Power and control are intertwined. An empire has power to exert control, and the imperial mindset is that this is considered right and good- that the exertion of power is moral when used for an empire, but against it is immoral, even given similar situations. Not to mention that people are referred to as "imperialists" because of opinions they hold, but that will bring the prescriptivists down, I am sure.Samuel wrote:No, that is what power is. Imperialism is about control.Bakustra wrote: That is what imperialism is: the US can do whatever it wants, and nobody can do anything back without falling somewhere below bacteria. This is not to say that killing George W. Bush would be right or desirable, but rather to point out the discrepancy. Now, bin Laden and Bush are not exact equals, but analogies need not be perfect.
Political, economic or social control constitute a "minset"?Imperialism is not a motivator, but rather a mindset that leaves you incapable of recognizing why this might be offensive.
Why is it disturbing? How is this imperialistic?Again, the point is that the imperial mindset allows you to ignore the grotesque aspects of "honoring" our victims by naming our instruments of war after them. It is exactly like if an alt-hist Nazi Germany named fighting vehicles after Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or other partisans in honor of their bravery- there is something implicitly disturbing about honoring the victims of monstrous crimes you committed by naming weapons of war after them.
Let's use analogies again. Imagine if a serial killer kept trophies taken from the bodies of people that fought back. This would be grotesque, would it not? He killed them, so his honoring of their struggle is a bit false. The US encroached upon and killed the Apache, Comanche, and other groups honored, putting them into camps.
The imperialism comes in because Americans ignore this, and ignore the greater aspect beyond "the Apache were known as fearsome warriors" in naming, and have the ability to ignore it.
You realize that Hawkwings declared that the two were not comparable at all and I pointed out that there were direct and indirect links as a response. Had you not chopped my post up, that might have been easier to see.I didn't know that case, but I did know we broke every agreement and managed to screw over/massacre alot of natives. Wounded Knee is a more famous example.Before you get chuffed, surely your thorough education on Native Americans has made it known to you that in the years after the Mescalero surrendered, they were starved on reservations, and so were many other Native American groups?
Reading the quote, it appears he was refering to his eventually plan for colonization of Eastern Europe where German settlers would become farmers and fight it out with the savage Slavic hordes. I should note the US extermination was a failure (there are still indians) and it took over 400 years. Hitler, not being an idiot, drew more inspiration from the more recent and effective Armenian Genocide.Or perhaps you might note that Hitler himself drew upon the US "Indian Wars" as inspiration?
But I guess if Hitler was interested in something that automatically makes it worse... somehow.
So the fact that we name things after our enemies is not relevent... to the fact we name things after our enemies?On a similar note, that's not really equivalent because the US did not perform horrific actions against the CSA on the same scale, nor did they directly interfere with Kamehameha I's reign similarly.
The point is that the treatments were not identical. The US did not starve Robert E. Lee or Albert Sidney Johnston in camps, nor did they seek to exterminate CSA leaders, nor is King Kamehameha I an enemy of the US except in the stupidest of senses.Before you get chuffed, surely your thorough education on Native Americans has made it known to you that in the years after the Mescalero surrendered, they were starved on reservations, and so were many other Native American groups?