American Imperialism

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: 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

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Look up why Henry David Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? As far as I know, he wrote it to protest some gov't action, but I don't know when he wrote, so I'm not sure what event it's linked to. What I do know, is that it played a part in forming the philosophies of MLK and Ghandi.Is it against imperialism?So he wrote it during the Mex-Am war. And it fits in with what I knew about his philosophy--he's definitely against imperialism.Edited by kuresu, : added new paragraph

The context in which this came up was pretty clear it seems to me. Who would think anyone would need to have it explained that the Roman Empire was imperialistic or the British Empire. Good grief. The context was the British control of Basra. They did NOT make it a British colony, they simply controlled it to protect the oil, yes their own oil interests.And I myself said Manifest Destiny was an example of American imperialism.* What I mean when I say America is not imperialistic relates to all the wars we've fought to help allies and not to gain anything ourselves at all. America COULD have established a huge American Empire, and we have not done so.And in concert with some others, I don't think imperialism is necessarily and always an evil thing anyway, it depends on the nature of the conquerers. I'm simply saying the label is not apt.I reject all the other kinds of "imperialism" we get labeled with too. "Cultural imperialism" is nothing America intentionally brought about. It just happened that our culture has been picked up all over the world, for better or worse.The idea that any kind of conquest is imperialism I also reject. If we are being a peacekeeping force, even if it involves our own interests, that is NOT imperialism. If we are fighting a war to suppress aggression against the US, that is NOT imperialism.And whether you like it or not, the accusation has a Marxist root. I got very sick of hearing about American Imperialism in Berkeley in the 60s. After our sacrificial war in Europe yet. The concept was invented by the New Left, and what's their goal anyway? They hate America, they hate the West, their goal is to supplant the great successes of Western Civilization and American culture with Marxist principles which are the complete opposite. They were trying to have the equivalent of the Russian Revolution in Berkeley. That's what they called it, the Revolution. We were having a Revolution. The Cultural Revolution had the objective of undermining America from within, while the accusation of American Imperialism was to demoralize us, and spread an evil image of America across the world. Gee, it worked! Screaming misplaced moralistic righteous indignation against the great monster America -- sickening. And all this crap is still being taught in American universities by the 60s generation and their proteges and everybody mindlessly eats it up. EVERYTHING got put in Marxist terms -- everything was a LIBERATION FRONT. The Palestinian Liberation Front yet. And who is the enemy? American Imperialism. And everybody mindlessly eats it up.Who should know about this? Well, David Horowitz should. He's my generation. He was in Berkeley in the years I was there. He had grown up in a Communist family. He wrote about it in his autobiography Radical Son. He then became one of the leaders of the New Left in the San Francisco Bay Area. It took the murder of a friend of his to pry open his doubts about what the Left was really all about. It took years and then finally he saw through the whole mess and now dedicates himself to exposing it with great energy.The following quotes are a few from his online magazine. Just a couple. I include the search terms for anyone to find more. Lefties hate Horowitz and his magazine. Already I posted something from him and got denounced in screaming leftie ad hominem terms, not a word about the substance, just a smear of Horowitz's character. Horowitz is a "hypocrite." Oh really? Why? Does anyone know what the word means? It doesn't mean changing your mind. It doesn't mean seeing through former errors and exposing them. It means saying one thing while doing or believing another. Prove that about Horowitz. Sometimes his mag gets sloppy and shrill but overall it is a great work for the good.So have at him all you lefties. I've said my piece. Search Front Page American ImperialismSearch Front Page American Imperialism Marxist* I may not have said it sharply enough but I have been convinced that Manifest Destiny was an unjust American policy and action against Mexico. Imperialism isn't the point so much as that we didn't treat Mexico fairly. It was Douglas Wilson of a Moscow Idaho church who convinced me of that, and I mentioned it in a thread about him: Doug Wilson -- A Problem for a small town in Idaho?I also suspect that illegal immigration is our just deserts in God's judgment.Here is where I mentioned it on jar's thread. It was said rapidly in passing and may not have conveyed that I regard it as an example of imperialism, and I didn't say anything more about my attitude toward it: Why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the west.Edited by Faith, : to add footnote.

I'd agree. The idea of imperialism seems to rely heavily on the idea of national borders being something that should be considered absolute and sacred. Whereas they are mere shifting lines drawn in the sands of time.A person or party rises to power within the territorial area of lines in the sand traced out by others. By freak of the circumstances in which they rise, we must suppose that a line in the sand attributes them rights to do as they please with those who also lie within those lines.Almost amusing in its simplicity.For what its worth Faith, as an outsider. The last thing that strikes me about America is that it is an imperialist power. If it doesn't act, smell or taste like one the is most probably most likely isn't. Folks who decry America as being such haven't really distilled down what it is that imperialist powers do. Namely, whatever they like.Imperialist America, you missed your chance after Hiroshima. For who would have argued with you then...

I'm sorry. You said that the west has never been a conquering aggressor, and implied that we haven't been imperialistic. All I've done is show that throughout our history the west and the US have been conquerors and imperialists. By the way, I don't hate America--I love its ideals of freedom and the democratic gov't its been set up with--even if I don't like the current prez (I wasn't old enough to vote for the last presidential election, so I can still disagree). I'm not saying that imperialism is a bad thing either--in fact, it's often bee good to us. Without it, I wouldn't be able to move to an american Colorado this summer. Now then, on to the guy that you quoted. The last sentence here is important--no control over Cuba? Excuse me, but what was the Platt amendment for? What about Roosevelt's Corollary?To his bit about the World Wars: What about all the money we lent the warring nations in WWI before we entered on the side of Britain? I think we asked for it back, and helped cause the massive German depression. The only reason Europe never payed us back (with Finland? being the exception) was because of our depression that hit in 1929. We said they no longer had to pay, and they jumped at the opportunity.What was containment about? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it about resisting the expansion of Communist powers? And how did we do that? By increasing our influence. I do believe that qualifies as a type of imperialism. DO you know why Germany doesn't mind having our army there to protect against the USSR army (when they were a threat, and even then, Stalin wasn't about to attack Europe right after WWII)? They are limited to a small national gaurd (or their equivalent). Not enough to defend against a Soviet invasion. And had the Soviets invaded, even our army there wouldn't have been enough. As far as I'm concerned, spreading your influence so that the other person can't qualifies as a form of imperialism--either you're western or commie, and if you're commie, we are going to take you out.Why did we help the French in Indochina after Dien Bien Phu? France was still imperialist, and if we are to follow our moralistic, anti-imperialism belief, then how could we help them?Do you know we almost went to war over the Suex Canal in the fifties? Britain and France were already sending their armies, but stopped. Why? Because the US said NO. Eisenhower was not going to fight a war. ANd you know what, they listened because without us, they would have stood no chance against the soviets. Europe, except for France uner Degualle, was in our pocket, under our influence during the Cold War. To say we asked for nothing material (except for burial ground) or Europe after WWI or WWII is to be ignorant.I'm going to repeat this--I'm not anti-american. I just like getting my facts straight, and the fact is, that we have been imperialistic and could be in the future. We still may be right now, if you believe the argument that we are in Iraq for the oil (and if we are, Bush screwed that up to, cause we haven't seen any of it, or enough of it, pay for that war, like it was supposed to).

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

easy. the Soviets. keep in mind, they had the bomb withing five years of us, and the H-bomb only two years after us. They also had a massively larger force, that our force in Europe would not have withstood. And at that point, we had to load the bomb in a bomber, not the missiles that we have today. And we dropped all we had on Japan.The US doesn't do whatever it likes? How about the Iran-Contra deal, the current war in Iraq, our gov't spying on us. How about the Trial of Tears, when Jackson forced the Indians (mostly Cherokee) to Oklahoma) How about going to war over very shaky grounds, a la the Mex-Am war, or the Span-Am war. It's too early to tell about Iraq, but I'm of the opinion that Husseing had to go. And you know what, we didn't wait for the UN to give us the go-ahead (in fact, they wouldn't) so we went in on our own with Britain and about sixteen other nations. Granted, we are one of the better conquerors in history. And you know what, we're going to get away with our detention centers in Europe and Gitmo. If we wanted to pull out of the Non-proliferation Treaty, I bet you that no one would do a thing (except maybe Iran or China or Russia).

I thought of some more for the Horowitz guy, Faith, about the WWI and WWII comment.Didn't Wislon try to impose his Fourteen Points plan (the foundation of the League of Nations) on Europe? What about when we got rid of the British Empire with the UN? That whole self-determination thing defintely counts as us asking Europe for something. In that, okay, we saved your all's buts, no lose your "evil" style of diplomacy and use our moralism for a change. We forced Europe to play by our rules in diplomacy, whe nfor the last three hundred years they had been playing by the pragmatic rulebook.edit:
Keeping in with "doing whatever we want": it may have been Clausewitz (the guy who wrote On War, which I almost finished reading) who said that the best way to show your strenght is to flex your muscle (paraphrasing it, of course). IOW, buy breaking all these rules and invading a country no and then we're reminding the world that even if the USSR fell, we're still alive and kicking, and a force to be reckoned with.Edited by kuresu, : Clausewitz?

I think my post covered what you are saying. You are using "imperialism" to cover any and all kinds of interests in foreign affairs. You seem to think that only total isolationism would NOT be imperialism. Imperialism as I'm using the term defines the aim of conquering territory. That's what Empires were, expansion into and control over foreign territory. I disagreed with you in my post that the term refers to conquest as such, or all war actions or any interest in foreign affairs.

Yeah, great, I'm glad we're still a force to be reckoned with. But that isn't imperialism. War is not imperialism. Conquest is not imperialism. Defense of our interests is not imperialism.Oh America the powerful. You've apparently been taught that power in itself is some kind of evil. That's part of the Marxist smear campaign. Well America does not wield its power for evil but for good as a general rule -- don't bother mentioning bad moves, overall our intentions are good. We want a good peaceful world, {edit: we don't want to lord it over anybody as Islam for instance does, as Communism for instance does. We want to protect our own interests of course.} You can bet that if we were that kind of power in the world NOBODY else would be left standing. We'd own Europe. We'd have bombed Russia and Communist China off the map decades ago. What are people thinking anyway?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

it looks like we need to define "imperialism"according to M-W: according to MSN Encarta: accoring to a Cabrigde online dictionary: according to the American Heritage Dictionary: it seems to me that these dictionaries all include political, economical, and territorial hegemony as being imperialistic.if these seem to be incorrect, or perhaps too liberal leaning for you, I welcome any other defintion you can find that is from a quality dictionary (and yes, I realize that MSN Encarta may not seem to good as a source, but it is essentially an on-line dictionary.

I'm so glad you think I'm a commie. Oh so glad. (this is when the internet needs to be able to let us use sarcasm)Lincoln abused the power given him by the Constitution in order to keep the nation united. Too much power is a bad thing, and he was unique. He tore huge holes in the constitution, and yuo know what, he reparied them as soon as the war was over or his aim was over. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that's not so easy.This issue really isn't wether power is good or bad, but how one uses it can be good or bad, and people who have a lot of pwer tend to abuse thier power, and thus thier power and actions are deemed bad. Like if an admin here closed every pro-evo or pro-creo thread. He has the power to do so, but he doesn't.Are you still under the belief that all the commie world was in sync with each other? Not that it's too relevant, but seeing as how you grew up in the era, there might be a slight bias.I've got my own bias, but I try to approach history objectively

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I don't know what you're opinion is about Kissinger, but I happpen to find him a brilliant writer when it comes to the history of state affairs. Check out his book Diplomacy. It's a good read (though quite long), and I never finished it, but he will give you the answer as to why the US never "blew Russia off the map" and why Russia never took over Europe. Put simply, it just isn't in our best interest to conquer Europe or Russia or China right now, nor has it been in the last half-century. We are no Rome (they did conquer the world of their time, or arather large chunk of the then known world)

Do you even know what marxist means? Marxist smear campaign? What in the world do you even imagine you are talking about.Faith, I'm sorry, but yet again you are WOEFULLY ignorant of American history (or willfully, or both, it's hard to tell)You think we want a good peaceful world? How do you explain our support/creation/etc. of right wing terrorists and death squads throughout latin american for decades? We have been sponsoring violent coups, regimes, terrorists etc for decades and decades. These are simply facts, nothing more. I am not trying to make a judgement as to whether what was done was right or wrong, but to think we are some peaceful do-gooder country is simply asinine.Try reading up on latin american history (especially during the reagan presidency).... You might also be surprised to find out that it was the reagan administration that sold CHEMICAL WEAPONS to Saddam Hussein.... Doesn't sound too peaceful to me.Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to portray the USA as some evil nation; we are just a country that is nicer than some and meaner than others. People just don't realize how much death and destruction the US is directly responsible for in the third world. (another subject that might be of interest is to read up on the REAL causes of the vietnam war).