I think not. Bull's eye is a better evaluation.
For example, oh i don't know, maybe the slave trade.
There's that history thing again. Your arguments will work better if they are based on what really happened versus what some liberal history professor (or high school teacher) told you. The Chinese had a centuries old history of slavery before the first white European ever thought of buying or selling people. As for the African slave trade, the vast majority of black Africans were sold into slavery by other black Africans. It wasn't a matter of the white Europeans introducing a new idea, it was more like the white Europeans were just new customers. And I'm not sure how you can paste slavery on white imperialism, or any other flavor of imperialism for that matter. Imperialism is the subjugation of sovereign nations under a single, usually foreign rule. Slavery is no more or less inherent in imperialism than any other geo-political system. Indeed, your precious Chinese communists practice economic slavery today.
How about the financing of both sides of the Iran/Iraq war so they would decimate each other: making it much easier for us to get OUR oil and gas from under THEIR land.
Are you complaining about white imperialism or about Machiavellianism? Once again, that kind of strategy is not limited to whites. In fact, it is a time-honored military strategy that was practiced before white Europeans had ever forged their first bronze weapons. And you make it sound like we stole oil from the Arabs. Last I knew, we pay them pretty handsomely for it. Saddam didn't exactly build Uday's palace from the proceeds of sheep sales.
I merely said that they could have (& probably still could) if they wanted to. BUt they don't because they don't seem to be as ignorant, arrogant, and/or short-sighted as most white cultures are.
You're confusing motive with opportunity, Ricky-boy. Also the motives you ascribe to the Chinese are pure speculation on your part. In fact, actual history (once again) puts lie to your claim. The Chinese lived in a feudal system until the late nineteenth century. No purely feudal system has ever been able to practice any sort of imperialism simply because it lacks an imperator. The Chinese had a nominal emperor, but the warlords were free to remove him at any time, despite his professed deity. That's not much of an imperial system. The Chinese were so weak and degenerate that they were eventually conquered utterly by the armies of a tiny island off their coast, also known as Japan. No, the reason the Chinese never conquered to world was not because they chose the high moral ground, it was because they couldn't even conquer themselves.
...i don't think whites are inherently evil....just inherently ignorant and greedy.
Guess what, Ricky-boy? That makes you a racist. That makes you ethno-centrist. Yet, somehow, you will still insist that Mark Steyn and I are racists, even though neither of us ascribes any inherent attributes to any race or ethinicity.
...i'm sure they'll be willing to keep throwing you (& me) their table scraps!
Well if these are table scraps, I'll have some more, please. Sounds like you're bitter, Ricky. What happened? Didn't that career in underwater basket weaving or social work or conservative baiting turn out to be one that supports you in the manner you would like?