NationStates Jolt Archive

The French Colonization/Imperialism
http://www.discoverfrance.net/Colonies/index.shtml

hmmmm.......I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

We had a chance for Cuba when we freed the Cubans from Spanish control but we didn't. Yes Peurto Rico is considered a US Territory that pays $0 in taxes and reeps all of our benefits and still has their own government. Oh yes, we even reshaped our border in Mexico. Nothing that America has ever done or is currently in the process of doing can by any intellectual means be compared to what the British and the French have done. Those are the real Imperialist Nations. They were after the control of the World. Not the USA. We are the Champions for the people for freedoms.

What about Liberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia)?

The French Colonization/Imperialism
http://www.discoverfrance.net/Colonies/index.shtml

hmmmm.......I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

We had a chance for Cuba when we freed the Cubans from Spanish control but we didn't. Yes Peurto Rico is considered a US Territory that pays $0 in taxes and reeps all of our benefits and still has their own government. Oh yes, we even reshaped our border in Mexico. Nothing that America has ever done or is currently in the process of doing can by any intellectual means be compared to what the British and the French have done. Those are the real Imperialist Nations. They were after the control of the World. Not the USA. We are the Champions for the people for freedoms.

We ran the Philippines for a while.

Good job comparing a modern nation to two empires from the 1700s.

What about Liberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia)?

Technically never a colony, but close.

What about Liberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia)?

What about it? It's a free country. Sure, we took it from Africans, but we gave it to other Africans and the descendents of Africans and let them rule themselves. Doesn't seem like a colony to me.

I dont understand how you can outright discount Hawaii, the original seizure was brutal any free nation should have considered it shameful. And what of the Native American nations? Some of them even had governments and defined territory lines.

Those are the real Imperialist Nations. They were after the control of the World.

But they're not now..... which is all that matters isn't it?

End of discussion.

Ehmm... Hawaii and Alaska, Cuba, Texico... all of the 'inside' of the US... pretty much Nicauragua..

The point is is that America in no way can be compared to the Imperialists of Britain and France. They are the ones who were mapped all over the world not the USA. Yes, we ended up in North America and after our country was founded as the United States of America our reign stopped and our country realized that Imperialism isn't the way to go. Now, in today's society, who are we taking land from?

Ehmm... Hawaii and Alaska, Cuba, Texico... all of the 'inside' of the US... pretty much Nicauragua..

Cuba okay you definately know what you're talking about. Give me a break.

Now, in today's society, who are we taking land from?

In today's society, who are the French or British taking land from?

i.e What's your fucking point?

In today's society, who are the French or British taking land from?

i.e What's your fucking point?

Exactly, why is america a bloody saint just because the Britain and France were so imperial like 300 years ago. By that logic, the 3rd Reich wasn't very imperial because the Roman Empire was totally expansionist...

In today's society, who are the French or British taking land from?

i.e What's your fucking point?

My fucking point is I'm getting tired of people claiming America is an Empire an Imperialistic nation. They're just a bunch of idiots to claim something so ludricous.

I'm tired of their constant griping of some bad things that's happened when they're far more good things that America does. America is great

God Bless America

The point is is that America in no way can be compared to the Imperialists of Britain and France. They are the ones who were mapped all over the world not the USA. Yes, we ended up in North America and after our country was founded as the United States of America our reign stopped and our country realized that Imperialism isn't the way to go. Now, in today's society, who are we taking land from?

So to sum up your argument: 200-300 years ago, the French, the British, and the "Americans" (who, during that era, were mostly better known as "the British") all took land from indigenous populations. Nowadays, none of them do so. Therefore, America is better than the French and the British.

How...logical. ;)

What about everything besides the original 13 states? As in, everything west of the Appalachians.

People were kinda already living there, you know. What about all the land the US annexed from Mexico after beating the crap out of them in a total bullshit war?

What about the fact that Cuba was basically a puppet state of US corporations after 1898? What about the brutal subjugation of the Philipines? Hawaii was its own nation prior to colonialism, with a defined government and all that. What about all the puppeteering the US has done in Latin America?

And why are we comparing the US to 18th century empires? We were burning witches around that time, roughly speaking.

My fucking point is I'm getting tired of people claiming America is an Empire an Imperialistic nation. They're just a bunch of idiots to claim something so ludricous.

I'm tired of their constant griping of some bad things that's happened when they're far more good things that America does. America is great

God Bless America

Being Imperialistic =/= having an empire.

Being an Empire = having an empire.

Imperialistic means acting like an empire.

The difference is subtle, but distinct.
You fail at the English language.

The point again is.........No the French and British aren't Imperialists any more. America was never a True Imperialistic nation. So all of the American Bashing idiots claiming how America is an empire and Imperialistic nation and kiss off. Where's the facts to your f*****g claims? All you seem to be doing is running out the mouth. where's the source to America's Imperialism?

You really can't compare America today to the 1700s superpowers. Back then, 2 new continents were found and there was land to be colonized. Today, there is nothing to be colonized, only conquered. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States. As was Philadelphia in the 1700s. Which was a colony. If anything, Puerto Rico is an American colony, but in reality, there are just about none left.

You can't colonize any place because they all have nations. To colonize, you'd have to war. Which doesn't mean colonize, but to defeat and capture. You can turn it into a colony, but not like Great Britain's or France's or Spain's. There is nothing left.

The point again is.........No the French and British aren't Imperialists any more. America was never a True Imperialistic nation. So all of the American Bashing idiots claiming how America is an empire and Imperialistic nation and kiss off. Where's the facts to your f*****g claims? All you seem to be doing is running out the mouth. where's the source to America's Imperialism?

I see from your info, that you live in Florida.

Do you know how the US acquired and "settled" Florida? It's similar to how the US got and "settled" just about every state besides the original 13.

You really can't compare America today to the 1700s superpowers. Back then, 2 new continents were found and there was land to be colonized. Today, there is nothing to be colonized, only conquered. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States. As was Philadelphia in the 1700s. Which was a colony. If anything, Puerto Rico is an American colony, but in reality, there are just about none left.

You can't colonize any place because they all have nations. To colonize, you'd have to war. Which doesn't mean colonize, but to defeat and capture. You can turn it into a colony, but not like Great Britain's or France's or Spain's. There is nothing left.

There were nations already occupying the land that was "colonized." However, we like to gloss that over and pretend that there was no one living in North America before the US existed.

And as someone mentioned, don't forget the Philippines.
After the Spanish-American war, Spain gave the Philippines to the USA, and the US basically crushed the newly-declared independent country, with much bloodshed and destruction. It never really crossed American minds to let the country go its own way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines-American_War

Granted, afterwards the Americans did set up a timetable for eventual independence, but it does baffle why they would go through so much trouble to conquer a nation just to set it free.
But if anything, this is American being "ooh-evil-imperial" if anything.
Not to mention the other Pacific Islands they took over etc.

But after WWII, there was much suspicion that the only reason that America was so keen on Britain and France decolonising was so that it could exploit the old imperial markets. Roosevelt's original ideas of putting every single colony under UN international trusteeship would have given the USA a huge amount of influence in areas of the world they had never been allowed into before. But as it was, he faced a lot of opposition from people who saw benefits in propping those empires up (e.g. against communism and Russia) and from those in the military who wanted a whole swathe of military bases all over the world.

Being imperialistic takes many forms... growth of influence, growth of economic penetration, growth of actual control. And it does not necessarily have to be evil and exploitative. It's not so black and white, and in any case the mindset of the era when most imperial expansion occurred is very different from that of now.

Being Imperialistic =/= having an empire.

Being an Empire = having an empire.

Imperialistic means acting like an empire.

The difference is subtle, but distinct.
You fail at the English language.

There was no language failure there. In actuality, you are the one who failed. He said America is claiming to be an empire. Claiming to be imperialistic. But its not. And that's what he says. Its valid and makes perfect sense.

Your interpretation, however, is far from accurate. Being imperialistic is not acting like an empire, its actually having one. You can't be imperialistic without an empire. Its 100% wrong. Being an epire means having imperialism over land that is not within your boundaries. Being an empire doesn't mean having an empire.

So, sadly to say, it is you who fails at the English language. Do not correct on what you do not understand.

I see from your info, that you live in Florida.

Do you know how the US acquired and "settled" Florida? It's similar to how the US got and "settled" just about every state besides the original 13.

Before running off the mouth you should check your facts it was the spanish who founded and named Florida, a spanish explorer with the backing of spanish soldiers.
http://library.thinkquest.org/6196/Explorers.html

I see from your info, that you live in Florida.

Do you know how the US acquired and "settled" Florida? It's similar to how the US got and "settled" just about every state besides the original 13.

We purchased those, legally, fair and square. Although this opens the debate on whether an empire has to be acquired through military force, or if it can be bought.

There were nations already occupying the land that was "colonized." However, we like to gloss that over and pretend that there was no one living in North America before the US existed.

Well, you are completely wrong. Most Americans know and understand what we did was wrong to the native Americans. We regret what happened and we moved on. I have some Native American in me, the Delaware Indians.

Most of you seem to be missing my point completely though. Everyone needs to realize that what America has done in no way can be compared to the atrocities of the British and the French. Study your history don't assume.

You guys are also forgetting American adventures in the Far East. We DID force Japan to open on our terms (A point of contention Japan wasn't happy about right up till WWII), we DID carve out chunks of China (Not as many, but there were American sectors with the usual lopsided argeements).

Yup, America has acted as an empire at times, and given our system of bases from defeating Germany and Japan, you could make an argument that it still holds land through conquest.

That's actually an ongoing argument about perminate bases in Iraq and President Bush's refusal to say we're not going to do that.

This is not going to end well...

*makes batch of popcorn, watches with bemused interest*

Most of you seem to be missing my point completely though. Everyone needs to realize that what America has done in no way can be compared to the atrocities of the British and the French. Study your history don't assume.
Ah yes, the "He was worse!" defense.

Which plays out like this;
A-san: We can't be called murderers! It's not right!
B-san: Why?
A-san: Because they killed more people than we did.
B-san: But... but... You DID kill 20 people!
A-san: So? THEY killed 50! They were true murderers, we're not murderers!

There was no language failure there. In actuality, you are the one who failed. He said America is claiming to be an empire. Claiming to be imperialistic. But its not. And that's what he says. Its valid and makes perfect sense.

Your interpretation, however, is far from accurate. Being imperialistic is not acting like an empire, its actually having one. You can't be imperialistic without an empire. Its 100% wrong. Being an epire means having imperialism over land that is not within your boundaries. Being an empire doesn't mean having an empire.

So, sadly to say, it is you who fails at the English language. Do not correct on what you do not understand.

No its not. Acting like an Empire does not necessitate you having an Empire- only the same means in which to portray your power.

America has (in theory) the equivilant power of a modern day Empire. Now, as it does not in fact have an Empire (external land, tributaries, vassals etc), it cannot be an Empire. But the power it has and the manner in which it choses to wield that power can be said to be Imperial-like or Imperialistic.

Subtle but important difference.

America is not an Empire but the way it choses to exert it's power on others can be seen to be Imperialistic.

The source of American imperialism in the early stages was that of manifest destiny. While the US cannot be held accountable for the actions of the British in settling the original 13 – which was in and of itself an imperial act – the US does have its own actions to account for.

Western expansion was done roughshod over the aboriginal peoples. Land grabs, displacement and low intensity ethnic cleansing were very common when dealing with the plains natives. The US cavalry forcibly ejected aboriginals so that white settlers could be granted a parcel of land. Look at old maps of the US – most of the area in the west was (albeit inappropriately) referred to as Indian territory. Now look at a contemporary map. I can assure you there is a difference.

Next, chronologically, is the war of 1812. While some call this a continuation of the revolution I think I would have to point out that hostilities had ceased and both governments were trying to continue on. Now I will concede the point that Great Britain may have antagonized the young nation but that does not excuse the American response. The United States sought to bring the rest of the British colonies in North America, and Quebec, into the union through force. In fact there are well documented cases of Americans attempting to incite unrest in British North America. And when the popular support was not forthcoming military measures were invoked.

Next consider your civil war. The original framing of the constitution was done in such a way that the federal government would be a limited entity. The colonies were to be almost sovereign entities – merely handing over some of their functions to the federal government. While a lot of these were the right to treat and ally with other nations, as well as print money, consider the limitation proposed by the contemporary European Union. We, as citizens of a democracy, accept that sovereignty can be command in any way the people so desire. Now please do not think this argument is in anyway validating the confederate states but consider if France pulled out of the EU tomorrow and Leopard tanks rolled back through the Ardennes. We would call Germany imperialist for this action. While the civil war is tied into the American mythos please remember that it was on a basic level the abrogation of a democratic state’s right to choose.

Now continuing on suppose we, for some reason, discount the aboriginal American’s experiences in the west – there is still the question of how Texas, the Rio Grande, New Mexico, Arizona, and California came under American control. While the Mexicans were not particularly well off as far as government administrators the fact of the matter is that at the end of the war the United States enacted territorial concessions on a sovereign state. While you may be able to look at the border states and see Americans today I assure you that was not the case then. (Ironic considering you now have a Mexican ‘immigrant’ problem eh?)

To fast track a bit we can look at the fact that Puerto Rico’s territorial government has asked for independence on several occasions. The United States actively founds militants that are friendly to its cause – undermining the national sovereignty of its neighbors.

Let’s look at the American experience in Vietnam. The United States military was in that country attempting to suppress a movement which was populist in nature. By the end of the Vietnam conflict very few locals took solace in the sight of the American Army. While the effort did not succeed in placing a US friendly government into the country the act was still that of an imperialist power.

If these examples don’t appear to be classically imperialist enough for you try reading up on the Panama Canal. You might also consider that despite the rhetoric of Woodrow Wilson the United States did end up charging the Weimar Republic reparations – right along side its imperialist allies.

Before running off the mouth you should check your facts it was the spanish who founded and named Florida, a spanish explorer with the backing of spanish soldiers.
http://library.thinkquest.org/6196/Explorers.html


Also without asking the people who already lived there. And when we "purchased" it from the Spanish, did we ask the people who were living there? The people whose land it rightfully was? No, we came in and slaughtered them.

Ah yes, the "He was worse!" defense.

Which plays out like this;
A-san: We can't be called murders! It's not right!
B-san: Why?
A-san: Because they killed more people than we did.
B-san: But... but... You DID kill 20 people!
A-san: So? THEY killed 50! They were true murders, we're not murders!

No, this isn't a "He was worse!" defense. I have been in and out of most of these threads, which for the most part, depicts the USA as "Evil" "Empire" "Imperial" so yes I am defending my great nation. Yes, we as a majority of Americans are ashamed of some to the events that took place in our history. However, we are still filled with pride and the love for our country which is NOT a crime. It seems though, as some will claim we are trolls simply for having a different view or for being Pro-America.

So after reading through some of those threads of America Imperialism, I am now pointing out that America can not be compared with the Empires of Britain and France. Any atrocity that America has done was done by a minimum of 10 times by the British and French. Then some will dismiss those facts of happening hundreds of years ago. News Flash: Alot of America's happened a couple hundred years ago.

Before someone mentions Iraq and Afghanistan, most of those people have been killed by their own people.

To be quite Honest, I'm tired of people who are pro-America who wind up getting crucified. I can not help it that if you people refuse to respect your land or government.

Being an American, for the most part, we respect our government and we Love our Land. God Bless America

Also without asking the people who already lived there. And when we "purchased" it from the Spanish, did we ask the people who were living there? The people whose land it rightfully was? No, we came in and slaughtered them.

And how many years ago was this......People keep claiming I'm bringing stuff up that happened hundreds of years ago, well, so do you guys. So I suppose what's fair to you isn't fair to me.........Right.

No its not. Acting like an Empire does not necessitate you having an Empire- only the same means in which to portray your power.

America has (in theory) the equivilant power of a modern day Empire. Now, as it does not in fact have an Empire (external land, tributaries, vassals etc), it cannot be an Empire. But the power it has and the manner in which it choses to wield that power can be said to be Imperial-like or Imperialistic.

Subtle but important difference.

America is not an Empire but the way it choses to exert it's power on others can be seen to be Imperialistic.

Quite.
Britain, for a start, maintained a very informal form of empire in many places for a long time - India is a good example of this before they moved in - and even then they did not directly rule all of India.
The Unequal Treaties with China, things like French concessions with the Baghdad railway or in Morocco before 1914... all very imperialistic things without necessarily relying on huge grants of land, if any at all.

Even America got in on the act, enjoying preferential treatment in China, and even 'opening up' Japan by sending in a squadron under Commodore Perry in 1853.
Economic expansion at the expense of the subject nation... everyone's done it, including America, so people shouldn't get so antsy about the issue.

No, this isn't a "He was worse!" defense. I have been in and out of most of these threads, which for the most part, depicts the USA as "Evil" "Empire" "Imperial" so yes I am defending my great nation. Yes, we as a majority of Americans are ashamed of some to the events that took place in our history. However, we are still filled with pride and the love for our country which is NOT a crime. It seems though, as some will claim we are trolls simply for having a different view or for being Pro-America.

oh yes it was, in the eyes of the British the american rebellion was a crime against the crown, treason and an act of terrorism. Now in my eyes, it was justified terrorism...meh

So after reading through some of those threads of America Imperialism, I am now pointing out that America can not be compared with the Empires of Britain and France. Any atrocity that America has done was done by a minimum of 10 times by the British and French. Then some will dismiss those facts of happening hundreds of years ago. News Flash: Alot of America's happened a couple hundred years ago.

Just because America's actions are not comperable with those of the British or French, does not necessarily mean it is not an empire.

Well, you are completely wrong. Most Americans know and understand what we did was wrong to the native Americans. We regret what happened and we moved on. I have some Native American in me, the Delaware Indians.

Most of you seem to be missing my point completely though. Everyone needs to realize that what America has done in no way can be compared to the atrocities of the British and the French. Study your history don't assume.

How the hell was what we did in North America any better than what the British and French did?

I think most British and French also understand that what their countries did to other nations generations ago was wrong. They're not still doing it.

And how many years ago was this......People keep claiming I'm bringing stuff up that happened hundreds of years ago, well, so do you guys. So I suppose what's fair to you isn't fair to me.........Right.

You started the thread. If you bring up all these things Britain and France did hundreds of years ago, why shouldn't we bring up what the US did that same time?

How the hell was what we did in North America any better than what the British and French did?

I think most British and French also understand that what their countries did to other nations generations ago was wrong. They're not still doing it.

We purchased that land. The British and French conquered their territory through military force. They also used "divide and conquer" tactics that created massive rifts in the native populations of countries, rifts that exist to this day.(Rwandan genocide, Hindu/muslim conflicts in India). No one is denying that we have committed horrible atrocities, genocides really, but we have not expanded our borders militarily, but through the power of wealth.

You started the thread. If you bring up all these things Britain and France did hundreds of years ago, why shouldn't we bring up what the US did that same time?

Why do you hate freedom?

:p

Continuing on with someone said, above America has either fought, bought, or ejected the original populace on every inch of land claimed. There was also something I read at one point it could be untrue but America "never Honoured treaty with the Native Americans in bargained with."

Of course not to say of course that the actions of the Imperialist Powers were excusable, but if you look at the time frame in which America systimatically destroyed any opposition to it's expansion.

We also seem to fail to grasp that perhaps colonization, and perhaps even Imperialism could be good things. Look at Australia, Canada, China all ripped apart by colonialism, now on top of the world. Again there are exceptions to this rule in the humanitarian field. However every country colonizied had it's economy increased in the years in which it was under a foriegn power (That's the Entire point of it obviously.)

We purchased that land. The British and French conquered their territory through military force. They also used "divide and conquer" tactics that created massive rifts in the native populations of countries, rifts that exist to this day.(Rwandan genocide, Hindu/muslim conflicts in India). No one is denying that we have committed horrible atrocities, genocides really, but we have not expanded our borders militarily, but through the power of wealth.

We used military force against the inhabitants as well. 'Twas Andrew Jackson who led the most prominant expedition I believe.

Why do you hate freedom?

:p

Wow...

We used military force against the inhabitants as well. 'Twas Andrew Jackson who led the most prominant expedition I believe.

I know Jackson ordered the intolerable removal of cherokee natives to a Reservation on the infamous "trail of tears", but i do not recall him taking direct military action. I don't think we started meddling around in other country's affairs until good ol' Teddy Roosevelt got elected, back then I would say america was slightly imperialistic.

I know Jackson ordered the intolerable removal of cherokee natives to a Reservation on the infamous "trail of tears", but i do not recall him taking direct military action. I don't think we started meddling around in other country's affairs until good ol' Teddy Roosevelt got elected, back then I would say america was slightly imperialistic.

This was before he was president, when he was still in the army.

So after reading through some of those threads of America Imperialism, I am now pointing out that America can not be compared with the Empires of Britain and France. Any atrocity that America has done was done by a minimum of 10 times by the British and French. Then some will dismiss those facts of happening hundreds of years ago. News Flash: Alot of America's happened a couple hundred years ago.


Let's think of some things in the 20th century just to get some perspective. This is not comprehensive by any means, just things off my head.

America:
-Philippines-American War 1898-1913. Hundreds of thousands supposedly killed, even up to 1 million. Results in American colony until 1946.
-Vietnam. Sort of taking the role of the French, so I include it.

Britain:
-2nd Boer War 1899-1902. 75,000 on all sides killed. Results in British control, but by 1910 dominionship is granted.
-Mau Mau rising 1952-60. 50,000+ killed? Results in independence.
-Malay Emergency 1948-60. 5-7000 rebels killed? Occurs as Britain grants independence

France:
-Vietnam 1945-54. 400,000 killed, 3/4 Vietnamese. Results in partial independence
-Madagascar 1947-56?. 100,000 killed maybe. Results in independence
-Algeria 1954-62. 400,000+ killed? Results in independence

Netherlands:
-Indonesia 1945-1949. 150,000 Indonesians killed? Results in independence

Seems as though when the Americans do it, they do it proper good and for territorial gain. ;)
BUT THE POINT IS, the USA has done its fair share as well, but similarly everyone who was a major power and in a position to colonise has done it.
And I can assure you that lots of people in the home country were disappointed with the manner and motive of the conflicts listed above.

Wow...

I was being facetious, buddy. ;)

We purchased that land. The British and French conquered their territory through military force. They also used "divide and conquer" tactics that created massive rifts in the native populations of countries, rifts that exist to this day.(Rwandan genocide, Hindu/muslim conflicts in India). No one is denying that we have committed horrible atrocities, genocides really, but we have not expanded our borders militarily, but through the power of wealth.
Funny, I don't seem to recall the west being bought. I seem to remember a war where we beat the shit out of Mexico and then demanded the land.

I don't remember Hawai'i agreeing to sell itself to us, nor the Philipines, or, Putro Rico, or any of our other areas in the Pacific (Some of them, of course, were lifeless rocks, Guam had/has its own people though).

We didn't always buy, we took a lot. Including everything from the Mississippi east.

I was being facetious, buddy. ;)

Thought that might be the case, but you never know around here.

Funny, I don't seem to recall the west being bought. I seem to remember a war where we beat the shit out of Mexico and then demanded the land.

well, we did pay 15,000,000 big ones for that, but for mexico it was either sell or risk full annexation, I cede the point; but I place the blame squarely on Texas:p .

I don't remember Hawai'i agreeing to sell itself to us, nor the Philipines, or, Putro Rico, or any of our other areas in the Pacific (Some of them, of course, were lifeless rocks, Guam had/has its own people though).
True, the Phillipine war was utter bullshit.

We didn't always buy, we took a lot. Including everything from the Mississippi east.

we bought that area from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, Napolean needed some $$$ to invade someone again.

So after reading through some of those threads of America Imperialism, I am now pointing out that America can not be compared with the Empires of Britain and France. Any atrocity that America has done was done by a minimum of 10 times by the British and French.
That's the "They were worse" defence. How about just stating that EVERYONE did it and it was bad?

To be quite Honest, I'm tired of people who are pro-America who wind up getting crucified. I can not help it that if you people refuse to respect your land or government.
I AM an American.

Being an American, for the most part, we respect our government and we Love our Land. God Bless America
*sighs* My goverment has not done much lately to warrent my respect, it has done much to annoy me and cause me to question it, but as an American, that is what I must do for citizenship.

Neither France nor the US consulted the people who lived there, and whose country it was.

And how many years ago was this......People keep claiming I'm bringing stuff up that happened hundreds of years ago, well, so do you guys. So I suppose what's fair to you isn't fair to me.........Right.

Is the only point that you are trying to make that the United States of 2006 does not correspond to the classical Imperialist paradigm?

Sure. Fine. Point granted. The United States is a neo-liberal hegemony that has updated its methods of exploitation to be in keeping with the contemporary bourgeois mentality. The United States does not administer to colonies it enacts free trade zones and fosters democracy – which for reasons we won’t get into favour the investors on the NYSE more than the indigenous populations. Moreover while the freedom of currency and goods is assured the free migration of labour is strictly denied, leaving large pools of impoverished workers outside of the political responsibility of said same hegemon.

And finally when countries seek to remove themselves from this cycle their ideas are proclaimed to be wrongheaded, backwards, and out dated. These insults are usually accompanied by US or WTO sanctions (often at the behest of the US). When countries seek to determine their own destiny and break of trade relations American nationals take those countries to court. At the same time the United States defies the very free trade laws it touts.

While your country has a lot of redeeming qualities some people simply place a higher value on human suffering than you do. It’s not a big deal – it is a value judgment. That said my own country is not much better.

I won’t lie to you and say that everything said on this board is fair and or accurate but what are you attempting to accomplish by screaming into the void of cyberspace? Is your country somehow diminished or strengthen by this discourse?

The fact of the matter is that today as we speak this very instance people are using the power of the United States to inflict harm on others. Whether its through the military, state department, or ventures market the United States exists on almost every level of interaction on this planet and often not for right reasons.

We purchased that land. The British and French conquered their territory through military force. They also used "divide and conquer" tactics that created massive rifts in the native populations of countries, rifts that exist to this day.(Rwandan genocide, Hindu/muslim conflicts in India). No one is denying that we have committed horrible atrocities, genocides really, but we have not expanded our borders militarily, but through the power of wealth.

As I mentioned earlier American wealth is not bloodless. Let us consider the value of slave labour, adjusted for inflation, and paid with interest.

Consider the subsidization of the railroads. Vast tracks of previously aboriginal land were granted to industrialists. These weren’t twenty foot wide patches needed for a railroad, these were massive swathes of land that led to the creation of industry towns.

Consider that the Japanese market was opened forcibly – vis-à-vis naval force. They bought American goods at gun point.

Think about early isolationist America selling to both sides in European wars.

Consider please that most of the oil in Texas once belonged to Mexico, albeit before either country knew it was there.

Realize that the United States has forcibly introduced right leaning governments into countries to keep open markets, with little to no regard what other policies those leaders might have.

Continuing on with someone said, above America has either fought, bought, or ejected the original populace on every inch of land claimed. There was also something I read at one point it could be untrue but America "never Honoured treaty with the Native Americans in bargained with."

Of course not to say of course that the actions of the Imperialist Powers were excusable, but if you look at the time frame in which America systimatically destroyed any opposition to it's expansion.

We also seem to fail to grasp that perhaps colonization, and perhaps even Imperialism could be good things. Look at Australia, Canada, China all ripped apart by colonialism, now on top of the world. Again there are exceptions to this rule in the humanitarian field. However every country colonizied had it's economy increased in the years in which it was under a foriegn power (That's the Entire point of it obviously.)

Actually China is a special case but I will speak of Canada and hope you can see how it applies to other former colonies.

After WWI Canada went back to being a mostly agrarian society, as there was no domestic demand for the industries that developed to fight the war. Canada was going to go back to being an agrarian country again but it was needed to stand as an American ally in the Cold War. So the Americans signed the GATT. It was basically a gift, insofar as it was a huge reversal of the protectionist trade policies. The United States ran trade deficits with many nations after the Second World War – basically siphoning wealth into those countries. Even today it is estimated that something around 80% of the Canadian economy is tied into the United States.

With the Americans maintaining military readiness Canada had a market for its manufactured goods. The American military complex. This of course fostered domestic industries as Canadians then had money to spend on other services and products (a lot of them being American.)

So no, I would say that colonialism provided for these economies I would say that cold war maneuvering did.

And as a final aside I would politely suggest that the GDP is not the be all and end all of a good nation.

well, we did pay 15,000,000 big ones for that, but for mexico it was either sell or risk full annexation, I cede the point; but I place the blame squarely on Texas:p .
First rule of American politics, blaim Texas. ;)
*Flees from the angry Texans*

we bought that area from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, Napolean needed some $$$ to invade someone again.
That was the Mississippi to the west (Around Utah IIRC).

This land grab was part and parcell of the American Revolution, where the British said that the colonies could not expand beyond the mountains into the inteirror (The Ohio River valley, Kentucky and so on). That was given to be Indian land, but the colonist did so any way, usually fighting little wars to drive off the Indians. It was a chief complaint that lead to the US declaring independance and as soon as the war was over, the new nation crashed right into that area, claiming it for its own.

By force, not by purchurce.

Though, yes, most of the United States was bought (Especially if you add in Alaska).

Ah The Republic of Texas. The only state to exist as an independent political entity before joining the Union, and doing so after the question of the civil war – thereby making it the only state with a legal basis to leave the Union.

I love legal loopholes. :D

The largest and most clear? Hawai'i. They were an independent kingdom that we illegally overthrew and annexed, against the will of the monarch and her subjects.

Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands...all current US territories, taken from other powers

Phillippines.

all land past the boundaries and claimed land of the 13 colonies except those that were purchased.

Not examples: the 13 original colonies, Louisiana territory states, Alaska, small part of the US southwest, US Virgin Islands, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island, and Palmyra Atoll.
Mind you that Midway is only inhabited by 40 US Fish and Wildlife staff, Wake Island has 200 civilian contractors, Johnston Atoll has no residents, Kingman reef is under water, Palmyra Atoll is privately owned, and Baker, Howard, Jarvis, and Navassa Islands were all claimed under the guano act for fertalizer, and have no residents.

In other words, out of all of the examples of US territories that are not at all imperial, most of those are because there are no inhabitants on the islands

By far, the most glaring example is Hawai'i.

Ah The Republic of Texas. The only state to exist as an independent political entity before joining the Union, and doing so after the question of the civil war – thereby making it the only state with a legal basis to leave the Union.

I love legal loopholes. :D

Hawai'i has a better loophole, considering we admit that we took it illegally.

Cuba okay you definately know what you're talking about. Give me a break.


uuummm...

Before Castro came in, Cuba was America's colonial bitch. They got sugar for a massively deflated price, and Cuba was the hotspot for American tourists to pick up cheap alcohol and local teenage prostitutes.

Hawai'i has a better loophole, considering we admit that we took it illegally.

Admitted? Which President? I am curious now.

Thought that might be the case, but you never know around here.

Ha ha, true. :p

Admitted? Which President? I am curious now.
President Clinton...the Apology Resolution, passed in 1993
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html

uuummm...

Before Castro came in, Cuba was America's colonial bitch. They got sugar for a massively deflated price, and Cuba was the hotspot for American tourists to pick up cheap alcohol and local teenage prostitutes.

[slaps Cuba's colonial bitch ass]

uuummm...

Before Castro came in, Cuba was America's colonial bitch. They got sugar for a massively deflated price, and Cuba was the hotspot for American tourists to pick up cheap alcohol and local teenage prostitutes.

So are you saying Castro overthrown the USA. I think not. I believe this is another case of America rescuing the Cubans from Spanish control and giving Cuba back to the Cubans. Alas Castro unfortunately shows up and takes the control who himself is a Cuban.

The French Colonization/Imperialism
http://www.discoverfrance.net/Colonies/index.shtml

hmmmm.......I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

We had a chance for Cuba when we freed the Cubans from Spanish control but we didn't. Yes Peurto Rico is considered a US Territory that pays $0 in taxes and reeps all of our benefits and still has their own government.
Your analysis is way off. Puerto Rico is subject to US rule, (it is not politically autonomous), however its residents are not allowed to vote in presidential elections, further it has no franchised Congressional representitive.
'...all our benefits'? WTF, they dont even reap the benefit of representational democracy. The ultimate authority that they are subject to is not subject to their will (or even their periodic vote). This isnt some minor happenstance benefit of US citizenship the Puerto Ricans are systematically denied, this is the most pivotal, most foundational benefit, it's the reason for the whole friggen Union existing for crying out loud! This isnt a benefit of the US, it is the benefit, and Puerto Ricans are denied it by the US.


Oh yes, we even reshaped our border in Mexico.
LOL, so it's not what is done in terms of for instance taking territorial possesion, or subjecting a local populice to imposed dominance....it's about the location of the territory concerned.....:confused:

Nothing that America has ever done or is currently in the process of doing can by any intellectual means be compared to what the British and the French have done.
Such a vast generalisation is just begging to be wrong, and it get's it wish.

Those are the real Imperialist Nations. They were after the control of the World. Not the USA. We are the Champions for the people for freedoms.
Logic's not something you do well is it?
Either the USA is an imperialist nation or it is not. That's is true whether or not France and/or England are, were, or will be imperialist, or 'real imperialist' or suddenly coated in chocolate and served with toasted marshmellows.
It's also true whether or not any nation or no nation wants, or has in the past wanted or will in the future want control of the world, and further it's also true whether or not the USa are the Champions for the people for freedoms.

Evidently you seem to have a very simplistic, poor and frankly erroneous understanding of the word imperialist.

America was never a True Imperialistic nation. So all of the American Bashing idiots claiming how America is an empire and Imperialistic nation and kiss off. Where's the facts to your f*****g claims? All you seem to be doing is running out the mouth. where's the source to America's Imperialism?
Fact: the circumstances of Puerto Rico. The USA invaded the country, it imposed political and economic control over the nation, and continues subject the nation to its imposed rule. We have a name for this kind of thing, aka imperialism....:rolleyes:

You seem to be operating on an absurd kind of non-logic that defies all forms of good sense. So far as I can tell your argument is of the form
X was a Y
X was characterised by Z
A is not characterised by Z
Therefore A is not a Y.
This is an invalid argument form.

Your interpretation, however, is far from accurate. Being imperialistic is not acting like an empire, its actually having one.
No, your understanding of the word imperialistic (and the referents it conveys) is erroneous.

You can't be imperialistic without an empire.
Yes you can.

Its 100% wrong.
No it isnt.

Being an epire means having imperialism over land that is not within your boundaries. Being an empire doesn't mean having an empire.

Apparently empire is a word you also have an erroneous understanding of.
From the Oxford Pocket Dictionary (6th Ed.)
"empireSupreme and extensive (political) dominion".
Having imperialism over land that is not within your boundaries is not a necessary condition for 'supreme and estensive (political) dominion.

So, sadly to say, it is you who fails at the English language. Do not correct on what you do not understand.
Oh dear...
Participating and making mistakes is all part of learning. Reality is such that for humans the choices are to either make mistakes or to remain in permanant and unnecessary ignorance. Your comment not only exposes you to a potential risk of humilation if you do happen to be the one at error, it's also very poor advice. If you are wrong, someone who is right is a potential source of the information needed to join them. Contradicting someone who is in fact correct is often a very effective way of elicting the information needed to arrive at the correct conclusion.

President Clinton...the Apology Resolution, passed in 1993
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawall.html
lol weak (see below)
thanks though
SEC. 3. DISCLAIMER.
Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.

So are you saying Castro overthrown the USA. I think not. I believe this is another case of America rescuing the Cubans from Spanish control and giving Cuba back to the Cubans. Alas Castro unfortunately shows up and takes the control who himself is a Cuban.
You’re joking right?

You do know what the Platt Amendment is don’t you? You do realize that Gauntanamo Bay is a leave over from a much more intrusive policy instrument – one that saw itself enshrined into the Cuban constitution.

lol weak (see below)
thanks though
SEC. 3. DISCLAIMER.
Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.


pathetically weak, yes. But better than nothing. Doesn't hurt that the president at the time of the overthrow disagreed with it (cleveland), but he was out of office before he could reinstate the monarchy.

Actually China is a special case but I will speak of Canada and hope you can see how it applies to other former colonies.

After WWI Canada went back to being a mostly agrarian society, as there was no domestic demand for the industries that developed to fight the war. Canada was going to go back to being an agrarian country again but it was needed to stand as an American ally in the Cold War. So the Americans signed the GATT. It was basically a gift, insofar as it was a huge reversal of the protectionist trade policies. The United States ran trade deficits with many nations after the Second World War – basically siphoning wealth into those countries. Even today it is estimated that something around 80% of the Canadian economy is tied into the United States.

With the Americans maintaining military readiness Canada had a market for its manufactured goods. The American military complex. This of course fostered domestic industries as Canadians then had money to spend on other services and products (a lot of them being American.)

So no, I would say that colonialism provided for these economies I would say that cold war maneuvering did.

And as a final aside I would politely suggest that the GDP is not the be all and end all of a good nation.

Admittedly that is up to your personal point of view, perhaps money is more important perhapsnot. Although Canada was granted Dominon Status in 1867, and technical independance. What happened afterward is Canada's own history, I merely point out the obvious by saying that with colonization comes economic growth.

This points to that colonization in the time frame increased the economies of the colony and mother country, afterwards it dosen't really matter in this particular argument. However I have no wish to argue this further so goodnight.

And I do have to admit that I was ignorant of Hawaii’s history, so thank you for that.

Hmm, I see that there is a Hawaiian separatist movement at play – but it does not have popular backing. I wonder. Is it truly fair to use the democratic method after so many years of assimilation?

Though that begs the question of how else the question is to be settled.

Does the federal government make a proportionally larger transfer to Hawaii – or any such act of contrition.

And I do have to admit that I was ignorant of Hawaii’s history, so thank you for that.

Hmm, I see that there is a Hawaiian separatist movement at play – but it does not have popular backing. I wonder. Is it truly fair to use the democratic method after so many years of assimilation?

Though that begs the question of how else the question is to be settled.

Does the federal government make a proportionally larger transfer to Hawaii – or any such act of contrition.

I'd leave it at if the majority of the population of any state support secession, they should be alowed to.

The whole right to self determination, and the US being founded on that idea and all...

Admittedly that is up to your personal point of view, perhaps money is more important perhapsnot. Although Canada was granted Dominon Status in 1867, and technical independance. What happened afterward is Canada's own history, I merely point out the obvious by saying that with colonization comes economic growth.

This points to that colonization in the time frame increased the economies of the colony and mother country, afterwards it dosen't really matter in this particular argument. However I have no wish to argue this further so goodnight.

Bon nuit.

*twitch*

I don’t know which is worse. That he made such a fallacious statement or that he got the last word…

I'd leave it at if the majority of the population of any state support secession, they should be alowed to.

The whole right to self determination, and the US being founded on that idea and all...

Eh.

From a practical consideration I am going to have to concede the point to you. It is just one of those situations where I am left thinking ‘if only’.

That said US history has never been good about letting states go. (See 1861)

Iraq, Afghanistan,...

Eh.

From a practical consideration I am going to have to concede the point to you. It is just one of those situations where I am left thinking ‘if only’.

That said US history has never been good about letting states go. (See 1861)

So there should have been no American civil war ? The slaves should not have been freed ? Was Lincoln wrong ? Should the Union have dissolved ? Would the World be a better place ?

Just Wondering.

So there should have been no American civil war ? The slaves should not have been freed ? Was Lincoln wrong ? Should the Union have dissolved ? Would the World be a better place ?

Just Wondering.

Yes because African American history after the civil war was nothing but peaches and roses.

The statement was made in relation to the federal government’s likelihood of letting a state secede from the union. I offered not moral judgment on the civil war, and stated merely that it existed.

That my friend would be a whole other debate in and of itself and I would prefer not to go there tonight. You may infer as you like but I assure you I have not offered my impressions one way or another.

The French Colonization/Imperialism
http://www.discoverfrance.net/Colonies/index.shtml

hmmmm.......I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

We had a chance for Cuba when we freed the Cubans from Spanish control but we didn't. Yes Peurto Rico is considered a US Territory that pays $0 in taxes and reeps all of our benefits and still has their own government. Oh yes, we even reshaped our border in Mexico. Nothing that America has ever done or is currently in the process of doing can by any intellectual means be compared to what the British and the French have done. Those are the real Imperialist Nations. They were after the control of the World. Not the USA. We are the Champions for the people for freedoms.Liberia, Phillipines, Guam, American Samoa, Cuba (freed from Spanish control and kept in the hands of pro-American dictators, how free indeed).

And then there's other ones that weren't colonization but certainly imperialist: Iran (with the help of the British), Chile, Greece, South Vietnam...

Eh.

From a practical consideration I am going to have to concede the point to you. It is just one of those situations where I am left thinking ‘if only’.

That said US history has never been good about letting states go. (See 1861)

yeah, not particularly great. I mean, I'm satisfied with the result, but I do think that states that voluntarily join a union have the right to leave. New England was very close to doing so before the south did.

Would definatly create a different power dynamic..."I don't like the president, I'm leaving. see you again in 4 years."

Personally I would love it, but there would be a lot of complications in that kind of a system. Like NORAD installations. If New England dropped who gets the Norfolk shipyards etc.

And would you have to mint a new currency every eight years or so?

I’m out for the night.

ciao

Personally I would love it, but there would be a lot of complications in that kind of a system. Like NORAD installations. If New England dropped who gets the Norfolk shipyards etc.

And would you have to mint a new currency every eight years or so?

I have the feeling that if it became something like that, they would make some kind of different process, or just stop readmitting a state

The French Colonization/Imperialism
http://www.discoverfrance.net/Colonies/index.shtml

hmmmm.......I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

We had a chance for Cuba when we freed the Cubans from Spanish control but we didn't. Yes Peurto Rico is considered a US Territory that pays $0 in taxes and reeps all of our benefits and still has their own government. Oh yes, we even reshaped our border in Mexico. Nothing that America has ever done or is currently in the process of doing can by any intellectual means be compared to what the British and the French have done. Those are the real Imperialist Nations. They were after the control of the World. Not the USA. We are the Champions for the people for freedoms.

you overlooked the phillipines..maybe they were gratefull we fought the japenese...but the fact remains,we are still there.

the french and brits caused us more problems then i can write..but we are just as guilty with our industrialists wanting to be gods of the world.

The French Colonization/Imperialism
http://www.discoverfrance.net/Colonies/index.shtml

hmmmm.......I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

We had a chance for Cuba when we freed the Cubans from Spanish control but we didn't. Yes Peurto Rico is considered a US Territory that pays $0 in taxes and reeps all of our benefits and still has their own government. Oh yes, we even reshaped our border in Mexico. Nothing that America has ever done or is currently in the process of doing can by any intellectual means be compared to what the British and the French have done. Those are the real Imperialist Nations. They were after the control of the World. Not the USA. We are the Champions for the people for freedoms."freed the cubans"?...funny that, is that why Castro had so much support when he threw the government-cuba was nothing more than an american fiefdom

american colonies that come to mind-Hawaii,alaska, guam, american samoa, virgin islands, marshall islands, guacamole bay, cuba, so many central american nations invaded that i lost count, phillipines, large parts of Mexico, peurto rico....that the USA no longer controls some is irrelevant as France is no longer present in most of their former colonies either. and imperialism isn't all about controling land it's also about control a countries economics, resources and government through intimidation either politically or militarily.

Is the USA an Imperialist nation, absolutely, the worst on the planet at the moment.It's your attitude that mirrors your governments foreign policy that so many billions despise the USA but you are either to arrogant or dimwitted to understand that.

Leaving aside the problem noted by so many others that the OP seems to be largely ignorant of past and/or present US control or direct conquest of territory (in Puerto Rico, Guam, the former Trust Territory of the Pacific, the Phillippines, what was once northern Mexico and the more debatable case of Liberia) the real problem with the OP's argument is that he automatically assumes that Imperial power equates with territorial control.

Many empires in history provide examples of cases where the core empire's control of outlying territory was undertaken through compliant client states rather than direct territorial control. In some cases the core empire also stationed troops in these client states.

Whether those countries with established American bases or established military alliances with the United States count as 'client states' in the generally implied historical sense is perhaps best left for history to judge. But certainly the United States is able to project military power to almost any corner of the globe through the use of a network of near-sovereign military bases usually established with the compliance (Guantanamo excepted) of the relevant governing power. In a couple of cases - notably the British Indian Ocean Territory - these military bases have essentially entirely taken over control of the territorial jurisdiction in question. In other cases the recognised central government authority arguably has little choice but to accept the presence of the military bases.

I'm not attempting to argue whether or not this ability to project military power is a good thing or a bad thing. Nor am I claiming that American imperialism is inherently a good thing or a bad thing.

What I am doing is arguing that the ability to project military power through the presence of virtually sovereign military bases is a form of imperialism, irrespective of whether we consider that to be a good thing or a bad thing. 'Imperialism' isn't simply the control of territorial colonies.

No doubt some may be tempted to respond by noting that the presence of the bases requires a certain acquiescence of the home country, which is true (note, for example, former US colony the Philippines insisting on the closure of the main US naval base in the country). It's also true that the theoretical ability to project military power across the globe doesn't necessarily translate to an actual ability to project that power (as the North Koreans and Iranians are currently demonstrating). But this doesn't change the fact that the network of bases exists, that it is unlikely to be closed down or seriously reduced, and that the United States is able to project military power on other continents in a historically unprecedented manner.

And going back to the OP's territory-based argument, I'll simply note that any territory in the United States (here defined as territories sending voting representatives to Congress) outside of the original extent of the nation at independence - in essence virtually everything west of the Mississippi was acquired through means that many reasonable people would consider 'colonial'. The Louisiana Purchase consisted of the purchase of the French colonial claim to a vast swathe of territory without the consent of either the indigenous or colonial population of that territory (ditto Alaska, replacing 'French' with 'Russian'), while California and much of the southwest were taken in a war of naked territorial expansion against Mexico. Texas and Hawaii are slightly different again, but only in the case of Texas could you make a case for annexation through the acquiescence of the recognised democratic government of the territory in question (and I'm sure a lot of Hispanic Texans would take issue with that statement).


I'll leave it to someone else to make an economic case for imperialism if that hasn't already been done.

Fact: the circumstances of Puerto Rico. The USA invaded the country, it imposed political and economic control over the nation, and continues subject the nation to its imposed rule. We have a name for this kind of thing, aka imperialism....:rolleyes:

Am I the only one who is aware that every time Puerto Rico has taken a vote on either independence or statehood, they have voted against both? Which means the US is not imposing anything on PR. While the government here did at one time, the fact they have decided several times to stay a protectorate says they are no longer being imposed on.

Am I the only one who is aware that every time Puerto Rico has taken a vote on either independence or statehood, they have voted against both? Which means the US is not imposing anything on PR. While the government here did at one time, the fact they have decided several times to stay a protectorate says they are no longer being imposed on.

if you control a country long enough those that did object get old and die, wait two or three generations and assimilation is complete.

Tibet if they could have an election now would vote for the Chinese invaders to leave, in another 10-20 yrs the chinese could hold a vote and Tibet would appear to want to stay in China....because ethnic Chinese will outnumber Tibets, all very democratic.....

I know among native Hawaiian's there is an independence movement but if there is an election for independence what chance do they have, they are massively outnumbered by immigrant americans

Am I the only one who is aware that every time Puerto Rico has taken a vote on either independence or statehood, they have voted against both?
No, and by the same token I'm convinced I'm not the only one who is aware that as a result of the USA's interference in Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico is utterly dependent on the US (for instance I suspect a goodly number of Puerto Ricans realise this).

Which means the US is not imposing anything on PR.
Having caused a circumstance in which Puerto Rico is dependent on the economic subsidizing that comes along with acquising to US rule, and therefore having imposed the conditions that make independence utterly implausable, the argument that no imposition is involved is ludicrous.

While the government here did at one time, the fact they have decided several times to stay a protectorate says they are no longer being imposed on.
No it doesnt, it suggests that the alternative is considered less desirable. It doesnt prove that the lack of a better alternative wasnt caused by the US's actions.

It doesnt prove that the effects of imperialism are not still a (or the cause) of continuing dependence, nor that the US couldnt and shouldnt do more to actually put Puerto Rica in a position where autonomy is a viable alternative so that it is possible for Puerto Rico to make a decision about their status as a protectorate, free from the cohersion that stems from the only alternative being unviable, and more to the point unviable due to the way the US has chosen to exercise the authority it subjected Puerto Rico to.

Nobody colonizes like the British.

Nobody colonizes like the British.Russians have 'em beat. They still own most of their colonies.

The French Colonization/Imperialism
http://www.discoverfrance.net/Colonies/index.shtml

hmmmm.......I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

We had a chance for Cuba when we freed the Cubans from Spanish control but we didn't. Yes Peurto Rico is considered a US Territory that pays $0 in taxes and reeps all of our benefits and still has their own government. Oh yes, we even reshaped our border in Mexico. Nothing that America has ever done or is currently in the process of doing can by any intellectual means be compared to what the British and the French have done. Those are the real Imperialist Nations. They were after the control of the World. Not the USA. We are the Champions for the people for freedoms.

So guess you just brought "freedom" to these nations and peoples??

American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island
note: from 18 July 1947 until 1 October 1994, the US administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; it entered into a political relationship with all four political units: the Northern Mariana Islands is a commonwealth in political union with the US (effective 3 November 1986); the Republic of the Marshall Islands signed a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 21 October 1986); the Federated States of Micronesia signed a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 3 November 1986); Palau concluded a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 1 October 1994).

Go back to high school!!

Russians have 'em beat. They still own most of their colonies.

Although the British have slipped from their glory days of running the biggest and most populus empire the world has ever seen, Queen Elizabeth II is still head of state of 16 countries.

Not to throw a spanner into the works here people but Imperialism in my eyes does not neccessitate conquering and inhabiting a country. More and more so in recent years the world is being controlled and dominated by large corporations (ie BP, Esso, Nike etc). Just look at all of the 8 year old kids working 18 hour days in p;aces like Thailand.

If a "Super-power" can invade a country and place enough workers, and seaze control over said countries exports (ie oil) they stand to make a good profit from doing so. Despite doing so under a veil of "A war on terrorism" by placing false links between one evil dictator and a known leader of a terrorist organisation (no names mentioned lol) this still stinks of Imperialism because the "Super-power" stands to make more out of the war than the country being "set free"!

Although the British have slipped from their glory days of running the biggest and most populus empire the world has ever seen, Queen Elizabeth II is still head of state of 16 countries.

I'm fairly certain most of the British would admit the monarchy are a little defunkt now and really only there due to tradition and serve no real purpose. Don't get me wrong however, the queen is an excellent spokesperson and ambassador for our country, highly elloquent and a good negotiator. Just wish Mr Bush was as clever as she! lol

The point is is that America in no way can be compared to the Imperialists of Britain and France. They are the ones who were mapped all over the world not the USA. Yes, we ended up in North America and after our country was founded as the United States of America our reign stopped and our country realized that Imperialism isn't the way to go. Now, in today's society, who are we taking land from?

You utter utter idiot.

What about everything fucking american indian tribe in north america? Or do they not count? The wars with Mexico? How do you think the original USA made it all the way to the east coast? fuzzy feelings?
1789 - 1849 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_%281789%E2%80%931849%29)

Why even make such a stupid thread?
Most people would agree that the USA is a positive force as opposed to a negative force in recent history. But they have made mistakes, like every nation. So don't try and white wash your past.

There was no language failure there. In actuality, you are the one who failed. He said America is claiming to be an empire. Claiming to be imperialistic. But its not. And that's what he says. Its valid and makes perfect sense.

Your interpretation, however, is far from accurate. Being imperialistic is not acting like an empire, its actually having one. You can't be imperialistic without an empire. Its 100% wrong. Being an epire means having imperialism over land that is not within your boundaries. Being an empire doesn't mean having an empire.

So, sadly to say, it is you who fails at the English language. Do not correct on what you do not understand.


LMAO
you suck.
You too fail at english and do not correct what you do not understand.

The ONLY criteria for an empire, is that it is ruled by an emperor, or emperess.

America wasn't like Britain or France. It didn't go around the world stealing the lands of the natives and forcing them to work like subhuman citizens. They didn't march into homes and demand obediance. They didn't use their technology to ruin the lives of Million of people all over the World.

They stuck to North America.

America wasn't like Britain or France. It didn't go around the world stealing the lands of the natives and forcing them to work like subhuman citizens. They didn't march into homes and demand obediance. They didn't use their technology to ruin the lives of Million of people all over the World.

They stuck to North America.
The Philipines are in North America? When did this happen?

In response to the OP: The sheer level of your ignorance is frightening.

Leaving aside the brutal colonisation of what was to become the USA (massacring and dispossessing Native Americans), and leaving aside the invasion of the Philippines and the use of Cuba as a puppet State under Batista:

The USA was a colonial power in the Pacific. The most obvious case being that of Hawai'i. Hawai'i was an independent kingdom, recognised as a sovereign nation by the international community. It was invaded and forcefully annexed by the USA, the legitimate Hawaiian government overthrown.

Other than that, the USA colonised Micronesia, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Guam and Eastern Samoa. The former three are now independent countries, but very strongly within the US' sphere of influence. (Have you ever wondered why Palau and the Marshall Islands constantly vote the same as the US in the United Nations, even when all 189 other member nations, except sometimes Israel, vote the opposite? Palau and the M.I. have much to gain by remaining compliant to the dictates of their former colonial master).

Guam and American Samoa, of course, remain US overseas territories to this day. Not that the people there (especially American Samoans) necessarily resent it. But claiming that the US has never colonised foreign countries is, if not an outright lie, a proof of extreme ignorance.

Why is colonialism seen as such a bad thing. Well... yes, I know, the oppression and such. Seriously though, look at ex-colonial states these days. China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Algeria, Tunisia, Australia, USA, Canada... It seems that in a lot of cases (not all, I note) the colonies actually benefit from their exploitation in the form of an economic infrastructure for post-colonial developement. As such, you could argue the case for neo-colonialism based on a fair and regulated repetition of the centuries old habit based upon a foundation of developement and mutual benefit.

*zips on flame suit*

Why is colonialism seen as such a bad thing. Well... yes, I know, the oppression and such. Seriously though, look at ex-colonial states these days. China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Algeria, Tunisia, Australia, USA, Canada... It seems that in a lot of cases (not all, I note) the colonies actually benefit from their exploitation in the form of an economic infrastructure for post-colonial developement. As such, you could argue the case for neo-colonialism based on a fair and regulated repetition of the centuries old habit based upon a foundation of developement and mutual benefit.

*zips on flame suit*

The entire continent of Africa contradicts your point.

The point is is that America in no way can be compared to the Imperialists of Britain and France. They are the ones who were mapped all over the world not the USA. Yes, we ended up in North America and after our country was founded as the United States of America our reign stopped and our country realized that Imperialism isn't the way to go. Now, in today's society, who are we taking land from?

Open your mind, sire. The USA is at the throne of the largest empire the world has seen. It is just a new kind of empire. Gone are the days of imperial armies, outposts, govenors and such. The US empire is not a military one, nor is it naval. No, the American empire is economic. Why forcibly oppress people into obedience when you can just buy them consensually. Everywhere you look you see the trappings of the US empire, no matter where you are in the world. From the deepest jungles to the amazon, to the centre of Shanghai you will see the fruits of consumerism. I hear (perhaps unfounded myth) that the Coca Cola symbol is the most widely recognised in the world. I challenge you to spend $1 which does not somehow benefit the US economy. It can be done, but it is damn hard.

That being said, whilst the US empire is certainly the most powerful and pervasive of all empires in history, it is also easily the most benevolent.

The entire continent of Africa contradicts your point.
No, the entire continent of Africa constitutes one giant exception, I feel. Them and PNG. Africa is Africa, it is a whole different Kettle of Fish. Admittedly though, Africa is what can happen if you do colonialism in the wrong way, and at the wrong time. Africa wasn't like Asia. There were no formal countries or even properly developed economies when the colonialists came through. The countries of Africa were often drawn up with no regard to the people who lived there. Yeah, africa is what not to do. Mind you, South Africa did ok, so too with Zimbabwe (until recently).

Technically never a colony, but close.

Actually, as I recall it was technically under U.S. control until it declared itself independent in 1847.

However, it was not a traditional colony.

No, the entire continent of Africa constitutes one giant exception, I feel. Them and PNG. Africa is Africa, it is a whole different Kettle of Fish. Admittedly though, Africa is what can happen if you do colonialism in the wrong way, and at the wrong time. Africa wasn't like Asia. There were no formal countries or even properly developed economies when the colonialists came through. The countries of Africa were often drawn up with no regard to the people who lived there. Yeah, africa is what not to do. Mind you, South Africa did ok, so too with Zimbabwe (until recently).

Having said that though, there was quite a lot of pressure to grant independence to much of Africa after the war, and many imperialists, whether cynically or more sincerely, felt that things were being rushed through too quickly for their own good. Sometimes one can't but feel that maybe they were right... but I don't know what would have happened otherwise.

One must also remember that Britain was not always 'bad' in Afirca. It did try to protect the natives from white political domination in various settler colonies (Bechuanaland, Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Kenya etc.)... the fear of southern Africa falling under South African influence and going apartheid was quite big. Unfortunately, we did still end up with the whole Rhodesia/Zimbabwe business.

even properly developed economies

There were small economies. They may have been tribal and very simple, but they worked.

In response to the OP: The sheer level of your ignorance is frightening.

Leaving aside the brutal colonisation of what was to become the USA (massacring and dispossessing Native Americans), and leaving aside the invasion of the Philippines and the use of Cuba as a puppet State under Batista:

The USA was a colonial power in the Pacific. The most obvious case being that of Hawai'i. Hawai'i was an independent kingdom, recognised as a sovereign nation by the international community. It was invaded and forcefully annexed by the USA, the legitimate Hawaiian government overthrown.

Other than that, the USA colonised Micronesia, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Guam and Eastern Samoa. The former three are now independent countries, but very strongly within the US' sphere of influence. (Have you ever wondered why Palau and the Marshall Islands constantly vote the same as the US in the United Nations, even when all 189 other member nations, except sometimes Israel, vote the opposite? Palau and the M.I. have much to gain by remaining compliant to the dictates of their former colonial master).

Guam and American Samoa, of course, remain US overseas territories to this day. Not that the people there (especially American Samoans) necessarily resent it. But claiming that the US has never colonised foreign countries is, if not an outright lie, a proof of extreme ignorance.

First of all, I did mention Hawaii (no apostrophe). Yes, there were a few other small islands but if you were to check history. The USA in no way, shape, or form can be compared to what France and Great Britain did. We, in no way, colonized as many different lands that the French has done.

You may want to read the title to the thread again. It is simply comparing the USA and the French when it amounts to colonization. Add the land masses up and you shall find that the French over their History has colonized a hell of a lot more than what the USA's history has done.

God Bless America!!!

First of all, I did mention Hawaii (no apostrophe). Yes, there were a few other small islands but if you were to check history. The USA in no way, shape, or form can be compared to what France and Great Britain did. We, in no way, colonized as many different lands that the French has done.

You may want to read the title to the thread again. It is simply comparing the USA and the French when it amounts to colonization. Add the land masses up and you shall find that the French over their History has colonized a hell of a lot more than what the USA's history has done.


I'm not disputing that. Obviously France has invaded and colonised a lot more countries than the US has, and that is, for the most part, a shameful (and lengthy) chapter in my nation's history. (Not to mention ongoing issues such as New Caledonia.)

I was pointing out that you were mistaken when you said this:


I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

To the inhabitants of countries colonised by the US, this is hardly incidental. To take but the example of Samoa, the US entered into negotiations with Great Britain and Germany to carve up Samoa and colonise it. Great Britain withdrew, with concessions, and the US and Germany divided up Samoa between themselves. The USA was a colonial power in the Pacific, behaving like any other colonial power.

Also, your claim that the US is "the Champions for the people for freedoms" is also inaccurate, given the US' record of overthrowing democratic governments and installing, arming, funding and supporting oppressive dictatorships. Not that the US' record in terms of foreign policy is all bad; far from it. But don't be so simplistic.

No, the entire continent of Africa constitutes one giant exception, I feel. Them and PNG. Africa is Africa, it is a whole different Kettle of Fish. Admittedly though, Africa is what can happen if you do colonialism in the wrong way, and at the wrong time. Africa wasn't like Asia. There were no formal countries or even properly developed economies when the colonialists came through. The countries of Africa were often drawn up with no regard to the people who lived there. Yeah, africa is what not to do. Mind you, South Africa did ok, so too with Zimbabwe (until recently).

You Sir are wrong! There were a number of nation states in Africa, some of which pre-dated the European states that destroyed them. To name but a few; Songhay Empire, Herro, Tippu Tib's Domain, Luba, Zimbabwe, Fulani Empire, Kanem, Ethiopia, Karamanali Dynasty, Egypt adn the Sultanate of Sokoto.

Everywhere west of the original 13 states are the American Empire.

Also, your claim that the US is "the Champions for the people for freedoms" is also inaccurate, given the US' record of overthrowing democratic governments and installing, arming, funding and supporting oppressive dictatorships. Not that the US' record in terms of foreign policy is all bad; far from it. But don't be so simplistic.

And thus formed "Client States", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_kingdom)which is another form of imperialism.

First of all, I did mention Hawaii (no apostrophe). Yes, there were a few other small islands but if you were to check history. The USA in no way, shape, or form can be compared to what France and Great Britain did.

Tell that to the Cherokee, the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota (Souix), the Illini, the Iroquis (several of these may be spelled wrong), Cree, Navajo, Seminoles, Pomo, Miwuk, Yahna, and the dozens of others whose land was taken by the United States, and who had multiple treaties broken by the US.

Your ignorance of the rather unpleasant parts of our nation's history astounds me. I don't see how you can say that the conquest of vast swaths of North America was all that different from imperial adventures in Africa and Asia.

Not to mention the US domination of many other nations in the Western Hemsiphere, what with overthrowing their elected governments and installing brutal dictators and all.

The French Colonization/Imperialism
http://www.discoverfrance.net/Colonies/index.shtml

hmmmm.......I've looked everywhere's and couldn't find any other nation in the entire world that the USA has colonized in other than the United States of America which includes Hawaii and Alaska.

How wrong can you be? Let me count.

1) Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipenes, Panama.

2) In addition to being simply wrong, your statement is also based on a faulty premise. If you conquer a place and then declare it to be a part of your country as France did with Algeria (listed in your own source as a colonization effort) you've still conquered it. That's what we did with Hawaii. It was a forcible conquering. The fact that we consider it a state does nothing to white-wash how we got it.

3) Add to that the fact that many of the states in the union were carved out of "territories" that had belonged to Native American's that were forced onto reservations.

You not being able to see how the US has colonized places is like standing in Times Square and not being able to see Manhattan.

4) And if all that weren't enough. Is that where conservatives' standards are these days? "USA, we're not as bad as France."

You Sir are wrong! There were a number of nation states in Africa, some of which pre-dated the European states that destroyed them. To name but a few; Songhay Empire, Herro, Tippu Tib's Domain, Luba, Zimbabwe, Fulani Empire, Kanem, Ethiopia, Karamanali Dynasty, Egypt adn the Sultanate of Sokoto.

What he means is that the colonizers didn't consider them countries and that's good enough for him. Just like how Somaliland, which has a functioning government, isn't conisdered a country, but Somalia, which has no functioning government, is considered a country.