On the Monroe Doctrine and US Imperialism

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is to direct the off-topic nature of this thread so Steph doesn't go postal.

Again, whatever trade agreements you wish to characterize as imperialistic are sp in their own right, it has no relevance to the Monroe Doctrine.

This is how Wikipedia describes the document:

"further efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as acts of aggression requiring US intervention."

In itself, the pure language used, no, it is not Imperialistic. But, as I have explained, it opened the door for the US to become so, because with an absence of European power, newly independent nations, Europe an ocean away, and a huge continent brimming with raw materials, for the US to try and act in her best interests and not become imperialist is unthinkable.

Thats a nice rant on economic dependancy, but unfortunatly it has nothing to do with the Monroe Doctrine. Again, point out to me the portion of the Monroe Doctrine, especially in its original form, that had anything to do with trade or economics period.

If you want to talk about trade agreements and or polcies that were imperialistic and were made possibe in part by the Monroe Docrine, thats fine.


Also has nothing to do with the Monroe Doctrine.

I think you're missing the point. These things came to pass because the Monroe Doctrine kept Europe out of the Americas, so the US was able to dominate the hemisphere. Yes, Monroe and other Presidents had a genuine belief in anti-colonialism, I'm not disputing that, but it was European colonialism that the Monroe Doctrine acted upon; with Europe absent from the equation, the US was free to dominate those markets, which was certainly on any US Presidents' mind, since he is acting in the best interests of his nation, and economic expansion and the opening of new markets is a huge part of that, especially for the increasingly Capitalist nature of the US as the 19th Century wore on.

So you are admitting that the intent and enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine was not imperialistic. Thats a start. You know the Declaration of Independance also layed the ground work for futer US imperialism, is that document now imperialistic as well?

We were doing a good job of keeping the reductio ad absurdum tiger locked away in this discussion...

Thats nice, and you will note the Monroe Doctrine did not impose any limits on trade concerning anyone in the hemisphere. So since you know both the definition of the word and the fact that the Monroe Doctrine had no economic component at all, why to you knowing misuse the term?

Because, as I've explained, there is more than one definition of imperialism.

Oh wow, now its a conspiracy theory?

Pursuing your own interests is NOT imperialism.

It is when those interests involve the suppression of other markets for your own gain.

It is how you go about it that constitutes imperialism. Ensuring that Eurpean empires were not able to expand in America was certainly in our interests, but is obviously not imperialistic.

It was, because it allowed the US to dominate the hemisphere. Simply because Europe was absent does not mean the US had to do so, but it did.

Using your horribly broad definition means, as stated before, any pursuit of anything in your nations interests is imperialistic.

Only when that involves suppression of other nations for your own nations' benefit.

BTW, you need to read what that military intervention entailed. It wasn't to subjugate the whatever Latin American nation had defaulted, it was to repel military intervention from a European power. Again, something in the interest of the US, but also by definition an anti imperialisc action.

Then how do you explain actions like Colombia, Guatemala, Chile, and Haiti?

Thats nice. It doesn't address the point. Seeing as the Monroe Doctine has no economic component what so ever, how is the simple act of ensuring the self determination of American nations imperialistic?

Because that self-determination is conditional: do what the US wants you to, and you can rule yourself; if you deviate from that, there are consequences.

There is no such thing as buisness that does not seek to supress rivals. Its the essense of competition.

So you acknowledge American supression of foriegn markets to their detriment?

Again, your definition means all and any economic trade for profit is imperialism.

Not unless you try to control the market. Since with economic control comes political control, and economic power comes political power, any nation trying to improve its world standing is going to try and control markets. All the more so Capitalist ones, since monopolies (at both ends, both as buyers in a nation and as sellers of a product to the market) can determine prices and exert enormous power, as Nicaragua, Cuba, and Ecuador can attest to.

You realize what you just said above basically means the US had no choice but to be imperialistic becuase of its natural trade status, right? So, to avoid being imperialistic we should just not trade with Columbia? That kind of sucks for Columbia.

If we forget our morals in pursuit of our interests, then who do we become?

Again, it is the abuse of that relationship that constitutes imperialism, not the simple existance of it. That abuse, which America most certainly did engage in, is itself imperialism but that is not the Monroe Doctrine.

I'm not saying that the Monroe Doctrine was imperialist when it was conceived, only that the US had imperialist ambitions in mind when it issued it.

Not if it could, if it did. And that exertion of political control is imperialism, not the natural trade situation that makes it possible

.

This is a good point.

 

[Ecofarm]

Again, it is the abuse of that relationship that constitutes imperialism, not the simple existance of it.

I disagree. The influence is never equal.

 

[sysyphus]

Just so long as you feeble little Yanks continue to do our bidding everything will be just fine.

 

[Shekwan]

A poll should be added?

Whether or not one believes that the Monroe doctrine was imperialistic or not.

 

[Bill3000]

A poll should be added?

Whether or not one believes that the Monroe doctrine was imperialistic or not.

Was? Is? Was not before, but is now?

 

[MobBoss]

Shouldnt this be in the world history forum?

 

[Shekwan]

Was? Is? Was not before, but is now?

Great suggestions for other poll options.

 

[warpus]

The Monroe doctorine sure made it way easier for the U.S. to interfere with countries' (in this hemisphere) sovereignity.

Which it did... a lot.

Was that imperialism, though? Or just greed and stupidity?

 

[Kraznaya]

Was that imperialism, though? Or just greed and stupidity?

I don't see how these are mutually exclusive.

 

[warpus]

I don't see how these are mutually exclusive.

I never said they were.

 

[Formaldehyde]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7915342&postcount=114

 

[Nordstream]

As my professor would say yes it was imperialism but so what? Did it not benefit the United States and in many respects the region? Were not all the countries of the time imperialist?

Then he would bash the rightist and leftist interpretations and would say something about realism in diplomacy. If only I could remember his lectures.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As my professor would say yes it was imperialism but so what?

Then your professor is a foolish and heartless person.

Did it not benefit the United States and in many respects the region? Were not all the countries of the time imperialist?

Tut quoque fallacy.

Then he would bash the rightist and leftist interpretations and would say something about realism in diplomacy. If only I could remember his lectures.

Realist diplomacy is simply an excuse to forgo morality in the pursuit of personal goals.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to History. Almost dropping off 1st page of OT anyways...

 

[luiz]

Then how do you explain actions like Colombia, Guatemala, Chile, and Haiti?

I think the only of the above that would qualify as an imperialist intervention is Guatemala.

 

[generalstaff]

In theory, it started out anti-imperialist (goal, as commonly thought, was to prevent Britain from colonizing Spain's former colonies).

However, it became an excuse to meddle in Latin America. It turned the US into an middleman debt collector for Europe, US engaging in border drawing and regime change (pre-Cold War, Communism provide the pretext later. In a way, it allowed the US to engage in imperialism, without being considered an imperial power at the time.

 

[Icaria909]

As my professor would say yes it was imperialism but so what? Did it not benefit the United States and in many respects the region? Were not all the countries of the time imperialist?

Then he would bash the rightist and leftist interpretations and would say something about realism in diplomacy. If only I could remember his lectures.

On the whole imperialism was beneficial both to the imperialist power and the power being influenced by the imperialist power. Imperialism helped to strengthen and expand foreign markets, while providing with extreamely large amounts of foreign direct investment which led increased prosperity for all. An example would be Britain and Rhodesia(zambia) in 1960, its gdp was only six times less than Great Britain, but by 1996 Rhodesia's gdp has decreased to twenty eight times less than Great Britain. In fact, Britain provided the country with five times the amount of foreign direct investment than it recieves now from all the people who currently invest in the courntry. Withoout imperialist Britain, african, asian, and american countries have lagged behind in the race for prosperity. (This all comes from Niall Ferguson and his book: Empire)

Not to mention specifically, america: the US invested over a billion dollars into Cuba for its sugar plantations by 1955, and millions of dollars into factories and oil rigs inside mexican territory and waters, the panama canal being the most obvious example of how american imperialism helped all (The Return to Depression Economics). America making regimes change was also to everyone's best interests: look at the populists who nationalized american industries stationed in mexico in the first half of the twentieth century and how mexico teetered on financial collapse for severla years because so few people trusted the people. But regime change can be good, such as how in the 1980s regime change and the implementation of liberal economic policies sent mexico into economic expansion. Although the regime change wasn't caused by america, it illustrates how having the right person in charge can mean the difference between econmic hardship for america and latin america or beneficial economic trading for all concerned (The Enduring Vision).

IF i didnt state it explicitly, monroe doctrine=imperialism, america just didnt call it that (except Mark Twain and the anti imperialist league).

 

[Masada]

An example would be Britain and Rhodesia(zambia) in 1960, its gdp was only six times less than Great Britain, but by 1996 Rhodesia's gdp has decreased to twenty eight times less than Great Britain. In fact, Britain provided the country with five times the amount of foreign direct investment than it recieves now from all the people who currently invest in the courntry. Withoout imperialist Britain, african, asian, and american countries have lagged behind in the race for prosperity. (This all comes from Niall Ferguson and his book: Empire)

Rhodesia is that the same state that endured a blockade? And was then run into the ground by a ruthless dictator? It's also probably the most extreme example in the world for that kind of failure. Mr Ferguson also cannot account for the fact that in many colonies, the natives overall living conditions decline. There is also the question of who put them in the poor box to start with, Rhodesia, South Africa and other colonies exemplified this trend.

 

[Serutan]

This is how Wikipedia describes the document:

"further efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as acts of aggression requiring US intervention."

The supremely ironic thing about the Monroe Doctrine was that it was a statement
that the US would not tolerate European interference in the Americas, but in the
first few decades, it was the Royal Navy, not the US, that enforced it.

And no, I can't claim to think of it as imperialistic.

 

[Patroklos]

Cheezy, if you are going to quote me in a thread dedicated to my arguement with you at the very least you could have told me you had done so. Bad form

In itself, the pure language used, no, it is not Imperialistic. But, as I have explained, it opened the door for the US to become so, because with an absence of European power, newly independent nations, Europe an ocean away, and a huge continent brimming with raw materials, for the US to try and act in her best interests and not become imperialist is unthinkable.

Europe might have been a continent away, but Europe still represented the dominant market for those raw materials for at least a hundred years after the Monroe Doctrine was formed, and they still had undisputed military superiority over America. At best you can say it evened the playing field.

I think you're missing the point. These things came to pass because the Monroe Doctrine kept Europe out of the Americas, so the US was able to dominate the hemisphere. Yes, Monroe and other Presidents had a genuine belief in anti-colonialism, I'm not disputing that, but it was European colonialism that the Monroe Doctrine acted upon; with Europe absent from the equation, the US was free to dominate those markets, which was certainly on any US Presidents' mind, since he is acting in the best interests of his nation, and economic expansion and the opening of new markets is a huge part of that, especially for the increasingly Capitalist nature of the US as the 19th Century wore on.

1.) It didn't keep Europe out of the Americas, it kept future European colonies out of the Americas. Europeans, with ther superior merchant fleets, were not hindered one bit in their trade with any party in the hemisphere because of the MD.

2.) Dominating markets is not imperialism. How you do so is what determines what is and is not imperialism. Simply being in the right geographic location is NOT imperialism.

3.) Again, trade in and of itself is not imperialism.

We were doing a good job of keeping the reductio ad absurdum tiger locked away in this discussion...

No we weren't, your entire line of thought is nothing but that and I was merely trying to point that out. Again, you can call whatever individual trade agreements/government actions/whever you want imperialism, you can't just look at every circumstatial cause and make a hair thin connection. You just said this yourself.

Because, as I've explained, there is more than one definition of imperialism.

Oh wow, now its a conspiracy theory?

The way you are approaching this is, by definition, a conspiracy theory. You are attributing motives not spoken by the players and not written into the document to explain future actions based on what you "know" must have been the uncommunicated intentions all along. Welcome to truther land.

It is when those interests involve the suppression of other markets for your own gain.

Exactly, how that trade is carried out, not the volume or exclusivity of it, is what constitutes imperialism. Please point out the clause in the MD that suppresses trade as a matter of policy. You realize the actual result of the MD was actually unfettered access and expansion of it (trade), right.

It was, because it allowed the US to dominate the hemisphere. Simply because Europe was absent does not mean the US had to do so, but it did.

Really? We recolonized Venezuala, or did they establish their own nation and then make trade decisions based on the circumstances available to them like an soverign nation? Again, I don't remember the great Franco-American war where we locked out French trade with Mexico, perhaps you can link the Wiki article?

You act like the US had some continental system in place throughout Latin America. The simple fact is that the bulk of trade from that region continued to flow to Europe, not America, for several decades later because thats where the industrial centers were. How exactly were we dominating anything when we were not the primary trading parterns with nor militarily excluding other from Latin America?

Guess when we did become the primary trading partners with the region? Was it after annexed the territory? No. Was it after we militarily excluded other nations from participating in the market? No. Was it after our industrial capacity eclipsed rivals making us the natural consumers of local resources. Yes. Wow, how imperialistic of us!

Only when that involves suppression of other nations for your own nations' benefit.

Ah, there you go. I am glad you are in agreement with my position. Why don't you tell us when that started to happen? 80, 100 years after the MD was established. So why, a century later, are you laying the onus for such things at the feet of a century old policy as opposed to the actual policies of the time in question when said imperialism happened?

Then how do you explain actions like Colombia, Guatemala, Chile, and Haiti?

The are irrelevant. If they were not to repel the military intervention of a European power bent on forcibly collecting debt, then they were not done under the auspices of the MD. They were imperialistic actions in their own right.

Because that self-determination is conditional: do what the US wants you to, and you can rule yourself; if you deviate from that, there are consequences.

Yeah, except that never happened as a condiction of the self determination AGAINST EUROPE. Thats what the MD was about SOLELY. Everything is is A DIFFERENT POLICY.

So you acknowledge American supression of foriegn markets to their detriment?

Rivals /= markets. Legal competition is not imperialism. Again, unless you are not going to return to your acinine position that all trade is imperialism.

Not unless you try to control the market. Since with economic control comes political control, and economic power comes political power, any nation trying to improve its world standing is going to try and control markets.

Oh, you are going to return to that acinine position

I hope you realize that what you are saying, exactly, is that unless we go to a trading partner and tell him "we want your whatever, and we will pay whatever you charge for it" you are engaging in imperialism, because the second you use economic/political/whatever pressure to get a better price you are by your definition being imperialistc. You definition makes no sense, it is so broad as to be meaningless.

If we forget our morals in pursuit of our interests, then who do we become?

A hypicrite. What does this have to do with imperialism again?