This topic is off-topic in Jar's examination of why the mid-east hates the west (or dislikes, depending on the nation).
Faith brought up the point that the West has never been imperialistic:
would say it has everything to do with the lesson learned, that being that the west is not a conquering aggressor and never has been.
Keep in mind, being a conqueror counts as being imperialistic--why else do you conquer, if not to gain territory or resources?
I consider Faith's statement to be another on of her mischaracterizations of history and feel that this topic merits further discussion in it's own thread.
The USA, as well as all western civilization, has been imperialistic at one point or another. Examples start with Rome.
Rome conquered Carthage as well as all the areas bordering the Mediteranean and western Europe.
I'm sure that the Byzantine Empire did it's own conquering, I'm just not familiar with it's history, or western roman empire history.
Next up, we can look at Europe. One of the age-old dreams of Europe has been to have a single continent-nation, like the Holy Roman Empire in its heyday. This can help explain many of the wars fought up until the Renaissance, such as the Hundred Years War. By the time of Richelieu, however, the nation-state was solidified, and national interests became of utmost importance. He introduced a very pragmatic style of diplomacy. Prior to the Thirty Year's War (that long partly thanks to him, any one interested as to why I'll exlain), Spain, France, and Britain had become colonial powers--the beginning of what could be called pre-modern imperialism. Spain conquered the Americas, particularly Central and South. Britain took what is today the east coust of the US and France took Canada (though it went to the Brits in the Seven Year's War). They brought over their economic systems and created the mercantile economy--IOW, providing secure marckets for their goods. In later years, they would only focus on economic imperialism, and not the colonial version, which includes a migration of the mother country to the "new world".
A perfect, modern example of Western imperialism is the British Empire, and that favorite statement--"The sun never set's on the British Empire".
Quick question--why call themselves an Empire if they were not imperialistic?
Russia has always been preoccupied with expanding it's territory for its own security. Ironically, this made them feel less secure so they conquered more land. One of imperial Russia's goals was a warm water port, and it was a goal for Communist Russia, and still is I would say. Most people don't consider Russia a part of the West, but that may in part be due to the recent Cold War--west v. communism.
The USA is an interesting case. Ever since it's inception, it has been gaining territory, though far less in the last half century. During the War for Independence, we even tried to conquer Canada, and have tried so several times--not one attempt was all too successful. However, beginning in around the 1830's, we got this concept of "Manifest Destiny". This doctrine is imperialistic in nature, but the argument against this rests on how we treated foreign policy. Unlike Europe, the US follows a moralistic diplomatic mode--a la Wilson and the Fourteen Points. We hold the actions of the state on the same regard as the action of a person--at least, that's what we claim. Also, when it came to expanding the territory of the nation on the N. American conttinent, it was viewed as domestic policy, thus solving the moral problems of being imperialistic. However, we did fight wars against the Indian tribes, which were considered nations for the sake of treaty-making. Thanks to "Manifest Destiny", we conquered Northern Mexico, making was is today the Southwest. Also, in trying to expand slavery, the South had it's eye on Cuba and Central America, and several filibusters (imperialist expiditions) were started. As a result, a US citizen conquered Nicaragua, and we did recognize his government. Had France, under Napolean III, not removed itself from Mexico after our Civil War, we most likely would have conquered Mexico after running out the French puppet. This action would have been in tune with the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that the US would look after the Western hemisphre, and all European intervention would be resisted. (Not that we had the power to do so until the Civil War) We never called ourselves imperialistic until the Spanish-American War of 1898. It was at that time that Mckinley (I'm pretty sure he was prez at the time) become a "leader" of the imperial movement in America. This was because he was the president and was allowing imperialist wars to gain resources and territory. Thanks to that War, we gained influence in Cuba (the Platt Amendment), we got the Philipinnes, we got Puerto Rico (and still have), as well as several other islands.
It has only been since the end of WWII that the west stopped being blatantly imperialistic, with the exception of France's attempt to keep Indochina. The less blatant imperlialism was due to the Cold War. We attempted, along with the rest of the "western" world, to resist Communist expansion by expanding our influence. Hence, our sphere of influence in Japan and S.east Asia, and our attempts at gaining the same influence in the Non-aligned. We didn't physically take over those on our side, but . . .
Those on this board from Europe can perhaps flesh out my Russian and Europe expose on imperialism.
Also, I feel it's important to get history right--if I've screwed up somewhere, let me know.
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
™ Version 4.2