My ragging on the States is exactly proportional to the harm and misery it has caused in the world. Except it isn't because literally nothing could be proportional with it.

Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country? — Wheatley

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.

Is man an imperialist being? If you've ever raised a child, this answer is painfully obvious. What you work hard and have struggled for to be able to make and give him are "his things" and if you ever attempt to show the difference between having and not having in a means to encourage effort or appreciation so that he could do the same himself someday, you are the enemy.

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.

Stephen Fry on the American "infection" - his words - of the British NHS; "a new pandemic":

Not that I'm complaining...I fuckin' love my fat, happy American life.... — Michael Zwingli

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.

My ragging.... — StreetlightX

Fair reply, and I thank you for it. But what you serve out in a sense you serve yourself even as rumination. Brought up, rechewed and chewed again, and again,..., and swallowed for the next time. What's the point? Where's the nourishment? After enough repetition it becomes mere display, and thus in terms of content at best self-defeating. I assign you to write positive and constructive criticism, for a while anyway. Earn your write to bile!

:100: :up: :cheer:

I don't think your problem is I'm not constructive. You initially responded to me posting a two paragraph excerpt from a book that explained US motivations for going to war (not constructive??), with a series of whataboutisms. As far as I can see, a chunk of history - especially one that dispels common self-aggrandizing myths about the US - is positive in the extreme. I think you just don't like having those comfortable myths challenged. I think by 'constructive criticism' you mean: 'criticism that is agreeable with the things I think I already know and positions I already have, and does not make me feel uncomfortable'.

Ty again! And I actually agree with you! But you mistake my personal purpose. I am more interested in balanced views more historically accurate. And for "constructive," I mean forward looking with reasonable suggestions/arguments for improvement.

I see the world as a concrete sort of place. We can certainly think about it, but it is what it is and not what it is not. That is, it is the the reality we all deal with. While, then, there are many ideals the un-occurrence of or un-realization of which can be much and long lamented, that itself, however satisfying, is neither realistic nor especially effective or productive, sometimes the opposite. So with many of the evils so-called and actual committed by the US, one wonders the outcomes if the US had acted differently. And this goes to a closer examination of motives and circumstances. Not as polemicist, but as a scientist of history.

America, for example, entered WWI not for reasons adduced 100 years after the fact, but for reasons in force at the time that compelled/impelled the entry. And it would seem (to me at least) that while many such US ventures were bad (supply your own adjective-of-choice), not all were bad, or the bad all bad. Korea, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, these seem defensible, even if not all well-executed. And so forth.

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.

Korea, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, these seem defensible, even if not all well-executed. And so forth. — tim wood

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.

You live in the woods - perfectly nice home. Also in the woods is a vicious, potent, and meritless animal (and I do not mean a country squirrel), understood to be perfectly willing and able to cause you great harm and damage. Never mind domestic law, here. What exactly are the circumstances of the when, why, and how you can deal with that pest?

The USA has fought rogue actors since the Barbary Pirates.

It seems a case study in the exercise of folly, and clearly culturally imperialistic in motivation, to my understanding. — Michael Zwingli

Geez, why fight the Nazis? Was that cultural imperialism? Besides, if it's cultural imperialism, we won that war long ago - Asia taking it back one job, one product, at a time. But point taken, with the observation that the objection goes to understanding and execution. Poster child for that the Viet Nam war. They who fought the Chinese almost continuously for most of two thousand years, and 'tween times themselves, the mountain folk against the lowland and coastal folk. And who apparently received envoys from Rome, back when. Had that history and historical depth been well-enough understood, I think the domino theory would have quickly deflated, that being merely a story we told ourselves. .

What exactly are the circumstances of the when, why, and how you can deal with that pest? — tim wood

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.

Geez, why fight the Nazis? Was that cultural imperialism? — 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.

Oh. You would prefer some wishy-washy "both-sides" approach that is unprincipled and compromised and which you can get literally anywhere else. Yeah, nah. Gonna stick to the ruthless criticism of all that exists thanks. And the ruthless criticism of power - like the murderous US Empire - more than anything.

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.

I am assuming that you mean "militant Islam". — Michael Zwingli

Never crossed my mind. I meant the beast in the woods, the idea being to establish the boundary for action, e.g., in your bed? bedroom? living room, kitchen? porch? backyard? nearby? within rifle range? Or enabling cause that would have you equip yourself to go out into the woods to find it and deal with it there instead of at home. And as most Americans are of German descent (or if not now then until recently), Americanization of Germany becomes a not-so-simple subject.

But in the main I agree with you. My reservation being that the meatheads do not confine themselves to ideology and gentle persuasion, but kill and, if you will recall a National Geographic cover of a few years ago, cut the noses off of young women. I have elsewhere told of a college friend in the late 70s, a middle-easterne engineering student who assured me that on the occasion of a jihad he would have to kill me. Not joking. He believing as he does - I do not know if he still does - it's conceivable he make it necessary that he be killed by the likes of me.

Endless vitriolic criticism is negation, nothing. And nothing comes of nothing. It becomes display, and not any good kind. And as with a loaded gun carried under the belt, any accidental discharge is bad news. But to you, yours, and I shall try to leave it.

Endless vitriolic criticism is negation — tim wood

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.

America, for example, entered WWI not for reasons adduced 100 years after the fact, but for reasons in force at the time that compelled/impelled the entry. — 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!!

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!! — boagie

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.

There's apparently a lot of people with an America complex in the world. — frank

: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:

Maybe someday they can have a China complex, — James Riley

Yep. They're next.

If only America didn't have a world complex in which they constantly kill, sabotage, or undermine anything good in it.

Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country? — Wheatley

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.

You have quite the hard-on for the United States. Since you are very well versed in our heinous history, perhaps you happen to know...

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).

The phrase “imperialism” is largely pejorative in delivery, and always confusing. As such it has the character of an imposter-word, used solely on account of the implications of the term. Examining its root, neither thing nor action, renders it mostly meaningless anyways.

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

t 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? — Bitter Crank

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):

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:

Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country? — Wheatley

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.

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: — StreetlightX

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.