Is the United States an imperialist country?
According to online Encyclopedia Britannica: imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy. Read more about imperialism. Link.
There's another article (again Britannica) on so-called "new imperialism" which involves capitalism and economic domination. (link) Perhaps "new imperialism" is a distinction without a difference? :chin:
Noam Chomsky argues that the US history of foreign interventions are imperialistic. (link) US military bases are everywhere. (link)
Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country?
There's another article (again Britannica) on so-called "new imperialism" which involves capitalism and economic domination. (link) Perhaps "new imperialism" is a distinction without a difference? :chin:
Noam Chomsky argues that the US history of foreign interventions are imperialistic. (link) US military bases are everywhere. (link)
Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country?
Comments (74)
https://californiaman.substack.com/p/list-of-us-wars-and-interventions
There is no other country that even comes close. Like, it's the difference between having gone to Pluto and having walked out of one's backyard. And this list doesn't even cover the economic imperialism that the US has imposed on the world. Americans who panic monger over China and Russia as though America is not the biggest and worst threat to the entire world a million times over have no idea what they are talking about. The closest fictional depiction that comes close to allegorizing the absolute terror waged on the rest of the world by US empire is 'The Empire' in Star Wars. The US are the world's 'bad guys', and have been for nearly a century now - and that's after they colonialized and genocided their own population of native Americans (~5 million dead). Everything they touch turns to blood. The genocides carried out with US support since WWII would rival the body-count of the Holocaust multiple times over.
[quote=Colonel Jessup, A Few Good Men]You can't handle the truth!
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.[/quote]
:100: :fire: :point: "Pax Americana über alles!"
Based on definition from wikipedia (and later text):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
We can say the US is an imperialist state but not colonialist.
We have a colony on Mars.
It just so happened to have genocided 5 million or so of its local occupants before settling on their land and letting them rot.
Quite an impressive, and saddening, list. Not looking for a debate, but I’m just curious how many items on your list you personally disagree with, or feel that the world would have been better off without the US intervening? Half? 75%?
Good joke but, colony without sovereignty is not a colony.
Carthage was a Phoenician colony, but Tyre never controlled it.
Nice example but outside my knowledge of history.
Mars or portions of it's land however AFAIK isn't claimed or controlled by anyone.
However, if one considers only the aspirational intent laid out in those same documents, and looks only what the United States is supposed to be, then the answer is no. The Unites States is not an imperialist country.
An example might help. If Joe Schmo goes over seas and runs afoul of another sovereign's laws (or the chosen implementation of those laws by those acting under color of law), regardless of how far those laws or the implementation may stray from traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, Joe is fucked. He might get a token condolence, a tip of the hat, or a phone call from the U.S. Embassy; or his name might even come up at a wine-and-cheese-cocktail- party at some dignitaries house. Someone might even visit his family's home here in the U.S. and offer condolences and promises that everything under the sun is being done. But in the final analysis, the U.S. doesn't give a shit and he's fucked.
Compare: If large corporation X has a little problem in some foreign country (like some uppity peasant has actually persuaded the local U.S. proxy government to consider letting him have the land he has been on since Christ was a Corporal, and the oil under it) then gun-boat diplomacy is on the table. I know, I know; before all you historians try to correct me with your irrelevant BS, try considering the gist of what I am saying. Nothing but the names and the sophistication and nuanced methodologies have changed between 1905 and today.
If Americans were to ever themselves get uppity and back that peasant's (or his government's) hand, we would then learn the difference between what we aspire to be and what we really are. And we'd have to listen to a metric shit-ton of wailing and whining and crying about "socialism" and "communism" from a bunch of anti-intellectual, uneducated, conservative Republican stupid fucks who wouldn't know socialism, communism, or representative democracy if it hit them over their pointed little heads.
American Empire is a bipartisan project, pursued with clarity and intent. The rest of your post is bloviating apologia.
But I think we have to distinguish between the policy makers and those on the levers of power as opposed to the general population. It's those in power who set the agenda, regardless of what the people actually want.
Granted, there are times when the population can be stirred into hysteria (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) due to very tried and true PR methods. And there's obviously a very ugly history in terms of its foundations - and that goes for most of the Americas and much of the rest of the nation states in the world too.
But yes, it is one and continues to be the World's sole super power per military might. It was at its most powerful post WWII.
I looked through and to be honest it's hard to find an item I do think would pass that test. Maybe maybe maybe the Kosovo intervention, but I'd have to read more into it to say for sure. One of the more depressing books to read is William Blum's Killing Hope. It details most of these interventions and the price paid - in pretty much all cases, the outcome is awful. And, contrary to the USs rah rah about freedom and democracy, many of the interventions were engaged in precisely to kill off exactly that.
--
Edit: as for the fine distinction between 'the people' and 'the powers that be' that some people are drawing - imagine telling the family of some exploded person that. "Oh the American people didn't really want to see your son in pieces, it's just the powers that be, America is really good I promise". One look at America's disgusting veneration of military culture in everyday life will tell you all you need to know about what 'the general population' feel. Hell just look at the movies it produces.
Also
Good rant tho. Somewhere, in the background, a tiny patriotic trumpet is playing.
Cite? No? Didn't think so. Besides, even if it were true, what's to say that has anything to do with the aspirational side I referenced, and not the evil that controls it?
You live in a glass house? Just wondering.
Quoting StreetlightX
Oh, the jealously rings loudly in this one. Did you get the short end of the U.S. stick? Or did your country or something you love? If so, I'd like to know. Maybe I can justify it. Not to you, of course. You are beyond hope. But your words make it sound like you deserved what you got. LOL!
Quoting James Riley
I don't see any problem with democracy, socialism or imperialism.
All of these are compatible and not mutually exclusive, so why being populistic by defending democracy vs socialism knowing that communism to socialism is the same evil as capitalism to democracy.
All it takes is democracy, socialism and imperialism to run a better country.
And this one too:
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II-Updated-ebook/dp/B00HFA93N8/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=killing+hope&qid=1635633208&sprefix=killing+hope%2Caps%2C228&sr=8-2
It's excellent, but brutal. It's essentially Smedley Butler of over again, in MANY countries.
Quoting James Riley
Reposted without comment.
:snicker:
Looks like I'll have to read it a little at a time. It's looks rough.
I know South America has been a target for decades. Just systematically undermining stability.
In other words, no. Figures. Tens of millions. :roll:
Yeah it's pretty ugly. It's often boils down to money and power, not much more.
But it's far from unique to the US. The British, The Spanish, The French, everybody, did the same thing.
I know. The British tried to do it to the US after the American Revolution. I guess the US learned from the best.
Not really. The British invented modern global trade by violent means. The US has never been in their league, nor ever will be
The CCP have been attempting to do it too, as of late.
They have, to the extent that they're the dominant regional power. What they've done in HK is quite ugly.
At the same time, the way the US and NATO are escalating situation in Taiwan is truly horrific. Yeah, I'd much prefer Taiwan to be independent. Doesn't matter what I want, it's not worth a nuclear war.
-Radhika Desai, Geopolitical Economy.
The Americans needed the British - and the rest of Europe - to keep buying their stuff.
Of course it is, in more than one sense. The very genesis of the nation was in imperialism, for what else is colonialism within an occupied country? It's not like the European colonial powers came upon deserted lands and decided to establish colonies, right? The need for displacement was obvious ab initio. Then, within a newly independent U.S., within which many (most) citizens simply thought to maintain the original 13 colonies as a nation (or as a group of nation's, depending on individual perspective), old Tom Jefferson, he of the "equality of all (white) men" (massive hypocrite, was he), showed himself to be the most significant imperialist of American history, wanting to buy this and that territory from European colonial powers (he wanted to buy Cuba from Spain as well...thought it 'essential', and dreamed that the U.S. would stretch southward to the Tierra del Fuego!). Later, the "westward expansion" of an independent U.S. is filled with horrific stories of mass displacement and land appropriation, the general attitude seeming to have been: "those (so-called) 'Indians'? Fuck them..." It was a march across the continent in fulfillment of a geographically and idealistically based notion of "manifest destiny", with military power as the sole determinative.
Today, now that we've become fat and happy at the expense of all kinds of other cultures, we want just to forget all that, as if it was a bad dream, and to immerse ourselves in newfound 'liberally democratic' self-righteousness. Now, as such, we have become, rather, culturally imperialistic, seeming to feel that all other cultures should...must become as "liberally democratic" as we are ourselves, and should adopt and share our own worldview. Is this not what is meant by "making the world safe for democracy"? Who will make the world safe from democracy, along with all the other American notions of "good government"? In this, there seems to be no acceptance of the notion that other cultures might have worldviews and ideologies different from our own. Whence do you think the massive general outcry in America over the recent 'Kashogji' affair in Turkey? Why do you think we spent 20 years in Afghanistan, having meted out the initial justifiable punishment upon the Taliban which was the pretext for our entrance there? American leadership appears ultimately to have wanted that country to become a nice, democratic, little mirror of America, but wearing 'Shalwar and Khamiz', as we think every culture should become. But, what if Afghanis don't want their several thousand year old culture (even as bastardized as it has been by Islam) to change just so they can go cast a goddamned vote every couple of years? You want to know what democracy would do to Afghani culture? "Poof", the end of their tribes, clans, and everything else that has ordered their world, and determined their very identities, for thousands of years. My point? Not every place can or should look, or be, like America. We Americans simply cannot accept that other cultures differ substantially, especially in notions of law, 'freedom', government, propriety, ontology, and identity, from our own, and many think that the entire world must become like us. This is the very definition of cultural imperialism.
My question: looking throughout history, what single aspect of the American ethos does not display an inherent imperialism? Not that I'm complaining about my own situation...I fuckin' love my fat, happy American life, for the most part. Well, that's not exactly true...I don't love my own life in particular, but I definitely do love the fact that there exists a constant opportunity for my own self-betterment, apparently waiting for me to seize it.
That portion of your house is no longer "your house" but his own. Though he likes to know your around, after he discovers a sense of identify, the realization there are some problems he cannot solve on his own yet before he begins to realize, perhaps he can.
Is a person, be they man or woman more likely to admire or want to get to know someone with a mansion and a yacht or a one bedroom apartment and a kayak they use on weekends. Sure perhaps the latter if the person can adequately diminish the value of the former but this is still casting dominion over a man and his being if not the world, not to say devaluing or removing the idea of success from possibility but devaluing the idea of objective failure from being unable to achieve what was originally desired thus increasing the value of an objectively lesser state of circumstance and life itself.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/YourNHS2021/status/1453473700905377792[/tweet]
Me too.
The important thing is to continue dwelling on the US like it's the Antichrist instead of the aging footnote in the history books it actually is.
:100: :up: :cheer:
I think what is in question is the imperialistic colonial violence that the United States practices. Many Americans buy the idealistic apple pie concept of America, this is a myth the rest of the world knows only to well is false. Empires are never benevolent but will do anything to stay in power, including genocide, a practice America has refined to dark art and fully intends to continue its practice.
A more generic question is, to the extent any side does not get everything it wants, does the fault lie with that side, for insisting upon everything it wants, and not compromising? Or does the fault lie with those who stand in the way? And, to the extent the system itself mandates compromise (because it realizes the futility of one side getting everything it wants), is that system then worse than a system that rejects compromise?
I say worst of all is the individual who pretends to sit outside whilst throwing stones at any side and any system, "just because" they have a stone, a hand, and an arm. By their measure, all systems and all sides are stuck between a rock and a hard place, coming and going. There is no possibility of "yes" for an answer with these people. They will not be satisfied. They might even think that the answer for them is "no sides and no systems"; as a rebel without a cause, they are a good, in and of themselves. They might fancy themselves a gadfly. But then they'd bitch about anarchy. Especially when they are the victims of it.
Of all the people on the planet, they are the most reliant upon that which they pretend to criticize. Perhaps they hate that feeling of dependence, and strike out against it, like a teen who want to leave home, while bringing all of home's security with them when they leave. They lash out, until they come down to Earth, hard. Ouch! LOL!
In the meantime, the adults continue to search for answers and continue to learn that they can't please everyone. Especially those petulant little kids who can't be pleased under any circumstances.
Not so sure, Tim, that I'd include Afghanistan on that list. The first six months of punitive measures against the Taliban are defensible, shootin' 'em up and makin' 'em pay for supporting Bin Laden, but the last 19.5 years seems not. What could our purpose have been but to try to instill democracy, women's rights, and alot more of our "cherished values" into a culture not amenable thereto? It seems a case study in the exercise of folly, and clearly culturally imperialistic in motivation, to my understanding.
I am assuming that you mean "militant Islam". In my opinion, not only "militant Islam" should diminish, but Islam in general, and Christianity as well..."theism" must be shown to be the delusion which it appears to be. We cannot, however, defeat Islam, militant or not, by force of arms, as we might defeat an opposing army, since it resides in the hearts (the affective minds) and minds (the intellectual minds) of people. The only way to eradicate these things, then, by force of arms would be to kill all theists, of course an absurd proposition. We must convict people of theistic falsehood by clearly describing why the acceptance of the various assertions about God are contraindicated on a rational basis, and at the same time provide an alternative. But, we don't even have a viable alternative ourselves, as yet...not even "out of the gate" with one.
Quoting tim wood
No, we weren't trying to Americanize German culture, we were (since at the outset of U.S. involvement in the war, the fact and extent of the Holocaust were not yet known) trying to stop Germany from realizing it's own imperial aspirations...the Third Reich wanted, essentially, the bulk of Europe to be theirs territorially, and then, of course, in the fullness of time, culturally. That had to be stopped. But, the Afghanis, the Taliban, aren't trying to expropriate vast territories or alter foreign cultures. They're just power-loving theocratic meatheads who we should be trying to convince of a better worldview, within which they might retain their political and cultural power. We should be trying to convince them that they can lose all the "God nonsense" (particularly, in my view, by emphasizing it as "Arabic religion", and asking them if they want to remain as "the bitches of Arabs"), and yet retain both their power, and all the old, pre-Islamic elements of traditional Pashtun culture. Things impossible to achieve by force of arms. I mean, look where we are now...essentially right back where we began, twenty years and billions later.
Also no, US war-mongering is never justified. Ever. Not once. It always ends up for the worse. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows this. When your country is run by weapons manufacturers - which it is - you have no standing to even think about justifying American interventions overseas. Ever.
In a world full of positive bullshit - people like yourself, say, who, in the face of an actual quotation from an actual book, continue to perpetuate myths about American history fabricated from thin air - negation is both necessary and frankly, an activity of joy.
Quoting tim wood
"I don't need no stinkin' history book. I'm just going to regurgitate the propaganda they told me despite having cited nothing and having pulled this entirely out of my ass". You and Trump supporters are indistinguishable.
You must be one of those apple pie Americans, the rest of the world doesn't buy that apple pie. The whole mentality of the American public, with few exceptions, is stupped in self-serving mythology. What a way to dumb down a population. The Empire is dying!!
I might agree with you 100% but it's strange to see those "few exceptions" get thrown under the bus with the rest. What is being done by anyone anywhere to provide strategic and logistical support to those few? Or are those who would otherwise champion the few just going to sit back and whine about how they can't do anything because they are chained by the same forces that chain the few?
There's apparently a lot of people with an America complex in the world.
:100: It's understandable. Maybe someday they can have a China complex, and America can put her boots up on the railing, crack a beer and yell "Git off'n muh lawn, ya little bastards!" :grin:
Yep. They're next.
From the viewpoint of people on the receiving end of the world's dominant powers, "imperialism" is at best not a good deal. For the people on the delivery side, it's not such a bad thing. Ever since Ur, there have been dominant and subservient people. That's real politics. The Romans dominated the Mediterranean world over several hundred years for their own benefit. Starting with Portugal, then Spain, England, France, Netherlands, Russia, et al, exploration of the globe by Europeans quickly morphed into imperialism.
Exploration turned into imperialism because it could, and because there were all sorts of benefits to be gained -- wealth, principally. Who doesn't like accumulating wealth? We do, and if the peasants from whom it is accumulated don't like it, they learn to live with it.
When did "colonialism" and "imperialism" shift from being at least a merely descriptive term to being a highly pejorative term. I suppose this shift in connotation happened in the early 20th century, particularly in connection with the British Empire. As their grip over their colonies loosened, the colonial residents were able reinterpret their experience.
It isn't clear to me exactly what foreign policy objects were being pursued in many instances. For instance, what did we have to gain in Ghana, Oman, Albania, Angola, Congo, Somalia, or Uganda and Kenya? How much effort and material were involved? How much effect did our involvement have?
Mentioning US activity in a place like Congo without mentioning the very thorough fucking-over which King Leopold II of Belgium administered in his personally owned estate of 2,344,000 km2 seems like overlooking a lot of history.
Selling opium in Laos? Old news. The US and UK were both busy selling opium to China in the 19th century. The fast yankee clippers operating out of Boston and New York were designed for the opium and tea trade. (see Warren Delano Jr. (1809–1898), a grandfather of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chief of Operations of Russell & Company, whose business included the opium trade in Canton).
Though America’s interventionist ways are obvious and odious, it’s not so easy to call America an empire when it’s aspirations and efforts are shared with others. It’s presence in a country not its own is often due to the obligations of treaty as opposed to annexation and dominion.
A List ofTreaties and Other Agreements
A good rule of thumb is that if America was involved, a lot of people died as a result, resources were extracted on behalf of US-based corporations, and whatever misery that existed before-hand was most certainly amplified and made worse in its wake. On Somalia, for instance, to pick one arbitrary country from your list (2nd Tweet. Not sure how to separate it from the 1st, although the 1st is good and relevant too):
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/771064616520708096[/tweet]
Americans, whose historical erudition extends to Black Hawk Down and no further, probably came away thinking that they were the good guys - because even American cultural products are designed to legitimate and excuse American murder in all its forms.
Not sure what the point of your other questions were. Yes, decolonization happened after the Western powers were responsible for the single largest man-made death toll on the planet and everyone thought hey maybe it is not a good idea to have these people running the show. Also: hey these people fought for 'freedom' maybe we should get ourselves some of that. As for why the imperialism of other countries than the US isn't centre stage in a thread on American imperialism hmm this is a big mystery no one will ever solve it how strange :chin:
Yes. All industrial economies depend on oil, and it has been the purpose of the US Military-Industrial Complex to keep control of oil. When OPEC embargoed oil to the US the US experienced an economic collapse. Carter's reaction to this reality was to tell us we must conserve and bring our use of oil in line with our supply of oil. Reagan had a different solution. Reagan slashed our domestic budget and poured all our resources into military spending including granting arms to mid-east countries such as Iran, enabling Sadam's rise to power. The US stationed its navy off the coast of oil-rich mid-east countries and soon the embargo was ended.
This need to control oil involves Israel and that is what brought on the embargo in the first place. Arabs were loosely united against Israel's land grab and the US defended Israel because of its strategic importance. Later, Sadam dared to continue the opposition to Israel's land grab, and the US removed him from power. Leading to 911 and the US occupying Afghanistan. A long-standing neocon desire to have military control of the mid-east. I know this is overly simplified but the bottom line is the US economy depends on oil and on the world trading oil in dollars, which is tied to our banking and the value of the dollar, which means a need to control oil.
Huh? Germany was the world Military-Industrial Complex power, and it lost that twice in world wars, but the US adopted everything necessary to manifest that Military-Industrial Complex. You know what Hitler called the New World Order and the Bush family thrilled to control as they engaged militarily with the mid-east.
The US might have been more successful if only it accepted Islam when in Islam's territory. Unfortunately, it could not break away from Christianity and the delusion of secular government without religion.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/vietnam-american-holocaust/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXYsGuBdzM4
https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/4302-noam-chomsky/about-aggression
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america
https://journal-neo.org/2017/04/17/america-aggression-a-threat-to-the-world/
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=oliver+stone+on+america+agression&docid=607996588494257745&mid=8FA97DAE58D63A247C078FA97DAE58D63A247C07&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/07/american-aggression-coverage/
How could the US not be an imperialist hegemon given its own colonial pedigree and foundational color caste-class hierarchy?
Quoting 180 Proof
If that's not enough for you, read on ... :mask:
http://peacehistory-usfp.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
I would say the founding of the U.S. rooted in the American Indian Wars is the most directly relevant, oddly missing in this thread.
The founding of the US didn't have much to do with conflicts with Native Americans, I don't think.
Perhaps this malignant loophole manifests itself in other, more subtle, ways as well. :chin:
When one is speaking about the dilemma of the power elite, who tend to be untouchable, anonymous. It is only a few brave souls that speak out, like Oliver Stone the director, and the X- CIA man L. Fletcher Prouty. I would imagine the only reason these chaps have not been murdered is that they are to much in the public eye. The only way Americans will have a democracy is if they take it back, but I think they have already been dumbed down so much that the bible Trumpers will take the day. Dark are the days ahead, the elite can steer these people into anything they like. The world at large is fearful.
Also, the Plutocracy has it's ways of marginalizing anyone who points them out for what they are. Like they did with Scott Ritter. No one wants to be accused of child abuse, etc. And how hard is it to plant shit on someone's computer? All it takes is a hint: "Hey Oliver, did you hear what happened to X? Be a shame to have that happen. What a shame."
I think that is quite another matter, but yes, one only needs to be accused of child molestation, and your screwed. Even if one is found innocent your marked for life in that community. I know of an old fellow many years ago who was accused. I have no doubt in my own mind it was a great injustice, he could no longer hold his head high in a community he had lived in his whole life. That said, I know there are legitimate cases, far more than at one time I would have imagined possiable.
They don't even need to be accused. They only need to be threatened with being accused and that will get them to shut up and stay home like a good little citizen.
Yes, I have seen that in my time as well. Personally I use to be quite fond of interacting with children but give that up many many years ago. I grown man who has much to do with children is really sticking his neck out. Personally I've never had any difficulty, but I think that is because I saw the writing on the wall a long time ago.
:100:
Peoples opinions generally depend upon the information they have been exposed to. Your belief that the attempted genocide of the native American indian was not significant, is an indication that you need to do some additional research.