NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont intend to go on the normal rant about American Imperialism, or the Brittish Imperialism.

I was actually sitting thinking about the use of the word Imperialism as it seems to evoke such a negative attitude in people nowadays.

I realize the Imerial ideals have been resposible for horrible events-usually these get passed off on religion, however have no doubt that most "religous wars" had less to do with God and more to do politics.

Anyway, being an American i was thinking that isnt America the crown jewel of Brittish Imperialism, I mean rather then being yoked by the crown, American shed it's chains and before the great teacher(England) it has grown to a new extension of what is essentially Imperial Brittain.

I am not taking a shot at the Brittish here, rather I am being completely serious.
America is a very young nation as far as nations go, especially first world ones.
The Brittish Empire is debatably a result of the Roman Empire, right?
I mean the Roman Empire sired, Brittain.
In turn Brittain sired its heir to the throne of global Imperialism, America.
Isnt America just filling the space this era in history has set in place for some nation to be the "Empire".
Maybe I am wrong, I am not very educated, it just seems like this current set of Imperialism looks a lot a new generation of the same old song.
It is not as if the Imperial Brittiash went around the globe thinking "yeah we're gonna ruin this country, and enslave these people"

They were thinking that they were doing a favor to the people who they annexed, just like America.
I dont know, any thoughts from some of the more well read folks around here?

Thing is, people are used to their freedom and being seperated from other nations.

Which is why I'll stress to other nations to become one big nation. I won't have them be absorbed by another nation, no. I want them to join together. Not as a union, but AS A NATION!

and I have no clue if I contributed to this topic or not...

probably not

Hey at least you did nt call me stupid for bad having bad grammar.

Hey at least you did nt call me stupid for bad having bad grammar.
huh.....hey, didn't even notice!

america is not an imperealist nation i have no clue what on earth you are talking about. perhaps the spanish american war of 1898? is that what you are speaking of? im not sure.

imperialism:The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant, territory or dependencies, or by the closer union of parts more or less independent of each other for operations of war, copyright, internal commerce, etc.

when has america done this in the last several decades or longer?

the last piece of land purchased by the usa was in (1897.)
the last piece of land achieved by force was part of a peace treaty (1898)

as you can see, empire building hasnt really been a top priority.

america is not an imperealist nation i have no clue what on earth you are talking about. perhaps the spanish american war of 1898? is that what you are speaking of? im not sure.
we were, actually

even in my U.S. History Books...it said right there, "Uncle Sam harvests the roots of imperialism"

somethin like that...and it showed Uncle Sam lookin up an apple tree. The apples had national names like "Hawaii, Cuba, etc."

Imperialism isn't always a bad thing. Compare India under the British to India now.

Imperialism isn't always a bad thing. Compare India under the British to India now.
:D...my uncle is in Congress there!

my relative...has power over there...

I see what you mean...

we were not imperealistic in a true sense ever. now, however, we are extemely far from it. i think drop the imperealist thing and you have it right though. the dominant super powers have given birth to each other over time. definatly true.

Imperialism is a terrible thing. It is one of the worst things there is.

imperialism:The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant, territory or dependencies, or by the closer union of parts more or less independent of each other for operations of war, copyright, internal commerce, etc.

when has america done this in the last several decades or longer?

the last piece of land purchased by the usa was in (1897.)
the last piece of land achieved by force was part of a peace treaty (1898)

as you can see, empire building hasnt really been a top priority.
We have land in Cuba, bases in Germany(over 40 years)
Japan(over 40years)
Phillipines
Guam
our economic hammer which can bring even the strongest nations to heel twice as fast as any pathetic stealth bomber.
I am not anti-American, I love America, but we are with out a doubt the NEW EMPIRE on the block.

we were not imperealistic in a true sense ever. now, however, we are extemely far from it. i think drop the imperealist thing and you have it right though. the dominant super powers have given birth to each other over time. definatly true.
gothcha, ok.

Imperialism is a terrible thing. It is one of the worst things there is.

It can be, but it can also be a blessing in disguise. Many Third World countries, under Europeon leadership, had schools, hospitals, roads, communication, etc., introduced to them, as well as higher standards of living, and usually enough food to feed almost everybody. Now look at many of those countries. Most of them are despotic, destitute hellholes, with no money, millions of starving people, blatant corruption, etc.

true. very true.

So who thinks America just caused the Middle East to be on a path to first-world life?

and now who but america ( who was never their in the first place) gives the most money to help the place out. how ironic. europe colonized, the africans rebel, the europeans leave, the continent for the most part falls apart, and who is left try hardest to clean the mess up?
the usa. We are doing the right thing too. billions of dollars this year alone to fight aids there.

So who thinks America just caused the Middle East to be on a path to first-world life?
what do you mean?

So who thinks America just caused the Middle East to be on a path to first-world life?
Truthfully I do, was that a deliberate thing, well that is another question entirely.
Change=revolution, America did not gain its Democracy with out blood and years of internal wrongs--still many today.
I am not Democracy equals 1st world but, I believe that because of the events put into play the Mid-east will excellerate its path to 1st world status, turmoil brings change.

and now who but america ( who was never their in the first place) gives the most money to help the place out. how ironic. europe colonized, the africans rebel, the europeans leave, the continent for the most part falls apart, and who is left try hardest to clean the mess up?
the usa. We are doing the right thing too. billions of dollars this year alone to fight aids there.

Sorry, but that's not our job. True, AIDS is a serious problem that definitely needs to be addressed, but nothing justifies our government spending our hard-earned money on it. After all, we're not the world's nurse.

Roach what happens across the globe effects us.

i hope iraq will be proof that a muslim country can also be a democracy. hopefully this idea will spread across the middle east. It might take a few decades for that to happen though. It will help the arab nations improve civil rights and standard of living starting in iraq. that is a good thing too. i dont think though that it will be easy. ignorance and fear still holds many middle eastern governments firmly in power.

Roach what happens across the globe effects us.

I know that, but it's not our job to take care of the world. Also, please don't call me Roach. I know you meant no offense, but still, please don't call me that. If you'd like, you can call me RB for short.

Sorry, but that's not our job. True, AIDS is a serious problem that definitely needs to be addressed, but nothing justifies our government spending our hard-earned money on it. After all, we're not the world's nurse.

im not saying its right or i like it. i am just saying we are generous and helpful.

im not saying its right or i like it. i am just saying we are generous and helpful.

Generosity is always a good thing, I agree.

I know that, but it's not our job to take care of the world. Also, please don't call me Roach. I know you meant no offense, but still, please don't call me that. If you'd like, you can call me RB for short.
I think it is our job--only if-- we take care of our own first.
and about your name...sorry, but isnt kind of an obvious short?
I mean ahh never mind not important, rb it is.

we definatly need to quit all of this foreign aid bull until we eliminate the budget deficit. nobody ever will do that though. indeed, we need to take care of the homeland first, and i think we should only use money from a surplus to do other global charity work.

I think it is our job--only if-- we take care of our own first.
and about your name...sorry, but isnt kind of an obvious short?
I mean ahh never mind not important, rb it is.

It's okay, you don't have to apologize.

It can be, but it can also be a blessing in disguise. Many Third World countries, under Europeon leadership, had schools, hospitals, roads, communication, etc., introduced to them, as well as higher standards of living, and usually enough food to feed almost everybody. Now look at many of those countries. Most of them are despotic, destitute hellholes, with no money, millions of starving people, blatant corruption, etc.

Before that they were used as little more then a source of income for their owners.

Their problems now are as a result of corruption and instability.

We have land in Cuba, bases in Germany(over 40 years)
Japan(over 40years)
Phillipines
Guam
our economic hammer which can bring even the strongest nations to heel twice as fast as any pathetic stealth bomber.
I am not anti-American, I love America, but we are with out a doubt the NEW EMPIRE on the block.
Military bases hardly count. Our bases in Germany and Japan resulted from our defeat and occupation of those countries, in which we ended their imperialism. Even if you count our subsequent activities as neo-imperialism or something you can't say it didn't help them both out a ton. They both went from collapsed, despotic, militarist states to prosperous democracies, neither one ever has wars (though they are capable of defending themselves), and they are now far from subordinate to the U.S. Germany even ran off to the EU. Also, either of them could expel the American forces there and not face attack. Same goes for South Korea. Guantanamo hasn't exactly convinced Cuba to be our buddy. For another example, the UK has a large military presence in Cyprus, but the big imperialist there is Turkey, not some new British Empire.

As for our economic weight, it is overstated and dwindling. We import tons of oil from and give tons of aid to Saudi Arabia, and while they're sort of our ally, they still cause us way more trouble than they ought to. Our economic weight and military aid didn't get the Taliban to follow our wishes. Then there's China, one of our biggest trading partners. Our economic influence has done a really effective job of getting them to democratize, limit their military growth, respect Taiwan, play fair in trade, respect our patents . . . oh wait.

The last case of big time imperialism was the Soviet Union. They definitely fit the bill. While the U.S. had substantial influence overseas at that time, the Soviet Union defeats any argument that modern America is simply the way imperialism works in the modern world.

i agree completely exept for one minor detail. the united states does not have a "dwindling" economic "weight". our gnp is twice as large as anyone elses and growing faster than any others are. other than that. I agree.

It can be, but it can also be a blessing in disguise. Many Third World countries, under Europeon leadership, had schools, hospitals, roads, communication, etc., introduced to them, as well as higher standards of living, and usually enough food to feed almost everybody. Now look at many of those countries. Most of them are despotic, destitute hellholes, with no money, millions of starving people, blatant corruption, etc.

Actually, many of them were hunter-gatherer societies that lived rather well. Now most of them live in sweatshops.

Before that they were used as little more then a source of income for their owners.

Their problems now are as a result of corruption and instability.
To play the Devil's advocate, that just shows how unfit to govern they are, making imperialism all the more necessary.

Military bases hardly count. Our bases in Germany and Japan resulted from our defeat and occupation of those countries, in which we ended their imperialism. Even if you count our subsequent activities as neo-imperialism or something you can't say it didn't help them both out a ton. They both went from collapsed, despotic, militarist states to prosperous democracies, neither one ever has wars (though they are capable of defending themselves), and they are now far from subordinate to the U.S. Germany even ran off to the EU. Also, either of them could expel the American forces there and not face attack. Same goes for South Korea. Guantanamo hasn't exactly convinced Cuba to be our buddy. For another example, the UK has a large military presence in Cyprus, but the big imperialist there is Turkey, not some new British Empire.

As for our economic weight, it is overstated and dwindling. We import tons of oil from and give tons of aid to Saudi Arabia, and while they're sort of our ally, they still cause us way more trouble than they ought to. Our economic weight and military aid didn't get the Taliban to follow our wishes. Then there's China, one of our biggest trading partners. Our economic influence has done a really effective job of getting them to democratize, limit their military growth, respect Taiwan, play fair in trade, respect our patents . . . oh wait.

The last case of big time imperialism was the Soviet Union. They definitely fit the bill. While the U.S. had substantial influence overseas at that time, the Soviet Union defeats any argument that modern America is simply the way imperialism works in the modern world.
Like the way the US was formed from Brittain.

Actually, many of them were hunter-gatherer societies that lived rather well. Now most of them live in sweatshops.

Im afraid i couldnt imagine living rather well in a hunter/gatherer society. It would be rather bad actualy. then again sweatshops are not better. But most of who is in sweatshops?

Im afraid i couldnt imagine living rather well in a hunter/gatherer society. It would be rather bad actualy. then again sweatshops are not better. But most of who is in sweatshops?
I am certain the Cheyenne, and the Arapaho, the Navajo, and the Ojibwa are much happier now.

America is by all means an imperialist nation, not in the olden day term, for no longer is force looked up upon, now it is done behidn the eyes of the publis. Like, "US GIVES AD TO POOR AFRICAN COUNTRY" Yes, it gives ad, in return for all the nations valuable resources. Which as the US reminds them, they are too poor to get themselves.
I think Imperialism is a fine thing, if a nation is absorbed, it only means it is too weak to get free. America got lucky in its revolution, Britain decided to cut off relations, being involved elsewhere, as proven in the war of 1812, if Britain had really deided it wanted victory and had nothing else bothering it, it would have had victory. (For those of you that dont know, the war of 1812 was when America decided it wanted Canada, and invaded, seeming to score complete victory until the British brought over British soliders (Prior it was been foriegn officers, and mainly drunks) the British won from them on, crashing all the way to Virgina and setting fire to the capital (To those that do not know, Virgina originally held our capital))
Everyone always says look at imperialist Japan, or Nazi Germany, they were evil. so they did dishonorable things, they both pulled their war-torn and low-tech countries (Well, Japan was not war torn) and made them the greatest nations in the world, in 20 years. That is impressive. Fascism is number 1! Also, look at the Roman empire, thanks to them, people lived much better, roads were built and gaurded, cities gained new technologies, much good came of imperialism, as did bad. But look at democracy, how much bad has come out of it? And what the hell is the need for an electoral college? Goverment control, thats it. In compling with this, look at how wishy washy the US population is, one second, "Kill all the Middle East, they attacked us!" The next, "Oh no, what is the goverment doing?! STOP IT, don't hurt the Middle East, what did they do?" *sigh* Well, school in a few hours, must get to bed, later.

Like the way the US was formed from Brittain.
No, not like that at all. Sort of like how Canada was formed from Britain, but still less. Britain controlled America as a territory and fought to keep it. We rebuilt Japan and Germany, set up representative governments (as opposed to Crown-appointed governors), and gave them sovereignty. They had independence the whole time, except during the occupations.

Also, neither one is on the path to be the next empire/superpower. They're both former superpowers. Germany has a relatively weak military (weaker than Britain or France, much weaker than the U.S.) today, and Japan's is strictly defensive.

No, not like that at all. Sort of like how Canada was formed from Britain, but still less. Britain controlled America as a territory and fought to keep it. We rebuilt Japan and Germany, set up representative governments (as opposed to Crown-appointed governors), and gave them sovereignty. They had independence the whole time, except during the occupations.
True enough, we were allowed to become a super power where as we simply allowed them to become tourist attractions with airbases.

I am certain the Cheyenne, and the Arapaho, the Navajo, and the Ojibwa are much happier now.


they are in sweatshops? my question was what group are you talking about that is "mostly in sweatshops"?

they are in sweatshops? my question was what group are you talking about that is "mostly in sweatshops"?
NO you are on what is rightfully theirs(my self included on that one).
Sweat shops would have been nice, as opposed to cultural Genocide.
You know less then 200 people speak the CHeyenne language because the UNited States Government made it illegal to speak, and their religion illegal to practice.
I said their religion Illegal to practice.
Sorry I get irratated talking about that particular subject so moving right along...

Military bases hardly count. Our bases in Germany and Japan resulted from our defeat and occupation of those countries, in which we ended their imperialism. Even if you count our subsequent activities as neo-imperialism or something you can't say it didn't help them both out a ton. They both went from collapsed, despotic, militarist states to prosperous democracies, neither one ever has wars (though they are capable of defending themselves), and they are now far from subordinate to the U.S.

Eh-hem, The only reason that Germany had a collapsed economy was due to the fact that the countries involved in WW 1 decided it was all Germany's fault (not so this time), and charged them the bill, and gave their factory land and farm land to neighbor countries. So you take away a countries income, and ask for billions of dollars (at the time, A LOT) and then wonder why they like the crazy man promising money and power. Anyways, Nazi Germany was not 'despotic' it was fascism, different, and it made Germany one of the most powerful and richest countries in the world, only America could make more steel and such, and look at the size difference! Also, for Japan, the same, a proud warrior people, their own curiosity (from greedy bastards) ruined their honor, for a time, they wanted western enhancements, they got it, but it was not really running smoothly, suddenly, Fascism, 20 years, and they have themost powerful navy in the world, and make ridiculous amounts of money. Neither were bad off before the war, in fact, they were prosperous, and powerful, and the US feared their vengeance upon recollection of their old selves, so they keep bases there to prevent that.

you said 'most of them are in sweatshops'
most of who?
( don't be insulted but i am getting frustrated)

Letila actually made the sweatshop reference.
and I think Letila is not on any longer so you might have to wait for a clearifier

Actually, many of them were hunter-gatherer societies that lived rather well. Now most of them live in sweatshops.Most of who?

oh now wonder. i am so dumb, sorry about that! i got you switched. i really apologize. i made a mistake. so sorry!

No prob, good night all.
It is my birthday today.

29 years old 8/9/75

today in history ...
Nagasaki was bombed
Sharon tate was murdered
I was born.

nixon resigned to. what a great day. happy birthday!

No prob, good night all.
It is my birthday today.

29 years old 8/9/75

today in history ...
Nagasaki was bombed
Sharon tate was murdered
I was born.

I hope this isn't a premonition of what your life will be like.

Joking.

goodnight and have a good tomorrow

Eh-hem, The only reason that Germany had a collapsed economy was due to the fact that the countries involved in WW 1 decided it was all Germany's fault (not so this time), and charged them the bill, and gave their factory land and farm land to neighbor countries. So you take away a countries income, and ask for billions of dollars (at the time, A LOT) and then wonder why they like the crazy man promising money and power. Anyways, Nazi Germany was not 'despotic' it was fascism, different, and it made Germany one of the most powerful and richest countries in the world, only America could make more steel and such, and look at the size difference! Also, for Japan, the same, a proud warrior people, their own curiosity (from greedy bastards) ruined their honor, for a time, they wanted western enhancements, they got it, but it was not really running smoothly, suddenly, Fascism, 20 years, and they have themost powerful navy in the world, and make ridiculous amounts of money. Neither were bad off before the war, in fact, they were prosperous, and powerful, and the US feared their vengeance upon recollection of their old selves, so they keep bases there to prevent that.
WWI was Germany's fault. They kind of invaded France. Anyway, Germany wasn't exactly well off after we crushed and invaded them, which was also their fault since they invaded France again, plus everyone else. The U.S. helping Europe does not count as imperialism. As for Japan, again, they did not have the world's most powerful navy after we sank it, in a war they started.

imperialism:The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant, territory or dependencies, or by the closer union of parts more or less independent of each other for operations of war, copyright, internal commerce, etc.

when has america done this in the last several decades or longer?

the last piece of land purchased by the usa was in (1897.)
the last piece of land achieved by force was part of a peace treaty (1898)

as you can see, empire building hasnt really been a top priority.

I don't know where the above definition came, but it completely conflicts with the text right after it. Since by definition imperialism is not only just about annexing territory, then empire building HAS been a top priority with the USA.

When thinking about imperialism people always think first of the British Empire, which had a lot to do with puppet regimes (of which best examples I think were found in India and the Middle east), and USA is installing puppet regimes as we speak. Military bases are a good example of empire building too, because they allow the USA to exert power almost everywhere, which in turn makes people more willing to do USA's bidding.

Another thing is the so-called "cultural imperialism" (if anyone is French, please rant). Nothing wrong with that though. American entertainment is just better. Nobody really wants to watch crap "artistic" European movies.