We (the west) helped them become who they are. We relocated all our production there because they were cheap and didn't mind throwing a bunch of poor people into the grinder. Arguably, the fastest and most efficient way for them to get out from under our thumb was authoritarian rule. Democratic rule would've been torpedoed by the US or one of its European vassals in favour of an authoritarian one we installed.

The world could've looked very different had the US not meddled in a lot of countries. Here's an entire list that probably has about 70 countries on it.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 30 points 5 days ago (1 children)

had the US not meddled in a lot of countries

Hold on a sec, you can't get off the hook that easy, Europe

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 15 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Democratic rule would've been torpedoed by the US or one of its European vassals in favour of an authoritarian one we installed.

Literally the sentence above it

[–] protist@mander.xyz 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That sentence still makes it sound like you think the US has been unilaterally directing western colonialism, but European nations have independently taken the initiative on that quite a bit

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 4 points 4 days ago

It's ridiculing the lack of agency European countries chose to have when being pulled into various wars and missions with the US. The comment additionally starts off with "We (the west)". If Europe doesn't belong to "the west", then where do they belong to?

[–] StJohnMcCrae@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

That sentence takes away agency from those European "vassals". The British and French empires still exist to this day. They conduct their own foreign policy and are in charge of their own internal security and territorial integrity.

The person you're responding to is absolutely right.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 5 points 4 days ago

Funny how you are able to use hyperbole without recognising it yourself.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Well, no - they definitely don't still exist. Their marks are still left on the places they once subjugated, sure, but they definitely do not exist anymore.

[–] StJohnMcCrae@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Tell that to northern Ireland, Scotland, Gibraltar, French Guiana or Polynesia.

Both countries still have overseas territories all over the world. It doesn't matter how hard you, they or anyone else tries to legitimize those colonies, that's still what they are.

Why were the French using the Polynesian islands as nuclear testing grounds up through 1996? Would the French government be so lax with testing in their own country? No - that's why they did it in a colony with 200,000 brown people instead.