> I see the modern environmental movement as a continuation of western imperialism.
Western imperialism is/was heavily marked by the a.) colonization, b.) displacement of natives, and c.) exploitation of local natural resources of a region, often coupled with d.) literal enslavement of native peoples. Those local resources were exploited for global trade. So whatever this new environmental movement is, it certainly isn't that, because it is exactly opposite on all points a-d). In fact, modern environmentalism has so many hallmarks of anti-globalism, anti-trade, and anti-exploitation of natural resources, that I think this characterization is almost totally backwards and misses the real lessons of what imperialism meant.
Perhaps modern environmentalism is cultural hubris, and maybe even a tiny bit racist, but it is certainly not imperialism.
Western imperialism is/was heavily marked by the a.) colonization, b.) displacement of natives, and c.) exploitation of local natural resources of a region, often coupled with d.) literal enslavement of native peoples. Those local resources were exploited for global trade. So whatever this new environmental movement is, it certainly isn't that, because it is exactly opposite on all points a-d). In fact, modern environmentalism has so many hallmarks of anti-globalism, anti-trade, and anti-exploitation of natural resources, that I think this characterization is almost totally backwards and misses the real lessons of what imperialism meant.
Perhaps modern environmentalism is cultural hubris, and maybe even a tiny bit racist, but it is certainly not imperialism.