Ending barbaric customs?

[Dimentio]

Do you think foreign intervention could be needed in order to end irrational and cruel customs like sexual mutiliation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, organised paedophilia and official female submission under patriarchy?

Or should each region develop in its own pace?

[Psy]

Do you think foreign intervention could be needed in order to end irrational and cruel customs like sexual mutiliation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, organised paedophilia and official female submission under patriarchy?

Or should each region develop in its own pace?

Bring workers consciousness is the best way to combat all that, for example in Egypt when women textile workers went on strike they were able to get their male workers to join them and Egypt isn't exactly know from gender equality.

[Patchd]

Do you think foreign intervention could be needed in order to end irrational and cruel customs like sexual mutiliation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, organised paedophilia and official female submission under patriarchy?

Or should each region develop in its own pace?

Are we talking in terms of foreign intervention in this day and age, so Imperialist "intervention", or as in a post-revolutionary sense?

[Dimentio]

Are we talking in terms of foreign intervention in this day and age, so Imperialist "intervention", or as in a post-revolutionary sense?

Both.

[NecroCommie]

Kinda depends on the form of intervention.

If its teaching/preaching or some other form of indirect intervention, then its OK in my books.

Any form of military, economic or political action against any region in order to manipulate its policy is condemnable. With the exception of regions that democratically request help in a particular issue.

[Andropov]

No imperialist intervention.
You may think that sending a foreign army in to tame the savages is beneficial for them but in the end of the day it is counter productive.
Those very customs which you detest will become part of a kind of, Nationalist character, and if anything you will be prolonging their existance as they will take on a much deeper meaning and the people practicing them will have much deeper convictions about such practices.

[KC]

Do you think foreign intervention could be needed in order to end irrational and cruel customs like sexual mutiliation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, organised paedophilia and official female submission under patriarchy?

Or should each region develop in its own pace?

What do you think?

[Patchd]

Both.

Well, I'm sure you know my position on the former. No to Imperialist intervention, it has been shown to not only be ineffective, but almost always conducted under dubious or different reasons to the ones they give us, and in some cases worsens a situation in a region.

On the latter point, I haven't made up my mind yet. So I'll lurk and see what others say and then make up my mind.

[Dimentio]

What do you think?

I am generally against military interventions, except in cases of self-defence. If Europe was going to become socialist, I would advocate for a policy of neutrality during the consolidation phase.

I think it is legitimate though to condemn certain customs. But the struggle to end them must be carried out and led by the people of these regions. Like in western Niger, where six villages today to end female genital mutilation.

[Cumannach]

If each region had been allowed to develop at it's own pace most of those things would be gone by now.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'd say intervention is beneficial if done correctly. If we allow a country to develop at its own pace, that means people are going to suffer. For what? Presumably, because self-development is better, but you need an argument for that. The colonialist destruction of Native cultures demonstrates that you can force changes upon people. It's just about being careful about what changes you're forcing. Forcing men to treat women with dignity isn't exactly evil.

I mean, I like to look at things from alternative perspectives. If I was a women being harmed, I'd want people to help me. Arguably, the notion of self-development for nations needs to distinguish why it doesn't apply to people. If it applies to people, we shouldn't be helping individuals with problems they need to resolve themselves.

There might be an argument that, unless they ask for help, they don't need it. However, this isn't really true.

[Hoxhaist]

I would say intervention should be the last option; we should take great care not to force the adoption of foreign culture or inadvertantly destroy local culture

[Dimentio]

I'd say intervention is beneficial if done correctly. If we allow a country to develop at its own pace, that means people are going to suffer. For what? Presumably, because self-development is better, but you need an argument for that. The colonialist destruction of Native cultures demonstrates that you can force changes upon people. It's just about being careful about what changes you're forcing. Forcing men to treat women with dignity isn't exactly evil.

I mean, I like to look at things from alternative perspectives. If I was a women being harmed, I'd want people to help me. Arguably, the notion of self-development for nations needs to distinguish why it doesn't apply to people. If it applies to people, we shouldn't be helping individuals with problems they need to resolve themselves.

There might be an argument that, unless they ask for help, they don't need it. However, this isn't really true.

The problem is that intervention could enstrengthen the very things which progressives are against, because the afflicted civilisation would probably react by identifying itself according to its customs contrary to the intruders.

Moreover, the chaos caused by foreign intervention could lead to a strengthening of decentralised units like clans and villages, and therefore cement archaic customs (the Chinese established female foot-binding after the Mongol conquest of China for example).

[Wanted Man]

"Humanitarian" intervention, incidentally, also tends to lead to (or rather, consists of) the death of thousands (or millions, if you're "unlucky") and will still probably not bring any of the intended changes (usually just excuses for imperialism).

When it comes to imperialist "humanitarian" intervention, three words suffice: Afghan. Rape. Law.

As for a socialist state, it would have to be something carefully considered. There's a difference between internationalism, and mindless "socialist" militarist adventurism...

[BobKKKindle$]

Marxists should never support any form of military interventionism. There are two primary reasons for this: even if a more powerful country intervenes with the best of intentions, because its government honestly believes that it can improve the lives of people living under oppression, by stationing a military force in another country in which human rights abuses and degrading practices are taking place, its efforts will ultimately be in vain, and merely lead to loss of life and political instability, because customs which we deem offensive on the grounds that they violate all standards of human dignity (such as footbinding and genital mutilation, to give but two examples) are incredibly complex problems, that cannot be resolved through simple solutions such as intervention. For example, progressives who live in a western cultural environment tend to think of Muslim polygamy (i.e. men being allowed to marry four women, but not the reverse) as an oppressive custom that should be eliminated, and replaced with an equitable approach to gender and sexual relations, and yet, one of the main reasons behind the hostile reaction of the Afghan population towards the Soviet-backed government in the 1980s, and the ensuing struggle against the Soviet presence, was the decision of that government to restrict the number of women men could marry, ostensibly to liberate women, and despite the prevalence of Islam amongst the Afghan population - this decision was oppossed by women (as well as men, especially religious leaders, but for entirely different reasons) because, in a society that deprived women of educational and economic opportunities, marriage was often the only way women could secure access to the things they needed to survive and attain long-term material security, for themselves and their dependents, such that, when this decision was passed, women were faced with the prospect of being consigned to poverty, and even death, and therefore supported those who fought back. This case demonstrates that external actors often display inadequate knowledge of the problems they seek to solve, and make things worse as a result. Based on this, Marxists should recognize that oppressive practices can only be solved through the efforts and struggles of the groups which directly experience oppression, as well as progressives who are members of the society in which oppression is taking place and can identify with the plight of the oppressed, and not an external force imposing its will. The intervention will, in many cases, provoke a response from those who participate in acts of oppression, directed against the oppressed, and the oppressors will be able to present themselves as fighting against an imperialist force, intent on destroying the traditions of that society and enforcing western cultural norms, thereby strengthening their appeal, and undermining the struggles of genuine progressives.

The second reason we should adopt this position is that, even if some interventions are honest, and even if they succeed, the fact that these interventions have been allowed to take place on humanitarian grounds means that intervention as a tool of foreign policy has been rendered legitimate, and is considered a viable course of action. This is important because it means that imperialist powers are able to use humanitarianism as a pretext in order to create a facade of moral legitimacy for interventions that are, in reality, being conducted in order to secure access to markets and resources, as well as to establish political influence. These interventions - where humanitarianism is an ideological device, used to exploit the concerns of left-liberals - will, if allowed to take place, ultimately lead to even greater loss of life than would otherwise be the case if no interventions had ever been allowed to take place at all - even if, in a few cases, intervening would have preserved life.

[BobKKKindle$]

Another case of oppression that is far more complex than it may appear (based on a superficial analysis) but frequently seen as a problem that demands military intervention is the situation in Darfur. Many left-liberals, and even some people who describe themselves as Marxists, argue that the Sudanese government (frequently characterized as both Arab and Muslim) is carrying out a genocide against the people of Darfur, with the support of the PRC, in the south-west of the country, who are, according to those who adopt this viewpoint, African, and Christian, and they argue, on this basis that the UN, or even a group of powerful countries such as NATO or the EU, should intervene in order to stop the genocide and overthrow the government. In reality, the situation is, as you would expect, far more complex. What many commentators and activists fail to realize is that the situation in Darfur should not be characterized as the government imposing its will on a population without facing any resistance, because the situation is, in fact, closer to a civil war, conducted between the semi-autonomous janjiweed, and pro-independence rebels, with both sides routinely carrying out attacks, including rapes, on civilians of all ethnic and religious groups - which also means that the conflict should also not be classified as a genocide, because a genocide is legally defined as intentional acts of violence directed against a particular ethnic or religious group, with the intention of destroying that group, as oppossed to a general series of violent acts with no particular object or purpose. The conflict itself is rooted in the underdeveloped condition of the Sudan's economy, and in particular the scarcity of water, which, in any country, but especially in a country where the economy is based on subsistence agriculture, is an essential resource, the distribution of which is a major factor in shaping the way different groups and regions interact with each other and the national government. The countries in favour of intervention (The US and the EU) are clearly motivated not by humanitarian concerns, as we can see from their approach to other cases of conflict - since 1998 some four million people have died as a result of war in Democratic Republic of Congo in central Africa, but the US and Britain don’t want to talk about that because the fighting has been fuelled by Western arms firms and multinationals and involves intervention by Western-backed states. The position of these countries is instead derived from a desire to undermine the growing influence of the PRC in sub-saharan Africa, and to secure control of Sudan's two billion barrels of recoverable oil.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The problem is that intervention could enstrengthen the very things which progressives are against, because the afflicted civilisation would probably react by identifying itself according to its customs contrary to the intruders.

Moreover, the chaos caused by foreign intervention could lead to a strengthening of decentralised units like clans and villages, and therefore cement archaic customs (the Chinese established female foot-binding after the Mongol conquest of China for example).

If it strengthens opposition, the question is why? The same thing can be said about me helping a women who is being abused. By addressing the problem, I will strengthen to opposition, will I not?

If you are fighting with someone, and they get another person on their side, you strengthen your opposition or you give up.

Not intervening in the affairs of other countries when obvious injustices are happening just seems unethical. There are cases where you will just make things worse. If I tell an abusive husband to stop abusing his wife, and I have nothing to ensure that he will, he might abuse her more. However, why assume all intervention makes things worse? That is not true for individuals so I don't see how it is true of nations.

The problem is it is difficult to determine when an intervention will actually accomplish something, but we shouldn't avoid action entirely because of fear, I think.

[BobKKKindle$]

That is not true for individuals so I don't see how it is true of nations.This may surprise you, but you can't draw a direct link between individuals, and nation-states. I'm sorry, but if you think that you can understood geopolitics, and complex social problems such as genital mutilation by drawing analogies, and creating hypothetical scenarios involving people hitting each other, then you have a very simple view of the world, and don't understand the nature of these problems, of the effects of intervention. I think my first post explained why foreign intervention is not the solution, and why liberation can only come through the struggles of the oppressed.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This may surprise you, but you can't draw a direct link between individuals, and nation-states. I'm sorry, but if you think that you can understood geopolitics, and complex social problems such as genital mutilation by drawing analogies, and creating hypothetical scenarios involving people hitting each other, then you have a very simple view of the world, and don't understand the nature of these problems, of the effects of intervention. I think my first post explained why foreign intervention is not the solution, and why liberation can only come through the struggles of the oppressed.

No where in that paragraph is an actual argument of any kind. I'm well open to being shown how I'm wrong in a particular way, but there is nothing I can get out of that. It's just a statement.

Intervention against genital mutilation in a single case works.
Intervention against genital mutilation in multiple cases doesn't?

Where does it suddenly change? Ignore issues of resources, here. Just because solutions attempt to create a mechanistic way to solve problems "If we do this X will go away" doesn't mean individual solutions can't work when applied over a large scale.

You say that "Marxists should recognize that oppressive practices can only be solved through the efforts and struggles of the groups which directly experience oppression, as well as progressives who are members of the society in which oppression is taking place and can identify with the plight of the oppressed, and not an external force imposing its will."

What if someone is engaging in genital mutilation, and a member of their own society stops them from doing so. This is an external force imposing its will. If you (as many would here, I suspect) say that you shouldn't stop someone from genital mutilation, I question your motivations. If you want to preserve peoples' freedom above their well being, why hold such priorities?

I sympathize with your point that enforcing good encourages others to do the same, but I don't agree. I took this position a few weeks ago. It's John Stuart Mill's position, originally. I tried to defend it, and I read literature almost entirely written by individuals who oppose intervening on behalf of others. Mill, Nozrick, Rawls, Bakunin. It was Rawls and Bakunin, who argued against intervention, that made me realize the flimsiness of such a position.

The topic in Theory, I believe, on Paternalism might better demonstrate what I mean. I've been strongly attacked, of course. It's very possible that I'm wrong. However, once you accept a position, it's difficult to consider yourself as incorrect. It took a considerable amount of time before I favored paternalism, in the first place.

If I become a drug addict, I don't want to be left to die because the only way to cure me is to impose upon my will. If I was a women, and I actually thought it was alright for my husband to beat and rape me, I would want someone to intervene on my behalf because I'm clearly not rational.

Marxist theory suggests that material conditions make people realize their society is unfavorable, and they rise against it. People are material conditions. If we can't influence societies for the better, what can they do that we can't? Sure, that have to realize something, want something. But how do they get the information or establish the conditions that make equality seem desirable?

It can't be a matter of simply waiting, can it? Time is just a way of considering things. There has to be actual changes that undergo. What changes are they, and how can we influence them?

I'll jump on the tread carefully bandwagon with respect to intervening in the affairs of others, whether people or nations, but I can't see the reasoning behind completely ignoring them. Marx is old. He himself talked about the relevance in time periods, material conditions and changes.

We can't be afraid to change theories. Experiment with the ideas and see where they go. Implementation and thought experiment are two entirely different things. I'm not going to advocate some crazy intervention on behalf of a greater morality with no rational conception of how it will succeed. That's what Bush did.

I'm just saying we should really think about the intrinsic problems with a theory that says "let people suffer because we can't do anything about it." Marxism argues that we shouldn't do anything because the track record is poor. It doesn't definitively prove there isn't a way to intervene successfully. As long as our theory says we can't help suffering people, we should try to think of a modification that solves the issue. If we are confident that our modification works, then we can move forward.

[Pogue]

Well firstly we know imperialist intervention is never done with the best itnerests of the people of the occupied country at heart. The amount of deaths and the results of Iraq and Afghanistan are truth of this. I think this issue is very difficult. If aid was called for I'd say certainly, just as it is justified to break into someones house and take the children into care if they have abusive parents on a micro scale over here.

If you just observed a culture and found parts of it abhorent, in a communist society, you'd be torn I suppose. I mean, some people hold traditions very dearly and value them, but they're still reactionary and harmful, and ultimately that person might not be acting in their best interests.

I mean a personal choice is a personal choice, but say if we had the issue of one generation forcing a harmful practice upon the next generation, so the successive generations had no choice, and this was a genuinely harmful act, circumcision of females, mutilation, etc. If we intervened, it'd cause problems, and we'd have study the effectiveness of this for individual groups in society. We could make reccomendations I suppose, criticise, try to foster popular feeling that these customs are out-dated and wrong and hope the society naturally abandons them or there is some sort of struggle against them (such as there has been against abhorent practices in the west).

I think by spreading ideas, things will be done naturally, or at least I'd hope. So if you spread the ideas, people'd realise for themselves 'Yeh, this is shit, I'm going to stop it'. Like with female circumcision, I'd try to foster some sort of liberation movement amongst any people who practice that. Directly intervening could have disasterous consequences and we'd do better to spread ideas, but in some cases intervention would have to be looked at from the perspective of how you'd look at intervening in any conflict. I mean for example ritual flogging, or rape in marriage. Whether its based on custom or not, if someone did it, its a crime and should be treated as such.

If a region became communist and within it or near it such things were going on I'd say its our moral duty to intervene but we have to be very careful in what we do as to avoid simply increasing the problem.

[Devrim]

Do you think foreign intervention could be needed in order to end irrational and cruel customs like sexual mutiliation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, organised paedophilia and official female submission under patriarchy?

Or should each region develop in its own pace?

Do you think that 'Islamic' countries such as Turkey, Tunisia, Azerbaijan etc should intervene in countries like the UK, Ireland, Spain, and Poland where abortion is not available on demand?

As for the list of things that you think people do outside the 'Civilised West'; 'irrational and cruel customs like sexual mutiliation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, organised paedophilia and official female submission under patriarchy?', it is absolutely outrageous.

How on Earth do you think people live?

Personally, I wake up every morning, cut out a young girls clitoris, sacrifice a virgin, and then eat her, usually one of my slaves, then organise regimented raping of the local toddlers by all of our neighbours before beating my wife into submission whilst she prepares breakfast.

This really is one of the most outrageous posts I have seen on Revleft for a while.

Devrim

[Revy]

Another case of oppression that is far more complex than it may appear (based on a superficial analysis) but frequently seen as a problem that demands military intervention is the situation in Darfur. Many left-liberals, and even some people who describe themselves as Marxists, argue that the Sudanese government (frequently characterized as both Arab and Muslim) is carrying out a genocide against the people of Darfur, with the support of the PRC, in the south-west of the country, who are, according to those who adopt this viewpoint, African, and Christian, and they argue, on this basis that the UN, or even a group of powerful countries such as NATO or the EU, should intervene in order to stop the genocide and overthrow the government. In reality, the situation is, as you would expect, far more complex. What many commentators and activists fail to realize is that the situation in Darfur should not be characterized as the government imposing its will on a population without facing any resistance, because the situation is, in fact, closer to a civil war, conducted between the semi-autonomous janjiweed, and pro-independence rebels, with both sides routinely carrying out attacks, including rapes, on civilians of all ethnic and religious groups - which also means that the conflict should also not be classified as a genocide, because a genocide is legally defined as intentional acts of violence directed against a particular ethnic or religious group, with the intention of destroying that group, as oppossed to a general series of violent acts with no particular object or purpose. The conflict itself is rooted in the underdeveloped condition of the Sudan's economy, and in particular the scarcity of water, which, in any country, but especially in a country where the economy is based on subsistence agriculture, is an essential resource, the distribution of which is a major factor in shaping the way different groups and regions interact with each other and the national government. The countries in favour of intervention (The US and the EU) are clearly motivated not by humanitarian concerns, as we can see from their approach to other cases of conflict - since 1998 some four million people have died as a result of war in Democratic Republic of Congo in central Africa, but the US and Britain don’t want to talk about that because the fighting has been fuelled by Western arms firms and multinationals and involves intervention by Western-backed states. The position of these countries is instead derived from a desire to undermine the growing influence of the PRC in sub-saharan Africa, and to secure control of Sudan's two billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Agreed.

There was a recent debate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/darfur-activist-under-fir_n_187395.html) about this subject at Columbia University, and the professor with this opinion, had much better arguments.

[Dimentio]

Do you think that 'Islamic' countries such as Turkey, Tunisia, Azerbaijan etc should intervene in countries like the UK, Ireland, Spain, and Poland where abortion is not available on demand?

As for the list of things that you think people do outside the 'Civilised West'; 'irrational and cruel customs like sexual mutiliation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, organised paedophilia and official female submission under patriarchy?', it is absolutely outrageous.

How on Earth do you think people live?

Personally, I wake up every morning, cut out a young girls clitoris, sacrifice a virgin, and then eat her, usually one of my slaves, then organise regimented raping of the local toddlers by all of our neighbours before beating my wife into submission whilst she prepares breakfast.

This really is one of the most outrageous posts I have seen on Revleft for a while.

Devrim

I did not point out muslims specifically, but rather any random group or culture which is seen as backward. I am aware that most islamic countries are not practising medieval customs.

[benhur]

Even on a personal level, intervention is never done out of the goodness of one's heart. For instance, we help people we know, people we care about. Do we give a hoot about our neighbors? If at all we do, it;s because we want something in return. So let's face it, if this is how we behave on a personal level, it's foolish to imagine that politicians, of all people, are gonna intervene for the sake of liberating people from barbarians.

To be blunt, it's the west which has always supported barbaric regimes throughout the world, so that the local people would be oppressed, and an oppressed population cannot fight imperialism. Frankly, such people don't have the moral right to pass judgment. It's all nice to cry and complain about taliban and others who indulge in barbaric customs and practices, but if the west truly were serious about eliminating such practices and liberating people, what's stopping them? They have the financial and military might, so if they sincerely believed in human rights, freedom and all that, they could've liberated the people by now. But they didn't...on purpose.

Bottom line, we have two problems. On the one hand, we have barbaric people. But the real problem is, people who have the power to stop them do nothing, in fact, they encourage such barbarism for their own selfish ends. Hence, the blame lies with the west which often brags about democracy, freedom and all that bull, but actively encourage barbarians elsewhere.

[Devrim]

I did not point out muslims specifically, but rather any random group or culture which is seen as backward. I am aware that most islamic countries are not practising medieval customs.

Sorry, I was confused. Generally this is the type of thing that accompanies anti-Muslim ranting. It is hard not to perceive it like this particularly as the countries where the west has been intervening recently have been 'Muslim' countries.

Let's just look at the things you were talking about again;


irrational and cruel customs like sexual mutiliation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, organised paedophilia and official female submission under patriarchy?

Where is Cannibalism a custom? Where is human sacrifice a custom? Where is organised paedophilia a custom?

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

I'm wholeheartedly agreeing with Devrim here. That's how detached from reality this topic is.

[Dimentio]

Sorry, I was confused. Generally this is the type of thing that accompanies anti-Muslim ranting. It is hard not to perceive it like this particularly as the countries where the west has been intervening recently have been 'Muslim' countries.

Let's just look at the things you were talking about again;



Where is Cannibalism a custom? Where is human sacrifice a custom? Where is organised paedophilia a custom?

Devrim

Parts of sub-tropical Africa, Borneo, Papua New Guinea.

Some very advanced civilisations, like the Aztecs for example, has also historically practised both human sacrifice and cannibalism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How about we jump ahead to the kicker: Genocide. Though not included in the original I'd say it's pretty barbaric.

This is where, for me, the real question lies. And when I say genocide I'm not referring to a lot of people dying, that happens all the time. I'm referring to the systematic slaughter of all members of an ethnic group for no other reason than being a member of that ethnicity.

Are their times when we of overwhelming firepower should intervene or is that a problem their simply going to have to work out for themselves? Though, looking at, say, 20th Century Europe, it doesn't seem to be something that is necessarily "grown out of" when material conditions are improved above a 'backwards' level.


Let's start with Vietnam removing the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, though that's not even genocide by strict definition.

Good? Bad? Why?

[Devrim]

Parts of sub-tropical Africa, Borneo, Papua New Guinea.

Cannibalism is practised as a social custom nowhere in the world today. There are occasional instance, but they tend to happen either due to desperation, or are the acts of psychologically deranged individuals. It is nowhere a cultural norm.


Some very advanced civilisations, like the Aztecs for example, has also historically practised both human sacrifice and cannibalism.

So are we to plan these 'humanitarian interventions' with time machines now?

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Cannibalism is practised as a social custom nowhere in the world today. There are occasional instance, but they tend to happen either due to desperation, or are the acts of psychologically deranged individuals. It is nowhere a cultural norm.



So are we to plan these 'humanitarian interventions' with time machines now?

Devrim

This is not a thread in support of "humanitarian interventions" but a thread to discuss whether humanitarian interventionism could be justified.

[BobKKKindle$]

Intervention against genital mutilation in a single case works.
Intervention against genital mutilation in multiple cases doesn't?Stationing a military force in another country is not just "multiple cases" of intervention on a personal level, between individuals, it is qualitatively different, and involves totally different issues. I agree that if you, as an individual, witness an act of violence being carried out against someone else and you can do something to stop that person from being harmed, even at risk to yourself, then you have a moral obligation to intervene (e.g. to raise your hand to block someone's fist when someone is about to get punched) but in cases of military intervention, not only is it far more difficult to stop acts of violence from taking place - due to the complexity of these problems, as well as the fact that most countries are so large and/or inaccessible that they cannot be monitored and controlled sufficiently by a occupying force - but also, the act of invasion will be interpreted as an attempt to transform the country into a colony by the resident population, even if the intentions of the invaders are not imperialist in nature, thereby provoking further anger against the oppressed, and allowing the oppressors to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the general population when they take on the role of an anti-imperialist force, as we can see in Afghanistan today, where the Taliban, despite the crimes they committed against the Afghan people in the 1990s, command popular support. I have a feeling that the sole purpose of your tirade was to prove that you know the names of a few philosophers and political theorists.

[Dimentio]

Stationing a military force in another country is not just "multiple cases" of intervention on a personal level, between individuals, it is qualitatively different, and involves totally different issues. I agree that if you, as an individual, witness an act of violence being carried out against someone else and you can do something to stop that person from being harmed, even at risk to yourself, then you have a moral obligation to intervene (e.g. to raise your hand to block someone's fist when someone is about to get punched) but in cases of military intervention, not only is it far more difficult to stop acts of violence from taking place - due to the complexity of these problems, as well as the fact that most countries are so large and/or inaccessible that they cannot be monitored and controlled sufficiently by a occupying force - but also, the act of invasion will be interpreted as an attempt to transform the country into a colony by the resident population, even if the intentions of the invaders are not imperialist in nature, thereby provoking further anger against the oppressed, and allowing the oppressors to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the general population when they take on the role of an anti-imperialist force, as we can see in Afghanistan today, where the Taliban, despite the crimes they committed against the Afghan people in the 1990s, command popular support. I have a feeling that the sole purpose of your tirade was to prove that you know the names of a few philosophers and political theorists.

A sure way of giving people a sense of inferiority is to defeat them militarily and then try to change their customs. In some cases, such changes in themselves has produced genocide. Main cause of increased mortality rates in Spanish Mexico in the 16th century was increased suicide rates amongst Aztecs.

Another example of a defeated nation which had its customs forcibly changed is the American south, and my impression is that there still is a lot of bitterness, chauvinism and reactionary mindsets there, despite that slavery was abolished in 1865.