Well, some countries can seem to oppress themselves, right? (perhaps also while oppressing others, or perhaps not, if their power does not extend that far) So in your first sentence, I suppose you might mean that it is the country oppressing its own society. Perhaps in addition to having an external oppressor
I wouldn't say "oppress themselves" per se, since autocratic governments tend to be the class imposing the oppression on the rest of the population. The rest of society would not be oppressing themselves, as they would have little to no control over the country's systems and institutions.
I think that in many cases, it would be accurate to say a country was "oppressing its own society," as you described it—with "country" primarily referring to those in power.
It is a view that gives common people more leeway, and I think I always generally agreed with it. But in this framework, can a country influence a society to behave a certain way, and vice versa?
I definitely think so, yes, especially over the long term. I think the media are a potent and pervasive way of influencing societies, or large segments thereof, to behave in certain ways or believe certain things that then influence specific behaviors. It's no surprise that totalitarian regimes invariably use propaganda to entrench their hold on power and society.
This dovetails with the next point you brought up, which I think is quite an insightful one:
I might argue that this is where influential individuals enter the picture, because isn't that usually how things seem to work. I mean, you can pick up any history book on anywhere, and it mentions the work of individuals, and the influence of individuals.. and this influence is said to transmit to the society, and the country. But at the same time, all the individuals that ever existed seem to have came from a society, and country (the thing that I would say embeds both)
Yes, I would agree that influential individuals tend to have a large role in driving sociopolitical attitudes. I believe the likes of Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot are examples of this. Lenin in particular was not just influential in his own country but also influenced later authoritarians in other countries like Castro, Mao, and Pol Pot, among others.
I might need an example of some of this, to understand what you mean. If you want, expand on this
Developed countries tend to provide far better protection and guidance for their citizens abroad than developing and third-world ones. Aside from the fact that developed countries' passports rank quite highly on passport indices due to allowing much easier access to other countries in general (as seen
on this index), there are various other ramifications of this. For example, detention over arbitrary or trumped-up charges is fairly common in some third-world countries with particularly high levels of corruption, but once someone shows that they have a passport from a powerful country, they are usually safe and treated much differently than they would otherwise be.
Also, for more mundane tasks like getting documents or paperwork done in said countries, a powerful passport again could (but is not always guaranteed to) help with moving things forward. In many situations where a local would probably need to pay a bribe or contact a powerful connection (if they have any), for example, a holder of such a passport could use it in lieu of having connections—the passport itself is the leverage.
US citizenship is typically the most powerful in this regard, but German, British, and French (among others) passports also tend to be quite good for protection, from what I have read. I have known American expatriates in multiple countries who have talked about how they have extensively relied on their citizenship when abroad (in third-world countries, not developed ones) both in situations like the ones I mentioned above and when getting employed, since a person can get paid a higher or lower salary in some countries—such as Saudi Arabia—partially based on their nationality.
There have also been instances when American YouTubers who were recording videos on the street in certain countries were harassed and almost detained by law enforcement but were treated with respect and caution once the cops realized they were American. I would rather not post those videos here, though, as I would prefer to avoid discussing their details here, so let me know if you would like to see them and I can send the links to you in a PM.
The above is more tied to nationality than skin color, so I don't think "white privilege" is a particularly accurate term to describe it. However, for many people in some countries (including some outside the West), being white is also tied to positive perceptions or sometimes, I would say, stereotypes—such as being affluent, beautiful, educated, etc. Here's an article I read a while back concerning this topic as it supposedly relates to South Korea, although I don't know enough about South Korean society to form an opinion on how accurate any of the claims in the article are:
An unspoken “caste” system based largely on race and skin color persists in South Korean society. In a matter of decades, Korea has grown into a popular destination for tourists, with iconic features like K-pop, culinary delights and cultural heritage items drawing travelers from all corners of...
koreaherald.com
I don't trust the Left or Right mainstream outlets, or alternative outlets either. I listen to a tiny bit of everything - a podcast from a left winger, one from the right, one from a different perspective, and back and forth like that
I think that's a reasonable approach. I also read and listen to a variety of sources with different leanings. I find that doing so helps to put things into perspective much more than sticking to a bubble or echo chamber would.
