American Imperialism? Real or Imagined?

[allhailIndia]

I would call the destruction of the Native American peoples genocide more than "imperialism". Just like what is going on with indigenous peoples everywhere, including India. They are just losing out to modern technology and "civilization" and are being brutally persecuted in the name of development.
It is of course a paradox. Are you going to keep 20 million people away from the chance to lead a better life or let a few hundred tribals cling to their backward way of life. Either way there are big losses

 

[The Yankee]

Hard to call it a backward way of life. Many tribes have tried to embrace new technology and medicine while keeping their traditions. It's possible. Plus, look at all the high-tech gizmos in those casinos on some of the reservations.

 

[Sarevok]

Poeple that call the uS imperialists are in my opinion just ignorant fools. The US is powerful to the point that its affect on the world is inevitable. Why is europe and the arab world pissed off at the US you ask? because they arent the most powerful anymore!

 

[CenturionV]

Yes there imperialistic. Which is a good thing, Control or be controlled its the human way.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I would say America is indeed an imperialistic nation. They have military bases everywhere, have control over large amounts of wealth, and are willing (as most recently demonstrated with Iraq) to use their military forces regardless of international opinion. They are very hostile to nations who don't go along with them, and through their capitalist companies are taking over the economies of nations.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Americas real and most important empire is an economic and cultural one. Those two are what the terrorists fear and want to destroy, not our military might. Brute force they understand perfectly well, it doesnt faze them in the least.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
Americas real and most important empire is an economic and cultural one. Those two are what the terrorists fear and want to destroy, not our military might. Brute force they understand perfectly well, it doesnt faze them in the least.

But they use their military force to ensure that this economic and cultural empire is not thretened.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Yes and no. Afghanistan was justified, but Bush should have stopped there. Iraq is a complete disaster, hopefully Bush will be thrown out of office and we'll be out of there within 2 years. Dont confuse America with Bush, he's here today, gone tommorow. America will stop casually invading countries and upending whole societies once he's back home on his stupid ranch.

 

[FredLC]

That is fair, DP, but do not forget that Bush's little adventure would not be possible if he didn't managed to achieve public compliance.

Through misinformation? I agree. But fairly or unfairly, he showed that in USA it's very possible to achieve support for questionable wars.

So let's adjust our scopes, but let's do it fairly. The question is "Is America Imperialist?", not "Is current government imperialist?".

About the second one, I have little doubt that it is. It may not translate it's desire into effective imperialism due to the counter-balances they find in USA's democratic society, but I have little doubt that the Hawks there would be more than willing to pound into submission those who disagree with them if they thought they could get away with it. A new American century, right?

Now, as for the second, well, I still go for what I said earlier in this thread - It's not classically imperialist, but it's modern take of "domination" is not any less reprove able than the ancient take. But let's forget this definition issues for a second, be inaccurate, and accept the term "imperialism" as descriptive of USA domination.

In that case, I'd say it IS imperialist, in the sense that, given a government that is so inclined - such as the present - society there will offer little resistance to it's machinations. Just like ancient powers of the past, people will buy the excuses of the leaders, and support their deeds of direct interference over other people. And that means being an imperialistic - or, getting back to the rigorous terminology, “euphemistically dominant" – society in my book.

Regards .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Fred, if the question is whether America is imperialist, as opposed to merely its government, Id have to say no. America has a strong isolationist streak. Believe it or not Bush himself is a staunch isolationist. If it wasnt for 9/11 Bush wouldnt be able to find Afghanistan on a map (for all we know he still might not be able to). America has no interest in conquering the world, if we did, we would have done it a long time ago.

 

[raen]

I dont know if they are imperialist or not, I only know they will do anything for money, but forget the other parts (the way they do it), and that parts missing is why people dont like the USA.

Example1: trying to put trangenic food in europe by force, without studies or certification.

Example2: Invading Iraq without other countries saying yes. And after attacking was demonstrated that they only are there by the oil and are not prepared to take care of people (but only guns).

Example3: they dont care about pollution, they pollute more and dont care about it, only money once again.

 

[FredLC]

Dumb pothead:

No argument about that, but I think there are isolationisms and isolationisms. And again, I separate Bush from America.

The pre-WWI kind of isolationism, the complete lack of any interaction whatsoever with the rest of the World, is unsustainable presently. It would mean, to the USA, the very quick loosing of its preeminent position.

I saw Bush position of Isolationism being one of a different brandy, and actually, a sustainable one. He never wanted to cut links for good… he just didn’t mind the politics of the world. It was like, “we will interact, but still, I’ll do whatever I please, regardless of what you think”. Perfect example of that, for me, would be the Kyoto protocol thing. The idea was that there was no need – for USA at least – of political compromises.

That idea went downhill after 9/11. From that moment on, political interaction with the world, in many levels, became inevitable. However, still the same principle applied, there is, to use the power of USA to make their political decisions be dominant.

Here lies the imperialist/dominant trait I refer to. I am not saying that such trait must be primordial. I am saying that it just needs to be present to justify such classification. I certainly understand that it’s not USA goal to dominate the world, but I also understand that it’s willing to push it as far as it thinks is needed.

And that, as USA society is willing to support that when an inclined government happens to arise, than I classify such society as imperialistic/dominant, in the terms described in my previous posts.

Regards .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Fred, how about this? America has both imperialistic and isolationist tendencies, with external events determining which one is dominant at any given time. I think we can agree to that and adjourn to your chambers for brandy and cigars

 

[FredLC]

I rest my case, bring on the booze!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Ok great! You supply the Cubans, and I'll bring the brandy

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Why is europe and the arab world pissed off at the US you ask? because they arent the most powerful anymore!

Which means they keep getting screwed! You expect them to bend over voluntarily?

Fred and DP: the idea that America is an "isolationist" country is total BS. What is meant by that is we kept out of the affairs of countries across the Atlantic. That didn't stop us from being VERY imperialist in our own neighborhood [the West, Latin America]. Later, after we became a world power, we kept that hegemony/imperial control over conquered [West] and submissive [Caribbean] lands and went to East Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific, etc, to be imperialist there. Can you name me a twenty-year period in our history [heck, even a ten-year period] where we did NOT have a war against a country of smaller size or smaller population?

 

[FredLC]

Well, you can see in what terms I accepted the USA's isolationism...

 

[Sarevok]

thats probalby true, the UAS under bush may be a it imperalist, but the US in general is not. most people living in the uS never wanted war and pretty much just want to stay at home, yet the war happened anyway. its a flawed democracy if you ask me. The US FYI happens to play countries of the world enormous sums of money for almost no profit. in fact, countries that the US gives money to usually end up hating them for the money given. I can only think of the UK and Israel who do not have this attitude.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Yeah, well, the vast majority of people in the USA have nothing to do with the shaping of its foreign policy. Of course the American PEOPLE are peace-loving isolationists, by and large. That's because they have a good dose of common sense. Most people in most countries are like that.... wars are started by small groups of people with vested interests in the outcome, not by huge populist movements. If any populist movement appears in favor of war, it was either engineered and encouraged by the original small group, or appeared AFTER the war began and the frenzy of patriotism is unleashed, etc. Americans don't want an empire, that doesn't stop a few powerful Americans from trying as hard as they can to get one.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Funny - we preach democracy to the world, but in reality, that's not what we ourselves actually are.