Does this image cause cognitive dissonance? Don’t worry. We simply redefine the word imperialism to make it definitionally not inclusive of these countries. Problem solved and it definitely won’t make us sound like lunatics to normal people!
TBH, redefining racism as “prejudice plus power” in an academic setting is way more useful, otherwise most “anti-racism” scolars would be researching the negative effects of PoC making fun of unseasoned food.
That does make sense, but it’s just that some try to redefine it in regular conversations which has the exact same behaviour be either racism or not racism, depending on who says it and who is the recipient. And that just makes it weird, it goes against the common definition.
There is a not-invalid point here: that current global imperial structures are set up to benefit the West, so it is a bit weird to call someone an imperialist when they’re on the receiving end of it, a target of imperialism.
But of course the same state can be both a perpetrater and victim of imperialism in different arenas or on different scales. Countries are big enough to be both one thing and it’s complete opposite at the same time.
Everyone remembers when the British Empire and Imperial Japan had their highlander-style “there can be only one!” moment to determine who got to keep calling themselves empire
Does this image cause cognitive dissonance? Don’t worry. We simply redefine the word imperialism to make it definitionally not inclusive of these countries. Problem solved and it definitely won’t make us sound like lunatics to normal people!
I’ve seen racism reframed in a similar manner. It feels a bit sketchy
TBH, redefining racism as “prejudice plus power” in an academic setting is way more useful, otherwise most “anti-racism” scolars would be researching the negative effects of PoC making fun of unseasoned food.
That does make sense, but it’s just that some try to redefine it in regular conversations which has the exact same behaviour be either racism or not racism, depending on who says it and who is the recipient. And that just makes it weird, it goes against the common definition.
There is a not-invalid point here: that current global imperial structures are set up to benefit the West, so it is a bit weird to call someone an imperialist when they’re on the receiving end of it, a target of imperialism.
But of course the same state can be both a perpetrater and victim of imperialism in different arenas or on different scales. Countries are big enough to be both one thing and it’s complete opposite at the same time.
Everyone remembers when the British Empire and Imperial Japan had their highlander-style “there can be only one!” moment to determine who got to keep calling themselves empire
Rapist who got raped is still a rapist.
No no those rapes cancel each other out
Exactly.
“By denying our oppressors their humanity, we seek to hide the oppressor within ourselves.”
I don’t get the impression the people who’ve downvoted this have read the second part of the comment.