Was imperialism a bad thing? I mean its literally just one culture

>>135302654
It's not even remotely a bad thing. It is in fact the only way to truely achieve world peace. Nobody would go with a cooperation between nationstates, only one nationstate assuming absolute control via force has the ability to control.

I just wish Hitler had felt the same instead of offering peace at ever turn.

>>135303085
Yeah but then that single nationality is oppressing a bunch of others in return which is like really fucked up

>>135303259
Did the romans opress anybody? Or did they allow their previous governance and simply own the area for taxation and land rights? The latter is most certainly true. Cultures are preserved, and forced into a preserved state, keeping all cultures seperate but equal in oppertunity. This leads to massive social cohesion, and the feeling of belonging to something greater than yourself. Which causes more individuals to travel the right hand path of rightiousness and good.

In all honesty, if there is a state that is causing harm economically or socially, they are just wiped out, where more sophisticated individuals use the land and resources thereafter.

>>135302654
it was like their outsources, partly or almost mainly what globalism is, a corporative entity that operates powerfully in multiple nations, has sway, can nation build, community build, society build, people build, commerce build. They traded primitivity and resources, and man power, for a more technologically (some would argue in ways, culturally) advanced, numbered, and sophisticated. To move up arguable levels in the game of life, civilization, the sport, the art, the craft, the realm of potential playmanship, as a part of the human living history of our glorious planet earth

>>135303988
>In all honesty, if there is a state that is causing harm economically or socially, they are just wiped out, where more sophisticated individuals use the land and resources thereafter.

But with multiple super powers, there is no theoretical reason why multiple of them would want that land and those resources, so they either have to find a way to evenly and/or fairly (/logistically) share it, or fight for it, but what really happens is I guess companies compete, with companies, and governments, to have access to land, resources, people, because somethings can be cheaper to produce in other countries, and they make a lot of money, it would be uneconomical extremely and logistically (and morally) to slaughter a significant amount of people, to have your people move in.

governments, companies, citizens, can relatively let it happen and strive to prevent it, super powers with weaponary or defence either can extreme fight, tactical battle, risk relationships, maybe,

The main point is, the moral, as if any nation today was broadcasted to be slaughtering a significant amount of people to then move their people into that land, to steal their stuff, and profit off their resources, world powers, media, military, governments, corporations, citizens might say something about it

>>135304123
Globalism does not enforce control, they take it only in name. It's not a governance of people, but of unelected pretenders who did not put any real work into seizing power. It is more over an economic agreement as such, which pretends to be for just cause, but leads to just a small group of mercantiles inevitably profiting over participating nationstates. It's really more of a trade agreement if anything, not a glorious imperialistic nation.

>>135304927
Sometimes a significant amount of "people" need to be slaughtered for the greater good.

>>135305272
so it would be better, if America, or China, or fortune 500/dow jones went into any country and started ruling them? Being and setting up governments, training and hiring people and building infrastructure? This has been going on I believe, this is called development

>>135306982
Yep. How do you think Europe, America, and China got to where they are today anyway? Since we stopped doing this it has been nothing but decline in ever sense.

>>135307275
Every*

>>135305272
its fought off by citizens, governments, companies that want to keep their own nations potential business to themselves, greater and lesser advantageous for themselves. Some times a relatively few people have the right to invite any company in and do business (be it citizens, or companies, land owners, government employees), some countries could not develop on their own without outside help (many countries trade regardless (which in some cases is necessary to get certain items, goods,) so various deals made between 'nation' and outer source (be it government, private citizens/corporations, what else is there, schools, thats considered in with corporation)

>>135307275
well what exactly is your plan? Is every where in the world you would want to enforce this, a proper ratio of land and resources and people, what are your goals? Or mainly you are suggesting conquest and slaughter, but as I tried to point out, either other countries would try to stop you and you may create major war, or they look at you and see if you can pull it off, or they see if no one bothers you about it, and they are stronger then you, they will try to just hop on your back and cut you off, maybe

>>135307275
but I guess that would be if any reason there being actual stark super power oppositions.

If all nations could not exist in absolute harmony and fairness, I suppose they can, but would be interested in hearing arguments as to why any one may want them to not,

It would be possible for there to then be alliances, teams, competition, if all nations do not respect one another and the world absolutely equally, in accordance to law (but then the thing is, who ever is in charge of government at the time can pass laws,)

If a nations argument would be for conquest (the thing is conquest is just subtle these days and its relatively nation building by proxy of economic activity and production (some times less, sometimes more, who knows what on average, how will you argue what it should be, some people take advantage as much as they can

so give some examples of some nations, and governments andor companies that should go into that nation and do generally specifically what? Create roads, buildings, homes, systems if need be, or go into already constructed towns and cities?

And make them work certain jobs, better? different productivities?

You are saying there are nations and resources that are not being scrambled to be whipped up into shape, create mutual progressive civilizational productional advantage, that someone or you should create a more economically productive activity somewhere in the world,

and the potential conflict with the people would be worth it, and there would be low chances any other nation would stop you?

give some examples of places that this can be done?

>>135302654
> tfw too monolingual to understand this pic.

huh

>>135309844
> The red part
And I am Ruslan / Maksud / Arthur (not sure what did they mean by this)
> The grey part
Basically "cyka blyat", but with a lot of Э's (Mongols use a Cyrillic-based alphabet and the letter "Э" (close to "e" in "bed") is about as popular as "A" in English, which looks weird to Russians, because in Russian "Э" is quite rare)
> The shit-colored part
"SHIEEET"
> The south
Cut the Ruskie.