Week 9: Is the United States an Anti-Imperialist Nation?

For the past few weeks I've spent a lot of time trying to decide if critiquing modernity was useful and even more than that, justified. The way Dawson's framed development in the last few chapters is that it more often than not detrimentally affects Latin America; even now in this chapter as Dawson discusses Belmont cigarettes, he talks about it as a harmful instrument used by the North to get Latin Americans to consume their products. Furthermore, from what I've seen modernity continues to reproduce harmful hierarchies about who is modern and who is not, who is rich and who is not. It frames people as traditional or westernized which is annoying to say the least. The idea of modernity is that if you're not assimilated into what the West thinks as developed, you're an uneducated savage.

However... I can understand the argument, there are certain medicines, ideologies, technologies, etc. that i believe are modern and everyone deserves to have, but then again that's a perspective from someone who has been raised in the West and thinks like a Western person. My critique then, is if modernity is so great and development is the natural point of which all civilizations grow towards why does it always seem like one person is always suffering at the hands of modernity? And is it not a form of cultural imperialism for a country to impose it's ideas on another?

I also don't agree with the way Dawson frames the United States as an anti-imperialist nation because the U.S. doesn't directly colonize nations. He virtuously ignores the violent colonization of Hawaii, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. But even if I disregard that, imperialism is the direct involvement of another country trying to extend it's powers upon a different nation — America's interventions in Latin American affairs could not be a clearer portrayal of imperialism. Dawson writes that framing the United States as a violent oppressor or noble saviour serves a political interest but does little to reveal nuanced truths. I sort of agree...? But he really doesn't even have a good argument for this. Like yeah okay both are consuming each other, but you can't deny that one is gaining way more than the other. It's like when Columbus traded broken plates for gold with the indigenous population... sure they're both getting something, but it's not equal by any means and to try to claim it like it is, is nothing short of egregious.