Engaging in several debates concerning public policy (bad idea), it often felt like my debate partner and I are just talking past each other. These political debates reminded me of a wonderful presentation by Juan Enriquez to Pop!Tech a few years ago.
30 minutes long: starts out very slow, but good learning experience if you have the time.
Please note that this presentation was in 2006. Most of the trends that Juan Enriquez presented have gotten worse and sometimes significantly worse. There are other secessionist movement all over the world. Some Belgians are thinking of destroying their country. Afghanistan is not even close to a unified country. Iraq is only being held together because of US intervention. US national debt is even worse condition than it was before. Hispanics are even larger percentage of the American population. Drawing of parallels with the British Empire might be alarming.
Please watch it and volunteer your answers to these two questions. Feel free to expound on your opinions. But please try to stay on topic. (I might be I asking too much!)
Poll: Will there be a secession of states from US within the next 20 years? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Here's my opinion for anyone that would like to know. + Show Spoiler +
I think there will be some form of secession when the federal debt becomes unmanageable, and default or severe inflation risk will probably cause the richer parts of the country to secede from the union.
I tend to welcome this prospect provided that it's done in peace without civil war and without a giant wall fencing people in(Germany). The wide political differences between various states and politics could become a subject of intellectual curiosity rather than rabid political opposite. Not having to fight over the spoils of politics may have that positive effect.
damn... forgot about the tag... Is this a [P]? I'd like it to be as apolitical as possible.
Second question - now about Mexico! There are five major drug cartels down there. They are very territorial, often running both government drug warriors and competing cartels off of their territory. One of these cartels, La Familia, has started branching off into social services and providing welfare for the local population in exchange for local support. Sometimes, they protect the local population from "enterprising" policemen. The other cartels are watching and learning from the experiment. All of them have been trying to control the media. In the past, it's been fatal intimidation. Recently, it's more of subtle intimidation, bribery, or persuasion. They've been marketing themselves as positive social force in Mexico. The move towards non-violent activities while "controlling" territory inside Mexico are all steps towards gaining legitimacy among the people. If the trend continues, drug cartels may very well replace Mexico Federals as the de facto government in parts of Mexico. So the question here is:
Poll: How many Mexican drug cartels will become defacto governments in the next 20 years? (Vote): None (Vote): One or Two Cartels (Vote): Three or More Cartels
As per request a third poll:
Poll: What would be your reaction to a part of the country seceding? (Vote): Move there. Be free of central government tyranny! (Vote): Personally take up arms. Kill those traitors! (Vote): I don't know. I am a drone. I listen to whatever my government tells me to do. (Vote): War! I might not fight but at least I'm a chickenhawk! (Vote): Peace! Let them secede! (Vote): Secession is a good idea. I think I'll do it, too. (Vote): I hope it doesn't affect me. I think I'll hide under a rock until everything blows over.
The only state that I would think MIGHT consider seceding sometime in the future is Utah, because they're like 50+% backwards brainwashed nuts
It's important to note that the only time that states have ever seceded was due to drastic social change driving the economy of the people with rights (at the time) into oblivion. Change in policy drove the people with power/money in those states to the ground. This is not happening at all currently. What motivation would an individual state have to secede? It's not like the rest of the country is individually forcing people out of their jobs, one by one.
EDIT:
I've actually changed my mind. I plan on seceding until I can participate in the OSL finals raffle. Down with America!
I think there will be some form of secession when the federal debt becomes unmanageable, and default or severe inflation risk will probably cause the richer parts of the country to secede from the union.
Eh, if you look at history, the debt was much worse after world war 2. We need a much better system of handling our peacetime finances, but we're not in crisis mode or even close to it.
I don't see how this isn't political. Would you mind explaining?
As far as I know Pennsylvania is the only commonwealth in the US.
It's not actually a state, but gets counted as one for some unknown reason. Technically we've been "seceded" from the rest of the US since the beginning.
Look, there's absolutely no reason for any state to leave the United States right now, the interests of our individual states are too intertwined, and the politics of becomming a country would be too messy. Not to mention that little thing called... uh... treason.
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
Look, there's absolutely no reason for any state to leave the United States right now, the interests of our individual states are too intertwined, and the politics of becomming a country would be too messy. Not to mention that little thing called... uh... treason.
Treason is specifically defined in the constitution. I do not think secession alone qualifies.
where the fuck were all these people when bush was in office. Seriously. Seceding from the US has got to be the most dumb fucking idea ive ever heard in my life.
I've spent roughly half my life in California and the other half in Pennsylvania. AND I'm Mexican. If this ever happened I would be so torn between staying in PA or moving back to CA or moving down South.
On one hand I would never like to live under Chinese rule and would rather be labeled "European"... just a personal preference. On the other hand... Asian females > Europeans females. I go down to Mexico pretty often, LOVE IT... when visiting, but would rather not stay down there for long periods of time.
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
hahahaha, wow
this is great
If this guy is legit then I could totally make it on the Russian lecture circuit. I'll predict the downfall of Russia's rivals and the awakening of the Russian bear for as long as they keep paying me.
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
Look, there's absolutely no reason for any state to leave the United States right now, the interests of our individual states are too intertwined, and the politics of becomming a country would be too messy. Not to mention that little thing called... uh... treason.
Treason is specifically defined in the constitution. I do not think secession alone qualifies.
Secession is not treason. Making war against the states is treason. So leaving peacefully isn't treason.
On November 12 2009 12:14 Sadist wrote: where the fuck were all these people when bush was in office. Seriously. Seceding from the US has got to be the most dumb fucking idea ive ever heard in my life.
It's not inconceivable. I would have voted for secession from union during Bush.
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
Look, there's absolutely no reason for any state to leave the United States right now, the interests of our individual states are too intertwined, and the politics of becomming a country would be too messy. Not to mention that little thing called... uh... treason.
Treason is specifically defined in the constitution. I do not think secession alone qualifies.
Secession is not treason. Making war against the states is treason. So leaving peacefully isn't treason.
On November 12 2009 12:14 Sadist wrote: where the fuck were all these people when bush was in office. Seriously. Seceding from the US has got to be the most dumb fucking idea ive ever heard in my life.
It's not inconceivable. I would have voted for secession from union during Bush.
and youd be a fucking moron. Why stop there? Why not secede from states governments? Why stop there why not secede from counties? Cities? Townships? Streets? Households? Life?
On November 12 2009 12:22 Sadist wrote: and youd be a fucking moron. Why stop there? Why not secede from states governments? Why stop there why not secede from counties? Cities? Townships? Streets? Households? Life?
On November 12 2009 12:24 motbob wrote: Secession would probably be followed by a trade embargo to the relevant state and thus simply isn't worth it.
Again. Secession is quite inconceivable unless the central government is significantly weakened. Despite secession not being treason, states would have to contend with the federal government and its pull. That's what would bring the embargo, and that's the "might make right" justification for American Civil War
Anyways watch the video now that it's available. It'll provide a historical perspecitve - a long view - of the durability of large nation states / empires.
Absolutely not. There's no reason for any state to actually secede from the US.
The only other example we have was back in 1860, and I certainly don't see any state or any group of states that might believe that they lack power in the national government.
No, it's true, I may have been wrong to characterize secession as treason. The session of the Confederacy wasn't the main act of treason, the firing upon territory held by the Union Army was.
Treason is defined in the constitution as:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
So I'm not entirely correct. But secession leads to conflict almost inevitably, and secession falls under the definition of treason in other countries.
But this is a dumb topic. I would doubt the would be even a third of citizens in any state that would support secession. It just makes no sense whatsoever. The two great things about that map are the concept that Kentucky and Tennessee (and WV, VA, NC, SC, ect.) would somehow join the European Union, and that the Midwest would become part of Canada. Canadian influence? Hahahaha, good one.
And secession isn't necessarily considered treason. In the Civil War, the Confederate States of America was described as a "rebellion initiated by a group of individuals", not a treasonous action.
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
hahahaha, wow
this is great
IMO, michigan/minnesota/washington would go to canada, new england + all the stuff down to maryland might go to europe, florida / (cali+nevada) would become separate nations, everything else east / west of mississippi splits into two nations.
I just watched the video and I have to say it was a much more compelling presentation then I thought it be LOL. Still all he is basically saying is that no nation last for ever. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum would of agreed with that without seeing this video. The USA will fall apart at some point, but I don't think its going to happen at any time soon.
The video does bring up one thing that the history of other empires shows is true. When a nation stops expanding its territory and try's to hold its boarders. That's the day that empire starts to decline. The USA not going to be adding any states in my life time. So that's kind of a scary thought, but also we live in a new age where nations like the USA and other major powers really stop themselves for expanding. That's something we never seen before in world history. Normally the only thing that would stop a nation from expanding is running into another military force.
The guy from the video also forgets to talk about one thing that's really important when talking about the USA. The USA is really a experimental nation. Allot of the reasons that divide other nations like, language, race, ethnicity, and culture. They don't have as much of a dividing effect on Americans because its a big mixing pot. Americans have lived for 200 years with the idea that differences in ideas and culture are part of what makes this nation great. That's pretty unique to us.
The most important part of the presentation was the discussion of gods, of the disparity between promises and reality, of the loss of legitimacy in the eyes of a politic. Under such situations, a nation state can disappear in a blink of an eye. It is more important to consider the legitimacy question rather than the idea of expansion and contraction.
The limit to the expansion is usually due to a bureaucratic limitations of an empire - rather that it is organizationally impossible to continue expansion and maintain unity. Take for example the Mongolian empire which in essence divided upon the death of Ghenghis into various Khans of his relatives.
On November 12 2009 13:40 TanGeng wrote: @InToTheWannaB
The most important part of the presentation was the discussion of gods, of the disparity between promises and reality, of the loss of legitimacy in the eyes of a politic. Under such situations, a nation state can disappear in a blink of an eye. It is more important to consider the legitimacy question rather than the idea of expansion and contraction.
The limit to the expansion is usually due to a bureaucratic limitations of an empire - rather that it is organizationally impossible to continue expansion and maintain unity. Take for example the Mongolian empire which in essence divided upon the death of Ghenghis into various Khans of his relatives.
Yeah the video does make allot of good points, but there can also be a change in goverment while the nation remains intact. The idea of disparity can bring about change, but I doubt it would lead to any break up of the union.
the video also doesnt take into account that the people talking about seceding nowadays (the loudest anyway) are the nutbag religious anti-science conservatives who who are some of the most selfish/horrible people on earth. I have faith that the majority of the people in the US see through their scam and nothing big will ever come of them.
If seceding had been seriously brought up years ago by intelligent people and it wasnt an obvious scam/scare tactic then maybe the argument would hold some weight. Seceding from States has been talked about before but seceding from the entire US is a recent covert or overt(depending on who you are) right wing fringe idea.
On November 12 2009 11:31 TanGeng wrote: Here's my opinion for anyone that would like to know. + Show Spoiler +
I think there will be some form of secession when the federal debt becomes unmanageable, and default or severe inflation risk will probably cause the richer parts of the country to secede from the union.
I tend to welcome this prospect provided that it's done in peace without civil war and without a giant wall fencing people in(Germany). The wide political differences between various states and politics could become a subject of intellectual curiosity rather than rabid political opposite. Not having to fight over the spoils of politics may have that positive effect.
.
Give me a example of a "rich state" and i'll give you a ton of reasons why it is too dependent on the rest of the states for it to secede.
On November 12 2009 11:31 TanGeng wrote: Here's my opinion for anyone that would like to know. + Show Spoiler +
I think there will be some form of secession when the federal debt becomes unmanageable, and default or severe inflation risk will probably cause the richer parts of the country to secede from the union.
I tend to welcome this prospect provided that it's done in peace without civil war and without a giant wall fencing people in(Germany). The wide political differences between various states and politics could become a subject of intellectual curiosity rather than rabid political opposite. Not having to fight over the spoils of politics may have that positive effect.
.
Give me a example of a "rich state" and i'll give you a ton of reasons why it is too dependent on the rest of the states for it to secede.
On trade yes. But open trade doesn't mean that they have to be party to the federal government. I would venture to think that if New England were to secede in total, New York would have a treaty up for free movement of people across its borders in days.
On November 12 2009 12:30 tree.hugger wrote: No, it's true, I may have been wrong to characterize secession as treason. The session of the Confederacy wasn't the main act of treason, the firing upon territory held by the Union Army was.
Some would take the resupplying of Fort Sumter as Union aggression on the South(twas in Charleston county right?), giving a sort of casus belli to both sides (sounds like someone was getting ready for war~!!).
On November 12 2009 12:30 tree.hugger wrote: No, it's true, I may have been wrong to characterize secession as treason. The session of the Confederacy wasn't the main act of treason, the firing upon territory held by the Union Army was.
Some would take the resupplying of Fort Sumter as Union aggression on the South(twas in Charleston county right?), giving a sort of casus belli to both sides (sounds like someone was getting ready for way~!!).
resupplying does not equal firing. and i don't think the soldiers there chose to secede.
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
hahahaha, wow
this is great
Guy who wrote this needs to be studying American politics more, as some of his predictions are totally whack. Wash/Ore/Cali would be like "gtfo racist jerks" to Utah and Idaho if this split occurred; they'd go with the north central area probably. NM would probably go with the pacific block; Hawii would stick there rather than going to Japan. Alaska would be on its own; undoubtedly Russia would have a heavy economic influence but they wouldn't own it short of invasion/occupation. The area east of the Rockies would probably split into 4 or 5 chunks, not 3.
And actually this is assuming splits occurred strictly along state lines, which is kind of unlikely. I know some people in southern Oregon + extreme northern Cali would already like to split off and form a new state together, etc.
Also, China would end up with influence over all the resulting countries, as they'd wave all their IOUs at everyone and be like "yo, someone's going to make good on all these."
Note: In case it isn't clear, there are some exaggerations above for comedic effect. No, I don't think everyone in Idaho and Utah is racist, etc.
i dont think itll happen. unless some shit happens like a very unpopular president rigging his way into election and him being very loose on federal control. I remember a game made off of this. And from what ive learned from Military Science (ROTC), i forsee big crackdowns if any attempt was made.
On November 12 2009 12:30 tree.hugger wrote: No, it's true, I may have been wrong to characterize secession as treason. The session of the Confederacy wasn't the main act of treason, the firing upon territory held by the Union Army was.
Some would take the resupplying of Fort Sumter as Union aggression on the South(twas in Charleston county right?), giving a sort of casus belli to both sides (sounds like someone was getting ready for way~!!).
resupplying does not equal firing. and i don't think the soldiers there chose to secede.
well it seemed like the people of south carolina did :S the thing with democracy is that you can vote with your feet~! no need to start a war over your stubbornness``1~!~!~!`1~!!~1111!!!
On November 12 2009 14:32 theron[wdt] wrote: i dont think itll happen.
It's not going to happen. Ever. This is just an absurd idea. Right now all the states are depending on the national government. You really think that any state can survive with out money? Almost every state is in bankruptcy. The idea in general shouldn't even be thought of either way.
On November 12 2009 14:32 theron[wdt] wrote: i dont think itll happen.
It's not going to happen. Ever. This is just an absurd idea. Right now all the states are depending on the national government. You really think that any state can survive with out money? Almost every state is in bankruptcy. The idea in general shouldn't even be thought of either way.
On November 12 2009 14:32 theron[wdt] wrote: i dont think itll happen.
It's not going to happen. Ever. This is just an absurd idea. Right now all the states are depending on the national government. You really think that any state can survive with out money? Almost every state is in bankruptcy. The idea in general shouldn't even be thought of either way.
Wealth is not created by the federal government but by the people. The government then taxes the people or borrows against future tax revenues and redistributes the funds as it sees fit. there is no free lunch at a national level.
On November 12 2009 12:30 tree.hugger wrote: No, it's true, I may have been wrong to characterize secession as treason. The session of the Confederacy wasn't the main act of treason, the firing upon territory held by the Union Army was.
Some would take the resupplying of Fort Sumter as Union aggression on the South(twas in Charleston county right?), giving a sort of casus belli to both sides (sounds like someone was getting ready for way~!!).
resupplying does not equal firing. and i don't think the soldiers there chose to secede.
well it seemed like the people of south carolina did :S the thing with democracy is that you can vote with your feet~! no need to start a war over your stubbornness``1~!~!~!`1~!!~1111!!!
I've heard this talk from a professor a few years ago that said it's possible for America to fall apart in 10 years. it's possible, hard to imagine that it'd.
but seceding is totally different. like Tibet to China, US will never tolerate the breakup of its union. It's a symbolic sacrilege like gagging and humping the lady liberty while the abled just watched uselessly, complete emasculation.
On November 12 2009 14:32 theron[wdt] wrote: i dont think itll happen.
It's not going to happen. Ever. This is just an absurd idea. Right now all the states are depending on the national government. You really think that any state can survive with out money? Almost every state is in bankruptcy. The idea in general shouldn't even be thought of either way.
On November 12 2009 16:35 .risingdragoon wrote: economically yes, but just imagine what would happen if texas leaves the constitutional protection of the US
they got no army.
Yeah, and who is gonna attack them.. Except the US?
On November 12 2009 16:35 .risingdragoon wrote: economically yes, but just imagine what would happen if texas leaves the constitutional protection of the US
they got no army.
National Guard? They are supposed to be the states army but they are unconstitutionally sent overseas now days.
As of right now, there is far too great of a socio-economic benefit from being in the US. Unless this changes DRAMATICALLY (along the lines of wide-spread poverty), or something completely ridiculous happens that shifts the world in a difficult to predict fashion, I doubt this will happen. Maybe in a few hundred years, but the US isn't quite as much of a vulnerable "nation state" as other countries have been. We rely too much on the central government.
On November 12 2009 12:00 BuGzlToOnl wrote: As far as I know Pennsylvania is the only commonwealth in the US.
It's not actually a state, but gets counted as one for some unknown reason. Technically we've been "seceded" from the rest of the US since the beginning.
Kentucky is a commonwealth. I think there are at least 5 or 6?
On November 12 2009 16:35 .risingdragoon wrote: economically yes, but just imagine what would happen if texas leaves the constitutional protection of the US
they got no army.
Yeah, and who is gonna attack them.. Except the US?
On November 12 2009 16:35 .risingdragoon wrote: economically yes, but just imagine what would happen if texas leaves the constitutional protection of the US
they got no army.
Texans are armed to the teeth, relatively speaking. Texans could probably hold a high level insurgency that would make the counter-insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan feel like a cakewalk. The US Army might be able to waltz in there and commit plenty of atrocities though. They could also bomb Texas into oblivion, but would that level of violence be sanctioned by the rest of the US?
On November 12 2009 16:35 .risingdragoon wrote: economically yes, but just imagine what would happen if texas leaves the constitutional protection of the US
they got no army.
Yeah, and who is gonna attack them.. Except the US?
oh you better believe! damn right US will send in the dogs clowns
Poll: What would be your reaction to a part of the country seceding? (Vote): Move there. Be free of central government tyranny! (Vote): Personally take up arms. Kill those traitors! (Vote): I don't know. I am a drone. I listen to whatever my government tells me to do. (Vote): War! I might not fight but at least I'm a chickenhawk! (Vote): Peace! Let them secede! (Vote): Secession is a good idea. I think I'll do it, too. (Vote): I hope it doesn't affect me. I think I'll hide under a rock until everything blows over.
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
hahahaha, wow
this is great
This would be perfectly okay with me. Except give West Virginia to the Mexicans or even the Canadians, tired of being associated with those folks over there O_O
I'm sorry, but Michigan's economy has been dead for a full decade now. The amount of effort that's going into pretending that the corpse isn't dead is frightening. It's getting near necrophilia now. I just wonder how much longer GM and Ford and continue to put up their zombie act.
On November 13 2009 04:45 TanGeng wrote: I'm sorry, but Michigan's economy has been dead for a full decade now. The amount of effort that's going into pretending that the corpse isn't dead is frightening. It's getting near necrophilia now. I just wonder how much longer GM and Ford and continue to put up their zombie act.
As long as southern Ontario is around Michigan won't die, they have a booming Canadian garbage industry!
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
hahahaha, wow
this is great
This would be perfectly okay with me. Except give West Virginia to the Mexicans or even the Canadians, tired of being associated with those folks over there O_O
Which state goes to Korea? That would immediately become the wannabe-games-nerd capital of the world
On November 12 2009 12:03 tree.hugger wrote: Reminds me of this dude.
hahahaha, wow
this is great
This would be perfectly okay with me. Except give West Virginia to the Mexicans or even the Canadians, tired of being associated with those folks over there O_O
Which state goes to Korea? That would immediately become the wannabe-games-nerd capital of the world
none because korea goes to china
us troops would have to be withdrawn from overseas to fight secessionists
There is no way China would invade South Korea. Their governance structure is dysfunctional as it is. Their economic system is chaotic, disorganized, and largely spontaneous - kind of like the free market - what a brilliant idea. Anyhow, the only country that China would invade is Taiwan, and it will always occupy Tibet.
Chinese influence on that map is kind of a joke. The four separate regions would exert more influence on each other than Russia, Canada, Mexico, or China. I think the Northeast would still out-populate Canada, so there'd be more influence the other way around.
Finally, the Russian professor also entirely ignores Japan. I say Japan takes Hawaii and half of Washington. Speaking in terms of influence of course. Hawaii would be independent and Washington would be part of the Pacific coast. The western states are actually quite logical because it covers the right watersheds.
yeh i think that texas will seceed , the mexicans will overrun the place and campaign this was always mexicos plan , they have always seen texas as part of mexico
On November 12 2009 15:02 .risingdragoon wrote: I've heard this talk from a professor a few years ago that said it's possible for America to fall apart in 10 years. it's possible, hard to imagine that it'd.
It is quite likely It would be like telling people in 1980 that the soviet union would collapse in 10 years , they would not accept it
Although the problems the Soviet Union faced were entirely different to those the US faces now.They had large debts and an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.Yup...entirely different.
It's actually very very unlikely. It's a pretty simplistic and weak argument to say: "its happened before when we didn't expect it, so in this very different situation it could likely happen again".
If you think about American politics, culture, economy, military, and history, it becomes quite obvious that secession (at least of the 50 states) is extremely unlikely. Also, I know my argument is not an argument. I'm mostly just refuting the argument supporting plausible secession.
On November 12 2009 15:02 .risingdragoon wrote: I've heard this talk from a professor a few years ago that said it's possible for America to fall apart in 10 years. it's possible, hard to imagine that it'd.
It is quite likely It would be like telling people in 1980 that the soviet union would collapse in 10 years , they would not accept it
Although the problems the Soviet Union faced were entirely different to those the US faces now.They had large debts and an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.Yup...entirely different.
But we're not talking about a territorial empire here. The Soviet Union had a bunch of satellite states that opressed their own people and was a ticking time bomb.
I can certainly see the U.S. influence around the world being reduced, but not anything like a partition of the country itself.
American society is not divided nor politicized enough for this to happen, many people care more about the latests mischiefs of their favorite celebrity than about politics .
On November 19 2009 00:56 ultramagnetics wrote: It's actually very very unlikely. It's a pretty simplistic and weak argument to say: "its happened before when we didn't expect it, so in this very different situation it could likely happen again".
If you think about American politics, culture, economy, military, and history, it becomes quite obvious that secession (at least of the 50 states) is extremely unlikely. Also, I know my argument is not an argument. I'm mostly just refuting the argument supporting plausible secession.
my point is a collapse of the current system in america IS inevitable how do you expect them to pay back the trillions in debt? 1.4 trillion budget deficit this year alone let alone the trade deficit , future medicare and social security payment , future bank bailouts etc
no-one knows exactly what will happen when the US dollar crashes and sends the country into a hyperinflationary spiral but you can be sure the country will be a heck of a lot different than it is now.civil war is not out of the question.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AO116_RUSPRO_NS_20081228191715.gif)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/China_imperialism_cartoon.jpg/180px-China_imperialism_cartoon.jpg)
