The interconnected forces would be that she was removed after a month for crossing a line, though innit.Thinking about it, Liz Truss makes me more sympathetic to Great Man arguments and more sceptical of the idea there's no such thing & it's all interconnected forces. What Liz Truss did in her brief period in office was very much not what Sunak would have done (and isn't doing now), and doesn't seem what Mordaunt would have done either if she'd scraped through somehow. It's all very much Truss.
Yeah, but the obvious counterargument is that Truss failed miserably. The mini-budget never actually happened and she was the shortest-serving PM in history.Thinking about it, Liz Truss makes me more sympathetic to Great Man arguments and more sceptical of the idea there's no such thing & it's all interconnected forces. What Liz Truss did in her brief period in office was very much not what Sunak would have done (and isn't doing now), and doesn't seem what Mordaunt would have done either if she'd scraped through somehow. It's all very much Truss.
The British did invade Brazilian territorial waters (though not Brazilian soil itself) during the 1850s by sending warships in to stop the nominally illegal slave trade in Brazil. Brazil had declared the slave trade illegal earlier, but that was never enforced.Did they? What examples are you thinking of cos I am struggling to come up with any.
Yes, there was an awful lot of that. They also stopped Portuguese ships to search and bombarded slave ports. Gunboat diplomacy actively ended the slave trade.The British did invade Brazilian territorial waters (though not Brazilian soil itself) during the 1850s by sending warships in to stop the nominally illegal slave trade in Brazil. Brazil had declared the slave trade illegal earlier, but that was never enforced.
Britain sending its ships into Brazilian territorial waters forced Brazil to start enforcing the slave trade ban, and incidentally managed to sound the death knell for Brazilian slavery while doing so. Unlike, say, the southern USA, where slave numbers grew through natural increase, slavery in Brazil had always relied on the slave trade to sustain its numbers (more deaths and more freed or escaping slaves saw to that). So ending the slave trade forced the end of slavery in Brazil, though that took another three decades to play out completely.
I do tend to agree with points of tbe Adam Curtis view on history, particularly with politics and economics which is often ‘A collective of individuals had similar ideas, whilst not a hegemonic class, these individuals and the groups they were part of found a way to slowly start influencing the ripple of history’.I think this comes back to an interesting point wrt great man theory in general. Like, generally, its not a great way of looking at history. But, if you have systems in place that allow for single individuals to chart the course of history, then, well, they can do that. I think that applies best to "absolute" monarchies in early modern European history, but there's something to be said about being the executive in a presidential system of the world's only current superpower, too.
You've already been proven wrong on this but don't accuse people of sounding like AQ and then say you don't want a fight.I don't want a fight but I suggest you check the list of motives for the 9/11 attacks at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks#Stated_motives. Nowhere is US support for Arab dictatorships mentioned.
It was one of the reasons. Manuel Noriega had annulled an election in which an overwhelming majority of Panamians had voted for opposition candidate Guillermo Endara and George H.W. Bush had told him to honor the will of the Panamian people. Polls at the time showed most Panamians supported the US invasion.I think the highlight, as it were, of the past few pages has to be the assertion that the US invaded Panama to free it from dictatorship.
Shades of Begby in Trainspotting- someone glassed this girl, and no one’s leaving until we find out who.
What do you mean?Ok, you’re doing a bit now.
The less discussed (but probably more important) corollary of the great man theory of history is the great idiot theory of history. You can have a massive personal impact on history by crashing and burning.Yeah, but the obvious counterargument is that Truss failed miserably. The mini-budget never actually happened and she was the shortest-serving PM in history.
South Korea is almost an exception to the rule, and for a long while the the US opposed pro-democracy movements in S. Korea.As for the above discussion on US influence in the Middle East, plenty of dictatorships that were US client states have democratized. South Korea even did so with a US military presence deployed for similar reasons to Saudi Arabia.
The United States supported the coup against Alfredo Stroessner in 1989, the same year of the invasion of Panama.South Korea is almost an exception to the rule, and for a long while the the US opposed pro-democracy movements in S. Korea.
The United States supported the coup against Alfredo Stroessner in 1989, the same year of the invasion of Panama.
In terms of US backed dictatorships democratising? Hard disagree on that, that's the story of Latin America and plenty of Africa since the Cold War ended.South Korea is almost an exception to the rule.
It turns out that, despite the crimes of the victims of imperialism, invading a foreign country is still, in fact, imperialism.
In the 19th century the British invaded several places to end the slave trade. It was still doing an imperialism.
Believe, I am arguing sincerely. I posted actual information.If you're actually in earnest at this point, and it's hard to think you are, you do really need to start recognizing context and trends rather then just memorizing Wikipedia factoids. Because you fundimentally are misunderstanding everything you're citing in this discussion.
So, let's say a country committed genocide. Would it be imperialism to invade that country?It turns out that, despite the crimes of the victims of imperialism, invading a foreign country is still, in fact, imperialism.
In the 19th century the British invaded several places to end the slave trade. It was still doing an imperialism.
So, let's say a country committed genocide. Would it be imperialism to invade that country?
What does oppression exactly entail, and is there a nation where there is no oppression?My support for cultural relativism ends where oppression begins.
