>Who denies US involvement in other countries?
You haven't been on HN long enough if you never saw it.
You haven't been on HN long enough if you never saw it.
You're moving the goalposts on the original sin, while I was discussing the issues of today or at least recent past (Iranian revolution was only in 1979, Invasion of Iraq was in 2003, Arab spring in 2011, Taliban rule form 2021).
You can't just wave away decades or even centuries of oppression and intervention in other countries' affairs that changed them forever (that sill happen to this day BTW, and by the same powers), with "whatever mate, it was in the past", as if you broke my phone screen in junior school. No mate, it wasn't just in the past, it's still happening.
Except colonialism today is less about large sailing wooden ships and conquistadors with muskets straight up stealing your shit from your town at gunpoint and shipping abroad along with slaves, but more alphabet agency black-ops and monetary/economic levers to topple your leader and replace him with a friendly puppet one who will willingly and legally sign off your country's resources and your peoples' labor to western corporations as salves, for way below market price. This isn't the original sin anymore, this is its modern version.
And its bullshit. And the audience walks out on that story, wherever its told. It has no explanation power any-more and if you tell a story without explanation power, it just gives credence to the assholes you pushed of the stage. Thus tooting that horn, is like glueing MAGA WAS RIGHT to every fence in town.
I'll have to leave you right there, since I can't reason someone through argumentation from a position they did not reason themselves into in the first place, so this will go nowhere.
Absurd take...
Some examples:
Brazil's democracy was put on hold during the whole period of growth post WW2, it has social impacts to this day both in wasteful investments done through 20+ years of dictatorship saddling the country with debt and disinvestment being paid to this day by current generations: lack of education, bad infrastructure, a fragile democracy since only 2 generations of voters have lived completely under it.
The whole Middle East has sectarian violence caused by the borders drawn from colonial powers in control of regions up to the 1960s. The same is true for African civil wars ringing out to this day, nations (aka tribes) split into 2-3 countries to be more easily controlled by different colonial powers.
To this day the USA meddles directly with governments south of it, the doctrine of strong-arming what the USA considers its backyard is still strong, American influence in South American politics is everywhere.
> and all that shit usually blamed at the west, turns out to be just murderous local land empires, blaming all the things they do to gain power on western influence or history, but actually doing the same thing they did before the west rolled up
As I mentioned, colonial powers drew borders to divide-and-conquer nations who are now fighting each other from all the bad blood caused by these divisions, do you actually really believe some 4-5 decades would be enough to erase all the infighting encouraged by colonial powers to keep the locals weak and scattered?
I really can't believe someone thinks the issues of colonialism can't have echoes way past the end of the colonial age...
One of the dramatically underappreciated aspects of imperialism is the degree to which it involves local political actors attempting to solicit foreign (imperial) support and/or intervention to service their local political needs. This isn't always the case, but it's important not to whitewash the influence of such local concerns. It's thus especially telling that one of your "examples" of modern imperialism is actually something that was entirely a spontaneous, endogenous reaction to local politics and local concerns that literally left all of the "imperialists" flat-footed exclaiming "wait, what?"
You are very much correct, and "their local political needs" are generally large amounts of money being transfered to them personally.
Corrupt locals screwing over everyone else for their own benefit are an integral part of imperialism, not an exception to it.
> > It's crazy to think people still deny current US involvement in other countries, given all this past evidence.
Although the past is used as a sort of implied argument here.