Are Americans historically less able to empathize with other cultures in

quote:

---

We generally seem unable to consider that other cultures do not always share our values and many do not want what we define as freedom

---

Kill all the ISIS bastards. Every last one of them.

We're probably more empathetic in that regards compared to others.

American imperialism exists, but we're more sneaky about it by backing leaders we want in power in those areas rather than directly throwing ourselves into the conflict (not always the case).

Once we have said leader in power we use them to push, but not force, our ideals onto that group IMO.

you cant free someone who doesnt want to be free.

quote:

---

I don't know that "less able to empathize" is how I'd frame it. I, for one, believe in the objective superiority of certain western values. I'm not a fan of cultural relativism, thus to the extent some non-western nation doesn't want the high points of our culture, freedom of speech, for example, I tend to think that position is the product of an inherently inferior culture.

---

I agree with you. Perhaps empathize was the wrong word and I should have said understand other cultures. It seems that our politicians frequently say "we at bringing freedom" to the countries we go to war with. Do we not understand that many of those countries dot want freedom?

Isn't it somewhat naive of us to believe we can change cultures that are far older than our own? How did other successful conquering nations deal with this? I also apologize for all of the typos. I am writing this on my phone.

quote:

---

Isn't it somewhat naive of us to believe we can change cultures that are far older than our own? How did other successful conquering nations deal with this? I also apologize for all of the typos. I am writing this on my phone.

---

I would argue the opposite, actually. We are often too empathetic.

First, the Romans and even the British were much more brutal than we are as an empire. They were ruthless when they had to be. The British put down rebellion after rebellion in places like the Sudan, South Africa, India (multiple times), Malaysia, the Zulu Kingdom, Ireland, China, on and on, often very brutally. They were extraordinarily imperial in exporting their culture and their ways. To this day most of the former British empire uses British parliamentary democracy, education methods, hospital systems, infrastructure (driving on the right side of the road, for instance); Anglos were essentially a separate (and superior) class in every single one of these dominions. They had no problem crushing local customs that they believed were anti-British (slavery being a prominent one, especially in their African dominions).

The Romans were even worse; virtually everything they conquered was forcefully modeled after the rest of the empire.

We are lightweights when it comes to this stuff, but then again, we don't have much experience with true imperialism, as we've only done it on a large scale globally for about one hundred years or so. Some might argue that we did it when conquering native tribes (and they might be right), but bum-running a bunch of sparsely-populated and disparate groups doesn't come close to what the British and Romans did.

Americans are abhor their own Imperialism. The people of the United States cannot rationalize the concept of subjugating a people with the principals of their nation's founding. The principles of self-determination, individual liberty, and economic freedom are simply incongruous with ruling far-flung indigenous peoples by decree. The principles of manifest destiny embolden us to be the great spreaders of democracy and freedom in the world (often whether those people want it or not).