What is your definition of Imperialism

[50 Pence]

What actions do you think constitute Imperialism.

[boofhead]

Imperialism, as defined by the Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

The USA since WW2, and the British before it.

[AUSSIE11]

The USA since WW2, and the British before it.

Why the Americans and not the Soviets? The USSR was much more "Imperial" than the Americans through the direct use of force and control over a populace. However the words "Imperial" and "Empire" are overused IMO and used to mean many different things from the HRE to the British Colonial Empire and the American Economic Empire. A simplified definition is a situation where a nation or peoples exert a significant amount of control over another people or area outside of their own geographical boundaries.

[boofhead]

Why the Americans and not the Soviets? The USSR was much more "Imperial" than the Americans through the direct use of force and control over a populace.

Well you could add the Soviets to the list, sure, I was just thinking of the most successful recent examples. I do dispute though that use of force makes a nation more or less imperialistic. Imperialism is imperialism, no matter how it's instituted.

the American Economic Empire.

Purely economic? I'd say the economics go hand in hand with the capacity to put nations down militarily.

A simplified definition is a situation where a nation or peoples exert a significant amount of control over another people or area outside of their own geographical boundaries.

A decent definition, however I'd add that the nation must have a policy to expand and maintain such relationships.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The USA since WW2, and the British before it.

you forgot France and China. Actually pretty much the entire UNSC.

America does act like an Imperial power but is technically not one.

technically not one? It fits the definition you posted.

Now Britain, that was an Empire

And certainly not one to be proud of. The USA has done some in its Cold War time but it's far more empathetic than Britain ever was.

[AUSSIE11]

you forgot France and China. Actually pretty much the entire UNSC.

I read this and all it took me a second to realise you weren't speaking about the United Nations Space Command... to much HALO im afraid...

And certainly not one to be proud of. The USA has done some in its Cold War time but it's far more empathetic than Britain ever was.

I'd rather be a subject of the Brits than anyone else... Even the Yanks have a bad history... The Brits left many of their colonies to be reasonably self governed. The Brits had comparatively very little unrest in their colonies and allowed most of them to become independent peaceably. As said the Irish situation was different and was extremely poorly handled however on the whole British colonial government was more stable than any others.

[Col. Tartleton]

I read this and all it took me a second to realise you weren't speaking about the United Nations Space Command... to much HALO im afraid...

I'd rather be a subject of the Brits than anyone else... Even the Yanks have a bad history... The Brits left many of their colonies to be reasonably self governed. The Brits had comparatively very little unrest in their colonies and allowed most of them to become independent peaceably. As said the Irish situation was different and was extremely poorly handled however on the whole British colonial government was more stable than any others.

The only place an American colony got out of hand was the Philippines due to insurgencies and we took over the Spanish colonies with the goal of getting them ship shape so they could stand on their own as countries. There was no real Imperial hunger. The public and government was against it for the most part.

Cuba improved dramatically in the few years we governed it. The Philippines took longer. The various overseas island territories are largely protectorates on account of the fact they're tiny and can't defend themselves so we kind of govern them. Puerto Rico has liked its position as a territory to stay American for over a century. Liberia on the other hand was an anti-colony to send capital back to Africa.

We're pretty unique. Britain was the best of the Imperialists, but only because America never committed to that system. The Neo-Conservative ideal of making the world more "democratic" (Liberal) is a kind of Imperialism, but it's not done the same way. If it was, we wouldn't see Iraq distancing themselves from us politically, but we'd be forcing them to be a state in our own image. Instead they're a uniquely Iraqi Republic. I mean frankly Obama's administration has basically forced them to take off the training wheels entirely.

[Col. Tartleton]

A State is a sovereign entity.
A Confederation is a group of sovereign entities allied together.
A Federation is a group of semi-sovereign entities sharing power.
An Empire is a group of non sovereign entities ruled by a single sovereign entity.

New Hampshire was originally a colony of an Empire.
New Hampshire became a State.
New Hampshire joined a Confederation.
New Hampshire is currently part of a Federation.

America is a Hegemony, not an Empire. We're exerting influence, we aren't governing directly.

[The Kybrothilian]

Imperialism is dominating an area and it's population not only economically (which in itself is the requirement for colonialism) but also politically.

USA having military bases in several other countries could be descirbed as semi-imperialism. They don't have a political grip over the countries officially, but they have coerced the countries to give them military access, and these bases could potentially be used to occupy the entire country with US forces when needed. Similar to what the Soviet union did with Baltic countries in 1940. (although integrating them to your own state is no longer an option in today's world.)

[Ne Obliviscaris]

Imperialism
A policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means

That about sums it up, I should think though interpretation within these liberal confines is possible. America does act like an Imperial power but is technically not one. It shall be... interesting to see where we stand in 50 years time.

Now Britain, that was an Empire

[Claudius Gothicus]

If everybody has a different definition of it and is not motivated to reach an agreegment then it's a term not worth discussing.

[Ne Obliviscaris]

Don't you abuse the Imperialistic dogma perpetuated by a misguided sense of National pride.
My point about America not really being an Empire is that it fails to exert direct control per se in my view, though the actions in 'policed' states such as Afghanistan is cause for concern.
The British Empire is a fickle beast. Many of the worst excesses were in India under the EIC, which was technically not the British Empire and Ireland, for which there was no excuse. However the British empire was the First Truly Global Empire with Major Representation on all the continents. It is therefore impressive that a period of devolution and stable democratic transition in many states for example India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa (Mixed Results there I grant you) which had never been done before and arguably since (France made a real hash over their overseas colonies). I imagine a great deal of your animosity to the Empire is through the horrendous mess that was made of Ireland (If you'll excuse the presumption that you're Irish, irelandeb) particularly in the Early 20th Century and the troubles, there can be no defence of what was done. However I still argue that the British Empire achieved a great deal, and though horrific mistakes were made the Empire balanced and superseded them with the progress made.

Hope that clears up the point a bit.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Well, it's not Ireland I'm thinking of. What happened in Ireland was perpetrated on a far larger scale throughout the entire empire and I don't think many British people today know that. You cannot pick a place in the British Empire where extreme oppression wasn't imposed. Usually this is justified by some form of "well we provided security, effective government, schools, hospitals", which implies the natives couldn't or didn't have those things anyway, both incorrect and pure racism.

[Col. Tartleton]

I think this sums up the problems with America foreign policy:

[Ne Obliviscaris]

Cuba was directly governed by the US for a fews years then the Platt amendment meant that the US has the right to intervene to defend Cuba's sovereignty. All the way until Castro's revolution American companies abused Cuba as a market to prosper by, not to improve. The Islands seized in 1898 were as a whole brutally administered. The Philippines still refer to 200 years in a convent (Spanish Rule) and 50 years in a whorehouse (American Rule). Not to mention the 'acquisition' of Hawaii, the Various wars with Mexico, making American Samoa a protectorate, facilitating Panama's independace (All for a cheaper Canal), War in Korea, War in Vietnam and even the forcing open of Japan's ports etc. America only never became an Empire because it was more interested in trade than territory, and when I say trade I mean ripping off the natives. The Monroe doctrine meant nothing.

[Col. Tartleton]

Cuba was directly governed by the US for a fews years then the Platt amendment meant that the US has the right to intervene to defend Cuba's sovereignty. All the way until Castro's revolution American companies abused Cuba as a market to prosper by, not to improve. The Islands seized in 1898 were as a whole brutally administered. The Philippines still refer to 200 years in a convent (Spanish Rule) and 50 years in a whorehouse (American Rule). Not to mention the 'acquisition' of Hawaii, the Various wars with Mexico, making American Samoa a protectorate, facilitating Panama's independace (All for a cheaper Canal), War in Korea, War in Vietnam and even the forcing open of Japan's ports etc. America only never became an Empire because it was more interested in trade than territory, and when I say trade I mean ripping off the natives. The Monroe doctrine meant nothing.

I'd rather be in an American whorehouse than a Spanish convent. Although a British convent would get both objectives done.

We aren't an Empire because we allowed bodies to either form their own states, form their own countries, or remain as territories.

[Ne Obliviscaris]

Of course, yes. And if any of these territories rejected the comforting arm of America and closed down trade what would happen? Bay of Pigs v2?

[Col. Tartleton]

Of course, yes. And if any of these territories rejected the comforting arm of America and closed down trade what would happen? Bay of Pigs v2?

The Spice Must Flow.

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down … Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused." - President Wilson

I think history has shown quite clearly that the US foreign policy is to overthrow or contain any government and political movements which will not practice market capitalism and free trade.

That's been our foreign policy since the 1850s.

[Ne Obliviscaris]

US foreign policy is to overthrow or contain any government and political movements which will not practice market capitalism and free trade.

Do you not see anything imperialistic about this statement?
The Roosevelt corollary says it all, as does the great White fleet. America is the Greatest, therefore all other nations must be carbon copies. If the preceding statement is your view point...
I'm sorry.

[I WUB PUGS]

People claim America is an empire because we sought out business in parts of the globe that no one else saw a need to go to. The Spanish had colonies all around us and we flourished while they neglected. What's worse having a powerful neighbor work with you or even exploit you in some way but still have some benefit or have a ruling class thousands of miles away doing nothing BUT exploiting you and you get nothing in return? This is why the Spanish Empire collapsed, the US didn't make it collapse, the people in those areas wanted to be free of Spain.

So the US has supported every American Corporation doing business anywhere in the globe, why shouldn't it? Do we bomb you if you refuse to do business with us? Have we frozen trade with China because they pirate our software? Have we blockaded them?

America is a nation of corporate interests, we do business for the sake of doing business and making money, lots and lots of money. Sorry we've found that we can get much better terms of trade from independent nations instead of occupying them and extracting resources. Why plant a flag when you can sign some papers?

You think Australia isn't Imperialist by these same standards? Horse , guess you people know nothing about the Gold Mining Industry.

Business is Business, the only reason people think America is an Empire is because we have troops everywhere. Thing is, no one has told us to GTFO yet because every time something bad happens, they call the White House. Heaven help you all when your non-competitive economies kick out your free soldiers who also bring in US dollars. You'll have to provide your own security then.

I'm all for it. Lower taxes for me paying for YOUR security means I can do more FOR ME instead of FOR YOU!

Empire? No. Corporate Puppet? Sure, but it employs me and American corporations bring jobs, clean water, infrastructure, you name it, even schools. Sorry if you have to work in some mine for a dollar a day. I guess it's better to be unemployed living on 5 cents a day.