
| anyone. It is so strange to see young generation of this
| place veering towards Autoritarian socialist nation.
| We've seen how that turns out (North vs South Korea,
| Cambodia, USSR, Cuba). Universities in the US is the
| hotbed for this non-sense.
|
| Regarding reparations, Russia paying reparations after
| the war to Ukraine? Probably OK. Woke Russians 600 years
| later telling the new generation to feel guilty about
| what Putin did 6 centuries ago? NOT OK.
|
| Immigrants are the probably the most American people in
| US it feels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4E9usD_4Fo
| DFHippie wrote:
| Patriotism involves sharing the burdens of your country
| and working for its betterment. Among these burdens are
| moral burdens. If your country does something wrong the
| patriotic thing to do is to contribute to making it
| right. Calling this "collectivism" is bizarre. It is
| simply what it means to be patriotically committed to
| your country: you wish your _country_ to thrive, not
| merely yourself.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Only people I agree with should be allowed to vote!
| uoaei wrote:
| Patriotism is pledging allegiance to a country _and
| meaning it, taking the bad together with the good_. Why
| would you give a vote to someone who wasn 't serious
| about improving the country?
| josephcsible wrote:
| Because then someone has to decide who's "serious about
| improving the country" and who's not, and that "someone"
| then effectively gets to singlehandedly decide the
| election results.
| bannedbybros wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-22 23:02 UTC)