this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
200 points (89.7% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7770 readers
1 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"imperial core" isn't a phrase we made up. It refers to World Systems Theory, a theory of international relations invented by a guy named Immanuel Wallerstein which argues that imperial "Core" countries (think the traditional "developed" or "first world" countries. Mainly the US and Europe) have a particular extractive, colonial relationship with "Periphery" countries (think poor, raw material exporting, rentier states like Kyrgyzstan or Nigeria).
Then there are semi-periphery countries which are still tied into the imperial core in some way, but have enough sway economically and geopolitically to kind of stand on their own. They have a different kind of relationship to the imperial core, compared to the periphery (these would be the BRICS countries, largely).
That's a gross over simplification, but hopefully that answers your question.
Edit: Here's a really good explanation of World Systems Theory that goes into more depth
To be fair, colonialism is a human trait and it's been proven in every large society time and time again. You think the current US/UK empire is bad but if you look in your own back yard it's the same thing with a different spin.
It is inevitable, humans are destined for this. It's unfortunate but it's what we do.
I don't think any non-Western country has enslaved a continent, refused to pay reparations for enslaving an entire continent, and continue to plunder an entire continent of its resources.
Japan, China, Persian empire, Egypt, Spain, US, UK, Cambodia, et al.
History is nasty, our goal should be to learn from it and not repeat it.
I'm going to make the bold claim that the Tang dynasty and the Achaemenid empire was nowhere near as bad as the Spanish empire or the British empire and unlike the first two, the second two are still relevant in modern times.
Do you seriously think Cambodia "enslaved a continent"? Like, I think Pol Pot was one of the more destructive leaders in human history, but you're being silly.
Japan was working on it but only partially did it. China didn't. Persia? uh . . . I don't think so. Egypt? No. Spain was part of the overall effort that the US and UK were part of.