User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/30/2014 11:50:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head when you termed it "Economic Imperialism."
I believe most would say that it started during the industrial revolution and was in full force after WWII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2014 11:57:51 PM EDT
[#2]
When did we take the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and Cuba? Because I would say that was when we were an Empire.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2014 11:59:02 PM EDT
[#3]
The word 'empire' is derived from the latin, 'imperium' which indicated the power of life or death held by senior Roman magistrates or pro-magistrates. Virgil used 'imperium' to indicate that Rome (the state, personified by Augustus) had the power to adjudicate (ie, give commands that were not negotiable) to all the known world. The modern United States without a doubt demonstrates that it wishes to dictate the affairs of the rest of the world - just because we are not always successful doesn't change that fact, and unlike the US populace, the rest of the world sort of noticed this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:01:28 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When did we take the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and Cuba? Because I would say that was when we were an Empire. The Spanish-American War of 1892. In the aftermath, we decided to hold on to all of the former Spanish territories, because, at that point in time, the thought that we needed to be more like Europeans was really starting to take hold in the U.S Government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:03:58 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:05:03 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Spanish-American War of 18921898. In the aftermath, we decided to hold on to all some of the former Spanish territories, because, at that point in time, the thought that we needed to be more like Europeans was really starting to take hold in the U.S Government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When did we take the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and Cuba? Because I would say that was when we were an Empire. The Spanish-American War of 18921898. In the aftermath, we decided to hold on to all some of the former Spanish territories, because, at that point in time, the thought that we needed to be more like Europeans was really starting to take hold in the U.S Government. We let Cuba go except for Guantanamo Bay, kept Puerto Rico & Guam, and let the Phillipines lose in '46. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:07:54 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We let Cuba go except for Guantanamo Bay, kept Puerto Rico & Guam, and let the Phillipines lose in '46. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When did we take the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and Cuba? Because I would say that was when we were an Empire. The Spanish-American War of 18921898. In the aftermath, we decided to hold on to all some of the former Spanish territories, because, at that point in time, the thought that we needed to be more like Europeans was really starting to take hold in the U.S Government. We let Cuba go except for Guantanamo Bay, kept Puerto Rico & Guam, and let the Phillipines lose in '46. Thank you for correcting me on my dates and places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:15:56 AM EDT
[#8]
Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine?
 i have no idea
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:32:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for correcting me on my dates and places. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: The Spanish-American War of 18921898. In the aftermath, we decided to hold on to all some of the former Spanish territories, because, at that point in time, the thought that we needed to be more like Europeans was really starting to take hold in the U.S Government. We let Cuba go except for Guantanamo Bay, kept Puerto Rico & Guam, and let the Phillipines lose in '46. Thank you for correcting me on my dates and places. It was the Krag rifle of 1892 that won us those places.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:42:38 AM EDT
[#10]
I would say that we've never been an empire in the sense of imposing our culture. Not in the sense of the Romans, Spanish, British, etc.
Economically and militarily to an extent. But we've generally left the natives to their own devices. And I'd add that we have never been very successful at imposing our ideals either. Post war Japan being a possible exception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:51:01 AM EDT
[#11]
1898, Remember the Maine and to Hell with Spain. The Spanish Empire had been on its death bed for many years and Teddy Roosevelt (among others) wanted to get some imperial possessions for USA before they were all gobbled up by various European powers.
During this period, Germany and Belgium were very active in exploiting Africa and the British were going to have a nasty war with the Boers over South Africa. Spain was definitely the weakest target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:01:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would say that we've never been an empire in the sense of imposing our culture. Not in the sense of the Romans, Spanish, British, etc. Economically and militarily to an extent. But we've generally left the natives to their own devices. And I'd add that we have never been very successful at imposing our ideals either. Post war Japan being a possible exception. The thing is, we've honestly never tried that approach. Part of what I'm asking is that if we followed those exact same tactics, when would we have been able to pull it off. My first date listed, I chose as we were still pretty well experienced, and had the capability to raise a large army, and build a large navy. The one we had was more than sufficient to damage anything thrown at us from any world power of the time so long as we could get there. The other thing, is the British and the French were beginning to lose their grip on many of their colonies due to the wars between them and manpower and treasure being lost. The European Continent was facing troubles where they were being forced to place a larger emphasis, and use more indigenous troops to hold their colonies in Africa and elsewhere. The Germans / Prussians were a constant force of territorial disputes both in Europe proper and in some of the contested regions of Africa. The Spanish had pretty much been reduced to holding what they had and really contracting and trying to hang on to key strategic territories. There was definitely a void in parts of Africa, Pacific Islands, and South America where we may have been able to gain a foothold and claim territory. The European powers were stretched thin, and may not have had the resources to risk putting their best troops, or many of them in any places we may have attempted to take from them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:05:54 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1898, Remember the Maine and to Hell with Spain. The Spanish Empire had been on its death bed for many years and Teddy Roosevelt (among others) wanted to get some imperial possessions for USA before they were all gobbled up by various European powers. During this period, Germany and Belgium were very active in exploiting Africa and the British were going to have a nasty war with the Boers over South Africa. Spain was definitely the weakest target. I was writing what I just did when you wrote that. I was thinking though that some of those weaknesses were showing in the early to mid 1800s, and that additional pressure from another major player like the USA would have been too much for any of those nations to continue to bear. I think we'd have likely forced the formation of an alliance between nations, possibly the US and the French vs the UK, and vs the near Prussian Empire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:12:58 AM EDT
[#14]
the US is probably more accurately described as colonial rather than imperial. this is a gross oversimplification, but you could say that colonialism is about land and resources, while imperialism is about people. in the era of manifest destiny, the regime was one of 'settlement colonialism', very much like britain in australia. in brief, land area was identified as 'terra nullius', or unoccupied land that was therefore available for appropriation. the fact that the land wasn't unoccupied was completely dismissed, and anyone who made noise got pushed out. but the british in australia and the americans in the territories didn't give a shit about ruling anyone--they just wanted the land and resources.
this opens up into a very long conversation about 'hard' vs. 'soft' colonialism. the former is a lot like imperialism--the military is out in front. in soft colonialism, the settlers and entrepreneurs are out front, backed by the implicit (or even explicit) threat of the military behind them. the latter is what the US has traditionally practiced. essentially, you set up shop in someone's yard, and make them start the fight. this connects up with neoliberalism, which is the 'economic colonialism' that we take a lot of heat for. the argument goes that the unlike resource colonialism, the US now engages in a kind of 'market colonialism'. on this view, we cajole, bribe, and/or bully anyone who won't allow us access to their market space. as a gloss, we're seen as drug dealers trying to get everyone hooked on capitalism. we give out free economic heroin, knowing that undeveloped countries will become addicted and we'll get their resources and capital in the end. if they don't cooperate, we find ways to sabotage them until they are forced to. more directly to your question, the US engaged in settlement colonialism until the contiguous 48 were consolidated. we had no compunction about using the threat of military action (remember "54.40 or fight"?), or out-and-out warfare. only after the internal consolidation was accomplished was foreign colonialism (like the british in india) really practical--this brings us to about the beginning of the 20th century. but by that point, settlement colonialism on a global scale was less practical, if for no other reason than there was very little "unoccupied" land left to colonize. so any form of colonization would have started to resemble invasion-based imperialism--something that the nation rejected on ideological grounds. i'm not trying to give a comprehensive answer here--just to sketch out some meat for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:21:34 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The thing is, we've honestly never tried that approach. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I would say that we've never been an empire in the sense of imposing our culture. Not in the sense of the Romans, Spanish, British, etc. Economically and militarily to an extent. But we've generally left the natives to their own devices. And I'd add that we have never been very successful at imposing our ideals either. Post war Japan being a possible exception. The thing is, we've honestly never tried that approach. no sane person will deny that the US has directly sponsored "the spread of democracy and capitalism" around the globe. i personally feel that this is a good thing, but it can't be denied that it is imposing our culture on others, whether they want it or not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:24:33 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the US is probably more accurately described as colonial rather than imperial. this is a gross oversimplification, but you could say that colonialism is about land and resources, while imperialism is about people. in the era of manifest destiny, the regime was one of 'settlement colonialism', very much like britain in australia. in brief, land area was identified as 'terra nullius', or unoccupied land that was therefore available for appropriation. the fact that the land wasn't unoccupied was completely dismissed, and anyone who made noise got pushed out. but the british in australia and the americans in the territories didn't give a shit about ruling anyone--they just wanted the land and resources. this opens up into a very long conversation about 'hard' vs. 'soft' colonialism. the former is a lot like imperialism--the military is out in front. in soft colonialism, the settlers and entrepreneurs are out front, backed by the implicit (or even explicit) threat of the military behind them. the latter is what the US has traditionally practiced. essentially, you set up shop in someone's yard, and make them start the fight. this connects up with neoliberalism, which is the 'economic colonialism' that we take a lot of heat for. the argument goes that the unlike resource colonialism, the US now engages in a kind of 'market colonialism'. on this view, we cajole, bribe, and/or bully anyone who won't allow us access to their market space. as a gloss, we're seen as drug dealers trying to get everyone hooked on capitalism. we give out free economic heroin, knowing that undeveloped countries will become addicted and we'll get their resources and capital in the end. if they don't cooperate, we find ways to sabotage them until they are forced to. more directly to your question, the US engaged in settlement colonialism until the contiguous 48 were consolidated. we had no compunction about using the threat of military action (remember "54.40 or fight"?), or out-and-out warfare. only after the internal consolidation was accomplished was foreign colonialism (like the british in india) really practical--this brings us to about the beginning of the 20th century. but by that point, settlement colonialism on a global scale was less practical, if for no other reason than there was very little "unoccupied" land left to colonize. so any form of colonization would have started to resemble invasion-based imperialism--something that the nation rejected on ideological grounds. i'm not trying to give a comprehensive answer here--just to sketch out some meat for discussion. Delicious and tasty meat. Good info. This sort of cerebral discussion is what I'm after. There are far greater minds than mine on this site, and I have learned a ton. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:30:19 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was writing what I just did when you wrote that. I was thinking though that some of those weaknesses were showing in the early to mid 1800s, and that additional pressure from another major player like the USA would have been too much for any of those nations to continue to bear. I think we'd have likely forced the formation of an alliance between nations, possibly the US and the French vs the UK, and vs the near Prussian Empire. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1898, Remember the Maine and to Hell with Spain. The Spanish Empire had been on its death bed for many years and Teddy Roosevelt (among others) wanted to get some imperial possessions for USA before they were all gobbled up by various European powers. During this period, Germany and Belgium were very active in exploiting Africa and the British were going to have a nasty war with the Boers over South Africa. Spain was definitely the weakest target. I was writing what I just did when you wrote that. I was thinking though that some of those weaknesses were showing in the early to mid 1800s, and that additional pressure from another major player like the USA would have been too much for any of those nations to continue to bear. I think we'd have likely forced the formation of an alliance between nations, possibly the US and the French vs the UK, and vs the near Prussian Empire. Considering the US population's sentiments up to around WWII favoring Germany and disliking the British, I think a US & Prussian alliance would have been the most probable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:31:54 AM EDT
[#18]
I tend to think that when the US is referred to as "imperialistic", it's being used facetiously or loosely. I agree that the western land grabs could be considered imperialistic, but I've heard the term used more to represent the present day. That's how I take it when I hear it anyway.
Obviously it doesn't apply to present day in the definition or historical sense because we're not expressly trying to claim lands and declare that we own them. However we're essentially, without verbal declaration, claiming that the entire world is OUR play ground and we will use economics or outright military force to get our way, either to gain trade agreements or kill enemy's of the state, whether we have permission from X,Y & Z governments or not. We are very much acting like an empire without claiming direct ownership of where ever it is we decide to play or meddle. As for the timeline of when we became an "empire", I would guess in the early 1900's, but definitely very common after WW2, where we funded and manipulated countless proxy wars and very eagerly assisted warring nations when asked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:32:13 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no sane person will deny that the US has directly sponsored "the spread of democracy and capitalism" around the globe. i personally feel that this is a good thing, but it can't be denied that it is imposing our culture on others, whether they want it or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would say that we've never been an empire in the sense of imposing our culture. Not in the sense of the Romans, Spanish, British, etc. Economically and militarily to an extent. But we've generally left the natives to their own devices. And I'd add that we have never been very successful at imposing our ideals either. Post war Japan being a possible exception. The thing is, we've honestly never tried that approach. no sane person will deny that the US has directly sponsored "the spread of democracy and capitalism" around the globe. i personally feel that this is a good thing, but it can't be denied that it is imposing our culture on others, whether they want it or not. That's a good point. If only through the growth and spread of mass media / pop culture, we have indeed spread something across the planet. Consumerism, demand for information, hopefully democratic ideals, though that would be denied as coming from us in many places. It seems when we try to impose our idea of "freedom" by force that we always fail. The soft approach, whether that is intentional or not, seems to be the best approach. Let them see what freedom can be about and decide on their own over the years or even decades. Some cultures simply can not be changed. We all know what those are. That is. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:36:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The word 'empire' is derived from the latin, 'imperium' which indicated the power of life or death held by senior Roman magistrates or pro-magistrates. Virgil used 'imperium' to indicate that Rome (the state, personified by Augustus) had the power to adjudicate (ie, give commands that were not negotiable) to all the known world. The modern United States without a doubt demonstrates that it wishes to dictate the affairs of the rest of the world - just because we are not always successful doesn't change that fact, and unlike the US populace, the rest of the world sort of noticed this. Yet those same people will defend the existence of the UN.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 1:56:41 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a good point. If only through the growth and spread of mass media / pop culture, we have indeed spread something across the planet. Consumerism, demand for information, hopefully democratic ideals, though that would be denied as coming from us in many places. It seems when we try to impose our idea of "freedom" by force that we always fail. The soft approach, whether that is intentional or not, seems to be the best approach. Let them see what freedom can be about and decide on their own over the years or even decades. Some cultures simply can not be changed. We all know what those are. That is. Whatever. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... That's a good point. If only through the growth and spread of mass media / pop culture, we have indeed spread something across the planet. Consumerism, demand for information, hopefully democratic ideals, though that would be denied as coming from us in many places. It seems when we try to impose our idea of "freedom" by force that we always fail. The soft approach, whether that is intentional or not, seems to be the best approach. Let them see what freedom can be about and decide on their own over the years or even decades. Some cultures simply can not be changed. We all know what those are. That is. Whatever. it works really, really well. in marxist theory, this concept is known as 'hegemony': basically a form if ideological imperialism. gramsci argued that capitalism uses the mass media to control language and meaning in such a way that capitalist ideals become automatically good, due to how the issue is framed. what's interesting is to turn this argument--which is a really good one--around and aim it at the left. i better quit now, or you're going to get an earful of latour, foucault, and discursive struggle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 2:09:58 AM EDT
[#22]
Let's conquer Iceland. We've done it once before & gave it back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 2:10:10 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it works really, really well. in marxist theory, this concept is known as 'hegemony': basically a form if ideological imperialism. gramsci argued that capitalism uses the mass media to control language and meaning in such a way that capitalist ideals become automatically good, due to how the issue is framed. what's interesting is to turn this argument--which is a really good one--around and aim it at the left. i better quit now, or you're going to get an earful of latour, foucault, and discursive struggle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... That's a good point. If only through the growth and spread of mass media / pop culture, we have indeed spread something across the planet. Consumerism, demand for information, hopefully democratic ideals, though that would be denied as coming from us in many places. It seems when we try to impose our idea of "freedom" by force that we always fail. The soft approach, whether that is intentional or not, seems to be the best approach. Let them see what freedom can be about and decide on their own over the years or even decades. Some cultures simply can not be changed. We all know what those are. That is. Whatever. it works really, really well. in marxist theory, this concept is known as 'hegemony': basically a form if ideological imperialism. gramsci argued that capitalism uses the mass media to control language and meaning in such a way that capitalist ideals become automatically good, due to how the issue is framed. what's interesting is to turn this argument--which is a really good one--around and aim it at the left. i better quit now, or you're going to get an earful of latour, foucault, and discursive struggle. I'm here to learn, so please continue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 2:53:58 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm here to learn, so please continue. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... I'm here to learn, so please continue. i really should be working instead of posting, but here's a short illustration: think about the word "liberty". if we go to the dictionary, we see that it denotes (identifies) a number of very specific individual ideas. now, you and i are americans, and when we hear the word 'liberty', we associate it with good stuff--things like ordered liberty, rule of law, the principle of non-interference, and so on. these are connotations--external concepts that get attached to the term, and sort of bootstrap onto it. this is a legacy of how the word is used in the language of our political philosophy and history. but the word 'libertine' invokes a different idea--libertines are generally thought of as bad, right? they don't restrict themselves to prosocial behaviors. so even though the denotations might be very similar (lack of inhibitions), the connotations are very different. the philosopher foucault really dug into connotations, and formalized a theory on how they get bootstrapped onto specific terms in the socio-political arena. in his view, the process is intrinsically a political one--we shape the meanings of words to meet our needs or help our agenda. the shaped language is called "discourse". and discourse controls what can and cannot be said in a conversation, because meanings are controlled by it--if a term doesn't have a meaning in a discourse, then that language has a kind of 'blind spot'. and some terms are used so often that their connotative baggage is essentially forgotten, and those layers of additional meaning are taken to be denotations--just part of the literal definition. so in the american political discourse, "liberty" becomes automatically a good thing--something that can't even be questioned. since it is never correct to say that liberty is bad, then anything we can associate with that word also becomes automatically good. if you think of language as a web or network, the political goal is to find those always-good terms (like 'liberty', or 'the environment'), and start connecting your ideas up with them. so back to economics and colonization, the american neocolonial project is first to control the meanings of words such that open markets are seen as always good. once we can convince some underdeveloped nation of that, we can move in and use our tremendous capital advantages to get the better of the deal (think of mom and pop stores trying to compete with wal-mart). shit--i'm going to go on and on here. basically, political struggle is fundamentally about control of language and meaning. if you can control what can and can't be said, you can control what can and can't be thought. this is the essence of discourse theory, and it plays out in very interesting geopolitical ways. for further reading, wiki foucault on discourse, lefebvre and harvey on the production of space, and gramsci on hegemony. this literature is very heavily marx-influenced, but as i wrote above, the arguments cut both ways. i actually use these logics to short-circuit and undercut a lot of leftist arguments. you should see their faces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 3:00:56 AM EDT
[#25]
Imperialism is progressive code word for capitalism
Just like "liberation" (or more recently "justice") is codeword for communism so when they say "we need liberation from American imperialism" now you know what they mean |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 3:14:32 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The word 'empire' is derived from the latin, 'imperium' which indicated the power of life or death held by senior Roman magistrates or pro-magistrates. Virgil used 'imperium' to indicate that Rome (the state, personified by Augustus) had the power to adjudicate (ie, give commands that were not negotiable) to all the known world. The modern United States without a doubt demonstrates that it wishes to dictate the affairs of the rest of the world - just because we are not always successful doesn't change that fact, and unlike the US populace, the rest of the world sort of noticed this. Well said sir, from my perspective, this is entirely accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 9:09:44 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When did we take the Phillipines, Puerto Rico and Cuba? Because I would say that was when we were an Empire. Those countries were a door prize for winning the Spanish American War. We did not actively conquer those countries for economic/imperial reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 10:14:45 AM EDT
[#28]
In its early days the US was Colonialist, later on it became militarily and economically influential, but it was never Imperialistic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 11:52:39 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In its early days the US was Colonialist, later on it became militarily and economically influential, but it was never Imperialistic. No? Any particular reason we kept Guam? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:04:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No? Any particular reason we kept Guam? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: In its early days the US was Colonialist, later on it became militarily and economically influential, but it was never Imperialistic. No? Any particular reason we kept Guam? Coaling station? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:15:25 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Coaling station? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: In its early days the US was Colonialist, later on it became militarily and economically influential, but it was never Imperialistic. No? Any particular reason we kept Guam? Coaling station? Truthfully I'm not sure we didn't forget about it. Which is sad, b/c it's a beautiful part of America. The reefs are breathtaking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:37:12 PM EDT
[#32]
You accept our coin, you accept us getting into your business...
Suck it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:44:56 PM EDT
[#33]
The U.S is Imperialist meanwhile.........Johan is a very popular name in S. America and males named Yuri are as common in Cuba as John is here in the states......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2014 12:53:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Tag for joining in after work.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
