The thread was locked by mods for no reason so I am continuing it and quoting both of them, then going to share my take.
Bob’s reply:
It is not fair?
Can’t you hear yourself?
Historically, Western powers extracted resources and labour from their colonies and spheres of influence, often disrupting local economies and leaving many nations with lasting underdevelopment. How fair was that?
For example, Belgium’s King Leopold II personally controlled the Congo Free State, forcing locals to harvest rubber under brutal conditions, with mutilations and killings for failing to meet quotas. This caused a massive population decline while enriching Europe. In West Africa, European powers such as France prioritised export crops and mining, settling in prosperous areas and draining wealth through forced labour and trade monopolies. How fair was that?
Britain flooded India with cheap, machine-made textiles after imposing tariffs on Indian exports. This destroyed India’s advanced handicraft industry, turning it into a raw cotton supplier and reducing its global manufacturing share to 2% by 1900. How fair was that?
US firms such as the United Fruit Company dominated Latin American ‘banana republics’, such as Guatemala and Colombia. They seized land, repressed workers via coups and massacres (e.g. the 1928 Colombia strike in which over 1,000 people were killed), and controlled exports to stifle local economies. How fair was that?
Western nations transported millions of Africans across the Atlantic for labour on plantations in the Americas, devastating African societies and economies for centuries. How fair was that?
These seem to be either strawmans or false dichotomies.
A false dichotomy is when only two extreme options are presented but a legitimate middle option exists. A strawman is a separate fallacy where an argument is misrepresented, either by oversimplifying or exaggerating.
.
First why is America included with the crimes of Belgium, Britain and France. Why do Belgium, Britain and France’s crimes somehow decide American policy?
.
Second. America’s crime seems to be the crime of immigration. America’s crime seems to be the import of immigrant slaves. Therefore, suggesting that America ought to open its borders, in order to become more righteous, does not compute.
.
Third. The rational decision seems to be for Western countries to deploy foreign aid into foreign countries, into making the world better. For some reason this obvious choice is excluded, as an excluded middle, while only extreme options are provided: a. not helping at all b. embracing open borders.
Fixing and repairing foreign countries would naturally decrease the amount of people wanting to immigrate out of those countries as well. Its a win win.
