On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > raghu wrote: >> I agree with the above. Indeed in the 20'th century, overt racism has >> been substantially eliminated. I think the letter of the law (though >> maybe not the practical enforcement) in most Western countries today >> is completely non-discriminatory. Note that imperialism has also >> substantially declined in the same time-frame. > > completely??? substantially??? please explain.
I don't think there is a single overtly racist law on the books any more in the US or in any of the developed world. Simultaneously, there is no major territory in the world that is held by a foreign country as a colony. > definitely in Serbia, while the US intervened substantially in the > political processes of both France and Italy after WW2 and in > Australia (an honorary European country) more recently. The fact that > the US doesn't intervene very often in rich countries (as far as we > know) likely has more to do with the military power of those > countries, along with the fact that US business invests a lot in them > (while their biz invests in the US). It's a more a matter of power > than ethnicity, as indicated by Kolko's study (_the Limits of Power_). Indeed, but this only begs the question: why is it that Western capitalists are less willing to invest in Asia, Latin America and especially Africa than in Europe and when they do "invest", it is in the form of highly unstable "hot money" inflows? (Admittedly this has changed in the last 2 decades or so with China receiving a lot of investments, but I'd argue that this only further undermines imperialism not strengthen it.) > raghu >> I don't think capitalism depends on racism to the same extent that >> imperialism does. > > explain. The Roman empire wasn't racist, but it was quite an empire. Quite simply that I can easily imagine a capitalism without racism where all workers are exploited in an equal opportunity manner by the capitalists. Under imperialism, whole nations - workers and capitalists - benefit at the expense of other nations, and is necessarily racist at its core. >> Simple definition: a system of international power relations under >> which one ethnic group systematically dominates and exploits another >> for economic gain. > > so you're defining "imperialism" so that it will fit your thesis (and > doesn't fit ancient Roman or Persian imperialism). I was just trying to explain my understanding of the term. I think it is pretty close to Wikipedia's definition: "Imperialism is the system of building foreign empires for military and trade advantages or in other words, the practice of extending the power, control or rule by one country over the political and economic life of areas outside its own borders which may be accomplished through military or other means, and particularly through colonialism." > Are you an academic? it sure seems so. I hope to be! -raghu. -- In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU! _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
