▲ 47 points
back
57 comments
People need to remember that as late as the early 1900s, the foreign policy of world powers was described as "The Great Game". (Look it up, I kid you not). Thousands of soldiers would march forward and die in unknown foreign soil in the name of Imperialism and conquest.
It was under these politics of world conquest that WW1 and WW2 were fought upon. All countries... US included, fell into the trap of imperialism. Expanding during the Spanish American war, gaining the Philippines, Guam and other territories.
The current world has no apatite for imperialism, although I guess this can change quickly. But... knock on wood... lets hope the great powers of the world continue to refuse a direct fight with each other. The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries.
No appetite for imperialism? I don't think there has been a huge change. The defense of colonies is strong and the likes of the Ukranian/Crimea debacle have happened. But further afield and longer ago there was Iraq, Afganistan, the sabre rattling of Russian and the U.S. over Georgia. Look at the Chinese relationship with Africa. The Trans Pacific Partnership and The Five Eyes are are thing down here in New Zealand. Things may be slightly more subtle and less bloody, but the behavior isn't much improved.
It is almost certain that the old appetites are still there. The big changes are probably that democracies tend to be less expansionist (democracies don't like needless wars, voters die) and that all the countries that aren't the US basically imploded in World War II.
Most of history isn't a great guide for what happens next because of technology changes. Up until "recently" wars were won by logistics, numbers and training. In the modern age, logistics requires a very complicated industrial system capable of producing, eg, nuclear weapons and satellites. So far, only the US has pulled this off and only the EU has come close to (maybe they have managed as well, I don't know).
Life may get more tense when a new challenger to the US emerges. Maybe China.
So someone else has nukes and satellites, then what? Are they seriously going to engage in mutually assured destruction trying to go to war with America? That is the primary reason why I find all the bullshit excuses about having a trillion dollar annual military in the US disgusting - no nation will ever again attempt to invade American soil, because to do so would be to at least end their nation and at most end life on the planet.
that's what people were saying after WWI.
But it's more subtle these days. Or at least the past looks clearer from a distance.
There's no modern equivalent to "Manifest Destiny" for the US. We've conquered the continental US and are sufficiently happy with ourselves.
China and Russia do wish to expand, but they're not going to do it while the US is in power at least.
The closest we've got is "spread democracy to the world", which is less a "conquer the world" spirit, and more of a "make the world like our way of thinking" cultural expansion. We do it through movies, literature, debates, exchange programs and so forth.
And... erm... conquest. But only rarely (Iraq, South Korea). And whenever we do it by conquest, the US Population seems to get really pissed in general. Its why we had such a "hands off" approach in Libya and Syria so far... and why we're trying to get Iraq out of our hair. (Iraq seems to be a "we broke it we bought it" situation at this point)
> China and Russia do wish to expand
What evidence is there for China wanting to expand? It seems like they have made claims to disputed territories based on historical claims. They have a claim on Taiwan and and some disputed islands, all which had been under Chinese control in sometime in the past. That's not imperialism or colonialism. Look at Japan's behavior early 20th century. They took Korea, large parts of China and south pacific islands, things they never had a claim to and that is imperialism. Even Tibet had been under Chinese rule throughout centuries of history.
It seems like to me that China is only interested in achieving the same kind of cultural dominance and influence they've had through history. I've never read anything about China wanting to expand territory outside of traditional China.
Oh the modern world still has a taste for imperialism. The techniques of imperialism are not even that different than that of centuries old, though with modern spins. Plus WWI and WWII were not the result of imperialism or at least not as much as you imply in your comment. Current foreign policy is still called "The Great Game" - though when said now it is meant to convey the modern game in context of the history of the middle 1800s into the 1900s continuing into the Cold Wars.
The big difference now seems to be that the type of total warfare used in the early and middle 1900s between great powers is not palatable to the world today - much in line with the Einstein quote the destruction both to civilian life and to infrastructure would be absolutely terrifying. The Great Game continues today with proxy wars, economic warfare, subterfuge including sabotage and intelligence warfare (much of it network and satellite today), and with stability warfare (trying to pull the support of people from beneath their governance).
Point. I'll give you that.
But I feel like a major aspect of the "Great Game" was using superior technology to massacre civilians and other soft targets. The invention and use of Gatling Guns, Explosives, and Chemical Warfare through that period was truly terrifying.
Certainly new technology and unprecedented populations were major aspects of warfare during this time period. I would add poison gases to your list.
Remember though that many other (non-destructive) technologies made their entrance during these wars: blimps, new classes of naval vehicles (the so called battlecruiser) and also submarines, precision bombing, new types of artillery, the first tanks, trains for transporting goods and troops, radar...
And remember that the tactics of the time changed as much or more than the technology. In WWI a prevailing tactic was troop attrition - the infamous Battle of Verdun being a sick but paragon example. WW II saw the advent of the term 'strategic bombing' which in essence was the idea that if you directly kill huge numbers of civilians it will demoralize the enemy, cause them to withdraw, and end the war faster - in the end supposedly saving lives. Of course it didn't work out that way, but the belief that it would contributed to the constant bombing raids and huge civilian bombardments that WWII was famous for.
as late as the early 1900s, the foreign policy of world powers was described as "The Great Game".
According to reports, this terminology is still being used today:
Under the sub-heading "Rude language a la British", she wrote that "[Prince Andrew] railed at British anti-corruption investigators, who had had the 'idiocy' of almost scuttling the Al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia".
She said the prince also criticised Guardian journalists - "who poke their noses everywhere" - for investigating the deal.
Ms Gfoeller said Prince Andrew told her that the UK, Western Europe and the US were now "back in the thick of playing the Great Game" - a reference to the 19th Century struggle between the British and Russian Empires for control of Central Asia.
"More animated than ever, he stated cockily 'and this time we aim to win'," she wrote.
While true, it seems more of a historical reference of the term rather than a good description of today's foreign policy decisions.
The Brits were literally trying to outplay Russia, and both countries were knee-deep in Imperialism. They fought to physically control territory and claim land... an idea that is seen as quaint and naive today.
They fought to physically control territory and claim land... an idea that is seen as quaint and naive today.
Well, count me among the quaintly naive then. We must read from very different news sources.
Some people say that we're living in a "peace bubble", implying that it will return to the mean (much less peaceful times). See e.g. http://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/primacy-f...
"We tend to take peace for granted in most of today’s world, but the broader historical record suggests peace is an occasional luxury and never a guarantee. Standards of living have repeatedly regressed throughout human history, and very often war and its associated catastrophes have been primary causes behind these misfortunes. "
PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
> The worst we have between great powers today are some economic rivalries.
After WWII there were only two great powers left. Now there's one. It has nothing to do with appetite. The military budget of the US dwarfs the other countries. It would be suicidal to start a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in. Welcome to Pax Americana.
That's a very limited view of the world. The military budget of the US may dwarf that of the other countries but as Iraq has shown it is easier to start a war than to finish it on terms that you like. By all counts that matter (except the bank accounts of the profiteers) that war was a disaster.
Right now there are many 'great powers' simply because power is a function of distance from its source. The US is able to project its power across the globe but would have a very hard time taking on Russia, China or even North Korea or Iran on their own or neighbouring soil. Power is (very much) limited by distance.
So even if starting a war that the US will seriously want to be involved in may be folly several such wars at the same time could easily overwhelm the capacity available. The safe bet seems to be to only wage war where there is no oil in the ground, then you can do almost whatever you please.
Historically though, the great power would have declared imperialism and began conquering the world at this point. (Mongols, Romans, Alexander the Great, Babylonians, Assyrians... etc. etc.)
It is historically very unusual for a great power to care so much about how others think of them. Part of it is Hollywood. The US naively wants to be loved. A major component of the misguided Iraqi War was that we'd be loved by the Iraqis once we toppled Saddam.
Outside of Pax Romana, I don't think any of the other great eras of peace were characterized by this "loved by the lesser barbarians" attitude. Instead, they were characterized by massive armies conquering the world with an iron fist.
This was of course a seriously misguided concept. But believe me, the naivete of the Bush Administration has been recorded, and the US seems to have learned its lesson... for now anyway.
> for now anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/jeb-bush-2016_n_634...
How many countries has Obama had bombed at this point? (hint: it's a bunch).
When taking nukes into consideration, how much one spends for the rest of the army is irrelevant. Several countries have enough to destroy the entire planet.
It has been about three years since I realized this. It is awesome.
So let's make it the new bottom line. Let's say it is a awful time in history. Internet should be is as ubiquitous as electricity, and electricity should be as ubiquitous as having water near by; but there are places without internet, without electricity and where you need to walk miles to get some water.
I like to think of these time as a new "Dark Ages". We have internet, electricity and infrastructures that would be unthinkable in the actual dark ages, but is far from enough. I like to think about our governments and corporations as the equivalent to those feudal lords and duches and sires. I like to imagine a future that is unthinkable.
Maybe is time to start hoping for a global government, that could be no government at all, but an efficient way to coordinate efforts. Maybe this "global coordination" would be doomed in the event of some global catastrophe that could destroy the necessary infrastructure . It wouldn't matter, if we have it once, we will want it forever. Like with democracy in the greco-roman culture.
This is crazy, far fetched, but so it was the human rights, flying, self moving cars, etc.
We humans are inherently crazy and we like far fetched ideas. We picture an image of the world and then try fit the actual world in it. Some times that takes us to war and genocide, some times to the Moon.
We don’t need to know how this global future will be, we won’t know.
The same article comes out every year, usually from one of these conservative murdochy news sources, and every year hn and reddit eat it up. Every year is the best year from someone's perspective. Hell, I'd say the 1800s were great because land was plentiful, pollution was low, wage slavery was non existent, people controlled their own schedule and became artisans of their trade who passed along their vast experience to apprentices.
Quite frankly, who gives a shit what some article says about this? Was it your best year? That's all that matters. Let's focus on things that ought to be improved, not this lazy, pat-ourselves-on-the-back "we're doing the right thing" circle jerk.
This is such a matter of perspective.
We would have a safe and perfect society if we were living in a society described by Brave New World. But I'd argue that it would be worst year of human history.
People make the argument that civil rights were a problem, which is true. But I feel that my personal freedoms are far more restricted and no matter how petty they maybe, I don't want to forfeit them for your brave new world.
best, are they blind? There's no mention of ISIS, IRAN nearing a nuclear weapon or Putin being a total nutcase.
> This may have felt like the year of Ebola and Isil but in fact, objectively, 2014 has probably been the best year in history.
They did mention ISIS ("Isil"). There's a seeming trend of these newspapers to fail to capitalize things that should definitely be capitalized (acronyms). I've seen at least a dozen cases of it in the last week. I don't know if perhaps it is a side-effect of automating/technologizing the editor's role or if this is a new style thing or what?
Edit: in this article, it is almost surely intentional:
> The Isil barbarity in the Middle East is so shocking, perhaps, because it comes against a backdrop of unprecedented world peace.
Many British publications only capitalize acronyms if you pronounce each letter separately http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Pronunciation-dependent...
Crazy Brits, screwing up our American English...
Wow. The more you know.
ISIS is contained to a few countries and is largely "managed". Iran is desperate to be rid of the sanctions and a nuclear deal will be in place before this time next year. They are also becoming more moderate as each day passes.
Putin can largely be ignored now. He played his hand completely wrong and now the sphere of influence he wanted around Russia will crumble (as will the economy).
So none of the issues you mentioned are that significant. What was really big in 2014 was Ebola and the US/China's efforts on Climate Change.
Eesh. I'm surprised that such a self-evidently whiggish article would make it to the front page of HN. I assume that the author lives in a bubble of wealth and privilege.
If "we've never had it so good" then why did my parents and grandparents generations never have to attend a food bank?
Can I make the assumption that you're white and from a Western country? Greater average global prosperity does not mean the lives of everybody are better, and more equality often means that those who were traditionally privileged no longer are.
Even white people from Western countries had two World Wars, the Spanish Civil War and the rise of multiple dictatorships within the lives of currently living people.
>If "we've never had it so good" then why did my parents and grandparents generations never have to attend a food bank?
Probably because they lived in a bubble of wealth and privilege. Now that the labor market includes 2.5 billion other people who can pull levers for half the cost, its going to be a lot harder to make a living in a developed nation doing a developing nation-job.
I'm sure if you ask the millions who have escaped poverty worldwide in the last decade, they'd tell you its been a pretty great year.
Sure, if you ignore the CIA torture, the NSA mass-surveillance, the US drone strikes, the protests in the US and Turkey, the Islamists in the Middle East, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the NATO/Russia stand-off in Ukraine, the lukewarm handling of the Ebola epidemic, the rising "anti-Islamic" neo-racist tendencies in Europe and everything else, 2014 was a pretty good year. But I guess most of these problems aren't entirely particular to this year.
EDIT: The article can be summarized with something my grandmother used to say whenever you asked her how she was: "Good, if you ignore the bad parts".
No one says that there are no problems. The world is chock full of problems. But, from a long-term historical perspective, the problems we face today are relatively minor. And more importantly, fewer people live in abject poverty and more people are wealthier and healthier than ever before. IMO, this is a good thing.
Sure, I'm not questioning that the 21st century is doing relatively well (we had two world wars and several major attempts at genocide in the last one -- that sets the bar pretty low). Nor that we are, all in all, doing progressively better.
But I'm not sure that, it is meaningful to point out 2014 in particular as the best year in history. If we just go by "we're still making progress and third world nations are still becoming better places to live", of course 2014 is the best year in history so far. As will 2015 be. Or any year after that, world-wide catastrophes notwithstanding. But that's nearly tautological.
So depending on how you look at it, the article's claim is either trivial enough not to warrant ending up on HN IMO (any point along an upward slope is the highest point on that slope compared to those preceding it, by definition), or it's simply inaccurate (by sweeping the real problems 2014 surfaced under the rug and just saying it's all good).
Historical dark ages exist.
We take progress for granted, because we live in one of the most peaceful times in all of recorded history. But the Dark Ages were periods of centuries, where technology was lost and culture destroyed.
Of the seven great novels of the Greeks for example, only two remain: The Odyssy and the Iliad.
Look up the history of the Epic Greek tales, and learn just how much has been lost to the ages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle
One day, this great golden age around us will fall. All golden ages fall eventually, and we will lose our culture, our history to a dark age of true war once more. Future historians will look upon these times as the golden age of America.
But all empires collapse, and history always cycles between peace and war. And when the age of darkness comes, the current peace we have will be but a legend.
For now, we should be happy for the great age we live in, while striving to make it even better than how it is currently.
I think your point here is a great note on the topic, but sort of misses the very large, loud group of people out there who honestly think the world's improvement has inflected and is now going to hell in a hand basket.
As such, I prefer being reminded about how remarkably not-awful things are versus the next pointlessly negative everything's falling apart rhetoric. Mind, that may have to do with where I live, maybe, and I prefer balanced rhetoric. But it's useful to remind people that the general goodness of the world is monotonically increasing (perhaps with a 10-point moving average and a little spot of outlier filtering).
And yeah, this sort of conversation is almost necessarily a long-now topic. To talk about it over the course of a few months or just a year is a bit silly - there's a lot of noise. But over many decades and especially centuries, things certainly look better now. Things may be crap now in many ways, but it's only knee-deep crap. In the bad old days people waded through crap up to their eyeballs uphill both ways.
It may be trivial, but it's also often forgotten.
Did you even read? In like the second paragraph, it points out:
> Judging the world through headlines is like judging a city by spending a night in A&E – you only see the worst problems.
Yes, I did read it. How is "don't look" a valid answer?
You're comparing against an ideal, not reality, not history.
Let us not forget the recent past where things were not so great. From a global perspective much of the developed world existed under oppressive totalitarian governments up until the end of the Cold War. Also, as to the US alone, look back on: the McCarthyism, Jim Crow, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. Yeah, things aren't great right now, in some regards things are pretty awful. But things have always been awful, we just weren't noticing or we wrote that off as being normal.
I see your CIA Torture and raise you Middle Age Torture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_sawing
The world is a better place today than it was back then. Even in the 1900s, US Internment camps of the Japanese was clearly unnecessary racism designed to build propaganda for the war effort.
Oh yeah, and the historial norm of selling your prisoners of war as slaves. The great powers selling slaves (ie: Britian, US, India, Russia, etc. etc.) kind of isn't a thing anymore.
Minor powers condone sex trafficking, but it isn't anywhere near as bad as as it used to be. The greater powers in the world today police the minor powers and discourage the behavior.
---------------
Sure, if you ignore the CIA torture, the NSA mass-surveillance, the US drone strikes
Casualties in British conquest frequently numbered in the dozens of thousands per battle. We are far more careful and precise with our modern weapons than previous powers were.
Mind you, the US also used gatling guns and rifles to wipe out Native Americans in our conquest through manifest destiny. I'd take our modern "defensive conflicts" any day over our blatantly unfair policies of the 1800s and early 1900s.
the protests in the US and Turkey
I'll take modern protests any day over the historical norm of killing the protesters.
the Islamists in the Middle East
Complete and total wipeout. There was a single British survivor in a major event during the Anglo-Afghan War in 1842.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul
the NATO/Russia stand-off in Ukraine
Yeah, Russia stand-off in Ukraine is soft stuff. It is par-for-the-course for Cold War era politics, which is still far safer than historical norms.
the lukewarm handling of the Ebola epidemic,
Islam has become a race?
No, but the relatively moderate notion of "criticising Islam" has provided an unfortunate opportunity for neo-nazis to present themselves in a more socially acceptable light. Just like "criticising the EU" did last year.
EDIT: Okay, seriously, what the fuck with the downvotes? The EU does have a nazi problem and the contemporary problems with the financial crisis and Islamists are very convenient vehicles for it. Ever heard of the demonstrations against Islam we had in Germany? The organizers are blatant neo-nazis. Heard of the interest groups like PEGIDA? Plenty of neo-nazis and even Holocaust denialists among their leadership.
Criticising Islam or the EU is perfectly valid and acceptable. Anything can and should be criticised. But don't be misled to believe that all these protests are orchestrated by liberalists and constitutionalists just because that's how they present themselves. The "Euro-sceptic" AfD we voted into parliaments have strong ties with other nazi organisations. Same with PEGIDA and its various offsprings.
I don't have the power to down vote. The Dresden marches have had at most, from what I've seen in the news 17 000 people - I don't think that is enough to say that the EU has a nazi problem. It might be considered that a single nazi is a problem, but in terms of nazis being a threat to the EU, 17 000 is not a problem. Somewhere in the region of 250 000 Brits declared themselves Jedi in the last census, if that puts it in perspective. The last video I saw of the marches showed a black guy up front: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/dec/23/thousands... I guess that's open to interpretation. I think a problem the left have is that when they go around blanket labelling everyone racist they are as over-excitedly left as the neo-nazis are over-excitedly right. The left is seen as good, and so people on the left wanting to be more good keep jostling to be more left. The right is seen as bad and so there is a limit to how far right people will move before there is disapproval, that point easily identified as racism, but there doesn't seem to be this obvious limit on the left. It looks to me as though the left limit might be when the left start labelling everyone as racist.