I don't think the United States had a much different policy towards the original inhabitants than the colonial government of Britain. Slavery became illegal in european colonizer countries earlier than in the United States. (Some argue it still isn't.)
It's not the colonized people that gained freedom, it's the colonizers who were freed from taxes so they could exploit more unregulated.
In this case it is between one imperialist country vs. another, so wouldn't label that position imperialistic necessarily.
thank you for the history lesson. my conclusion is that both empires were/are bad, not that we need to be tough on crime like the person i was replying to said
I think what charcircuit meant was that the independence of the United States was an internal struggle of the british upper class and viewed through the lens of them was bad and could have been avoided by another policy.
in conclusion, we should criminalize drugs because the crown should have wielded its legal power better to prevent the American revolution. you know what I would watch that ted talk actually
It's not a framing I haven't heard either ( :-) ), but I think that was what he wanted to suggest. I have however known this stance in general, and I think I agree to some point. You can always view a revolution from the side of your enemy, the lessons will be important when you are the large empire.
I think the wars and revolutions to free countries from being colonized were never honorable (like all wars) even when they served a greater good in the large scheme. I even think that also applies to WW2 (Churchill famously said later they should have gone after USSR first), there is always some dirty stuff going on from all sides, and maybe it applies to the American revolution as well. These revolutions often spark from egoistic interests even if they claim to fight for the greater good.
There are people who think it is a crime and there are people who don't. Having something being a crime and not prosecute it hard enough makes both factions unhappy. The claim is that starting to prosecute a crime lightly leads to a shift in mentality in the society, which leads to people who don't perceive it to be a crime. This will eventually lead to it being inevitable that it is allowed. The policy claim is that you need to prosecute it harder before it comes to late. (I am inclined to agree to these claims.) The fact that you refer to it as "criminalization" seams to be evidence, that it is already too late.
My personal opinion, which wasn't stated yet, is that after a phase of lax regulation the problems become excessive, which leads to a larger part of the population to agree to a harder regime. After some time nobody remembers these things so it tends to become lax again. In other words I think this is going in circles, so I don't think we need to try it this time. Have a middle way and help thus who can't get off by themselves.
It's not the colonized people that gained freedom, it's the colonizers who were freed from taxes so they could exploit more unregulated.
In this case it is between one imperialist country vs. another, so wouldn't label that position imperialistic necessarily.