People took issue because somehow the Brits flooding chinese markets with addictive substances to further their imperial ambitions is somehow alien to Americans flooding their own internal markets to secure their imperial ambitions.

I mean...yeah? yeah it is?

[+] Lemister@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

These two points do not contradict each other at all. Imperalism turned inwards is just very different from imperalism turned outwards.

[–] bbnh69420@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

How so? What’s the difference between the US importing crack and heroin to mollify revolutionary elements within society and Britain exporting opium to make the Chinese more vulnerable to exploitation?

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At the time that was happening the US claimed to be a democracy for one, to stick to that example. It doesn't make that better by any means, but the results of whether your own (democratic) country has that happening vs. it being inflicted by a foreign power makes a big difference in perception, which then guides action

[–] bbnh69420@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why does the “democratic” nature of the US matter more, the internal colonized people in the US didn’t see drugs as less of a threat because it was “their” government instead of a foreign one?

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

I'd argue the reception, even post that coming out, is very much different between "this was foisted upon us by a hostile nation" vs. "this was a small part of the state that kind of did an oopsie for a while but we fixed it now" and that's without even getting into american exceptionalism basically overwriting the last part with "no that didn't happen" for large swathes of people