General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: NATO attacks! [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)exactly the 'brownest' of enemies.
I suppose we should not overlook the USSR's conquest and repression in eastern Europe either since the USSR was a 'white' nation. That, too, was a case of white-on-white conquest and repression. Does "racial responsibility" trump "national responsibility"?
I note you did not respond to the fact that Russia is ruled by whites (understandable given the racial makeup of their country) and MEN (not so understandable given the gender makeup of their country). In addition to 'racial responsibility' and 'national responsibility' for past conquest and exploitation, could we not look at which gender led these terrible historical events? While some 'white' countries are making progress (with a long way to go, but some progress comes before much progress) in the representation of women and non-whites in their governments, other 'white' countries seem quite content with white and male dominance.
While it is certainly true that last few centuries have been filled with a history of European, American and Soviet conquest and exploitation, history will show that that is not a uniquely 'white' experience. Every race and religion has had an era when it was militarily dominant and had vast empires acquired through conquest and repression.
And those South American and North African countries that formed or tried to form alliances against NATO or the West had, and have, every right to do so. We may agree that for the West to view any such alliance as an "offensive threat" would be ridiculous and hypocritical.