AHC: American Colonies in Africa

[TFSmith121]

I think you have to define colonialism and imperialism

None of which is an excuse for historians, including members of this chat, to describe it as if it was not imperialistic expansion on the part of a powerful country dominating a less powerful country. American attitudes viewing the US's history through a lens where we're too special and liberty-respecting for imperialism is a shameless bit of dishonesty even if we don't count the Native Americans.

"Not out of the norm" is precisely the point. It was out of exactly the same kind of thing that built all other empires.

There is certainly a difference between the various "settler" colonies of the Western Hemisphere (basically, every present day nation state, from Canada to Chile) and the post-1945 successor states to the European (and in the case of the Phillippines, the US) colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific.

Between (roughly) 1500 and 1900, the vast majority of neolithic cultures on this planet were destroyed and supplanted by non-neolithic cultures, that grew into (for lack of a better term) "Western" nation states with clear links to European cultures; at the same time, non-industrialized societies were overrun and forced to re-make themselves as industrial societies, but they survived and developed into nation states with far more diffuse links to European cultures.

And confrontation between two Western nations - the US and Mexico in the Nineteenth Century, for example - is not the same as either of the processes outlined above, any more than the nationalistic confrontation between France and Germany in the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries was...

But the result of those "three" processes - colonialism, imperialism, and nationalism - are today's world.

I don't think we really disagree, but my point is calling the confrontation between the US and Mexico in the Nineteenth Century over what became the current US Southwest "imperialism" is imprecise; basically, it was a conflict between two different "nationalisms."

Best,

 

[Elfwine]

I don't think we really disagree, but my point is calling the confrontation between the US and Mexico in the Nineteenth Century over what became the current US Southwest "imperialism" is imprecise; basically, it was a conflict between two different "nationalisms."

Best,

Imperialism, by the dictionary (the OED, to be precise):

"a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force."

Alternately and more precisely, by the Merriam-Webster definition:

the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

(My bold)

That describes the US's actions in North America as well as it describes Britain's actions in Asia.

So no, it was not the same as the destruction of neolithic societies and taking the emptied land - but it would not be entirely out of the question to compare it - subject to the difference between administering the territory gained as a colony versus incorporating into the United States proper (like Russia's eastward expansion) - to the conquest of India.

Obviously it's not colonization without colonies - but imperialism? If we call Russian expansion to the Pacific imperialism and empire building, why is this any different?

So I suppose I should note that "the same kind of thing" I'm referring to is that in both cases (Britain in Asia as a classic example of colonial imperialism and the US as . . . hm . . . not sure what you'd call the shade where the empire is just the state itself) is "In both cases, we see the drive for territorial expansion and material benefit. It's no less ambitious or self-centered or profit-hungry."


And as the Spanish-American war shows, an interest in colonies did exist OTL and most certainly could have been stronger in an ATL.

 

[Kome]

So no, it was not the same as the destruction of neolithic societies and taking the emptied land - but it would not be entirely out of the question to compare it - subject to the difference between administering the territory gained as a colony versus incorporating into the United States proper (like Russia's eastward expansion) - to the conquest of India

Building further on the India connection, there were Indians kind of already living on the territory America acquired, before the US Army forced them out.

 

[Elfwine]

Building further on the Indian connection, there were Indians kind of already living on the territory America acquired, before the US Army forced them out.

Which brings us to imperialism of the sort neolithic peoples suffered everywhere, with not even the slightest interest in either them maybe being independent one day or incorporated as citizens of the common territory.

 

[Alamo]

That describes the US's actions in North America as well as it describes Britain's actions in Asia.

It's also so vague as to render the term meaningless. I'm hard pressed to think of a single nation that wouldn't qualify as an "imperial power" under those definitions.

 

[Elfwine]

It's also so vague as to render the term meaningless. I'm hard pressed to think of a single nation that wouldn't qualify as an "imperial power" under those definitions.

I'm really at a loss for why that's a bad thing. Trying to define imperialism so narrowly only a few nations qualify feels like trying to say that only Those Nations did Bad Things in foreign countries, we did something else.

Imperialism as a policy is not about tyranny or justice, it's about empire building.

 

[TFSmith121]

Yeah, I'm with you on this one...

It's also so vague as to render the term meaningless. I'm hard pressed to think of a single nation that wouldn't qualify as an "imperial power" under those definitions.

If we can't define nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism as three separate things, then it seems rather difficult to differentiate between the political relationships of Britain to India in 1870, Germany (or France) to Alsace-Lorraine in 1870, and Canada to Manitoba in 1870.

Best,

 

[Tallest Skil]

Well i for one agree how can you call America a colonial power… just ignore the native Americans…trail of tears never heard of it….statehood for everyone, though not the natives, Go back to your reservation.

Not sure what you’re saying. America wasn’t a colonial power.

Come on mate, as a brit i have no worry in saying Britain was a disgusting colonial power

And I have no problem saying that the United States has dark patches in its history. But it was never a colonial power.

…like america it set its colonies on the road to independence…

Cuba, Liberia, and the Philippines weren’t colonies.

What’s so difficult to understand about this?

 

[eliphas8]

Because it would BE a territory. We don’t do colonies. If we have land, it’s either to make it independent or make it a full and equal part of the country.

Territory is another word for colony in effect. It's not really a separate idea and any claims that the pre-WWII US intended to make the Philippines into an equl state are pure white mans burden lies.

 

[eliphas8]

Because we kept the Philippines and Cuba, refusing to let them self-determi…

Oh, wait.

I would argue the fact that we let the phillipines go otl had more to do with the encroaching decolonization of most of the colonized areas of the world. Had World War II not happened we would not have let them go like that. And for some perspective we quite literally committed genocide to keep them part of the US thirty years earlier, that shouldn't be forgotten.

 

[Reagent]

Liberia is the only mainland Africa portion I could see, aside from that some of the Islands like Cape Verde (which IMO is more Euro-African), Sao Tome and Principe or maybe I could see in a situation where America has some need for a strategic or economic base for the region, though how willing Portugal would be to selling them I don't know.

Actually, now that I think about it, if America did'nt go for the Philippines (which the government and military at the time thought was impossible, and were really only gained by sheer luck) and focused on the Atlantic I suppose part of the Treaty ending the war might include the island of Bioko (formerly Fernando Po) if it was captured or if America demanded it in return for Spain keeping something else.

More than likely, they would not be willing at all.

If America develops some sort of interest in the region, perhaps they could work with the British (instead of the British working with Germany) to force a debt crisis upon Portugal. Have World War I delayed a few years, or Portugal stay neutral in World War I and a debt crisis could be easily forced upon Portugal (American and British banks could continue to loan Portugal money even if there was a demonstrated inability to pay). Portugal's colonies could be seized as collateral once Portugal is unable to repay its debts.

I doubt America would want all of Angola (though part of Angola might be feasible if they really want it) or Mozambique, but Cape Verde, Sao Tome, and Cabinda could perhaps become American territories. The British would likely take all (or the vast majority) of Angola, and Northern Mozambique. Southern Mozambique (south of the Save River) would go to South Africa, while Central Mozambique (between the Save and Zambezi Rivers) would likely be attached to South Rhodesia in some fashion.

 

[Alamo]

I would argue the fact that we let the phillipines go otl had more to do with the encroaching decolonization of most of the colonized areas of the world. Had World War II not happened we would not have let them go like that.

Legislation scheduling independence for the Philippines ten years hence had been passed by Congress and signed by the President in 1934.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Territory is another word for colony in effect.

Not in US history, which is what we’ve been saying for 40 posts.

any claims that the pre-WWII US intended to make the Philippines into an equl state are pure white mans burden lies.

Good thing no one claimed that, huh.

 

[Elfwine]

If we can't define nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism as three separate things, then it seems rather difficult to differentiate between the political relationships of Britain to India in 1870, Germany (or France) to Alsace-Lorraine in 1870, and Canada to Manitoba in 1870.

Best,

1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

2) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colonialism

3) Imperialism has had a definition posted above. If you don't find it satisfactory, provide your own.

4) It is quite easy to distinguish between colonialism and noncolonialism without defining imperialism so that it has to be colonialism at the same time, which seems to be the implied standard used here.

 

[Danth]

Not sure what you’re saying. America wasn’t a colonial power.



And I have no problem saying that the United States has dark patches in its history. But it was never a colonial power.



Cuba, Liberia, and the Philippines weren’t colonies.

What’s so difficult to understand about this?

On this base neither were the French in Algeria.

But did America or did it not force Native Americans out of their land so they could settle the areas with white colonists, yes, thats colonialism

Only because it became unprofitable, half the British empire wasn't colonies either but protectorates. Call it what you want its colonialism.

 

[eliphas8]

Not in US history, which is what we’ve been saying for 40 posts.

And I'm saying that's wrong, whitewashing, and idiotic. Seriously, it's simply trying to deny US imperialism by putting a slightly different varnish on it. Look, it doesn't have to be officially called a colony to be a colony. And look, the Phillipine example was to show that the claim it was the road to independence or statehood was utter bullshit because like all white mans burdens, it's simply a paper thin justification to rule over a population who don't want to be part of the nation yet. Just because most US territories ended up settler colonies does not change how a settler colony is still a colony and that it's still imperialism even when the US is the nation doing the empireing. Your distinction here is meaningless and at worst it's a thin justification of the crimes of US imperialism the world over.

 

[eliphas8]

Legislation scheduling independence for the Philippines ten years hence had been passed by Congress and signed by the President in 1934.

At the same time, the US still committed genocide to keep them a colony in OTL and frankly I still don't buy that the US would let them go in full without the decolonization of most of the rest of the worlds subject peoples.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

It's also so vague as to render the term meaningless. I'm hard pressed to think of a single nation that wouldn't qualify as an "imperial power" under those definitions.

Nice point.

Mexico between seperation from Spain and 1848 would certainly qualify. Possiblly after as well. In that context the conflict between the republics of Mexico and the US were of two imperialistic states vs each other.

 

[Tallest Skil]

On this base neither were the French in Algeria.

I’m not well-versed on that. Was Algeria intended to become a department of France?

But did America or did it not force Native Americans out of their land so they could settle the areas with white colonists, yes, thats colonialism

No, that’s just wrong.

Call it what you want its colonialism.

I ate a grapefruit for breakfast this morning. That was colonialism. I scraped the ice off of my car and let it warm up before driving it. That was colonialism.

See your problem here?

Seriously, it’s simply trying to deny US imperialism by putting a slightly different varnish on it.

Because imperialism = colonialism. /s

Look, it doesn’t have to be officially called a colony to be a colony.

Of course not.

And look, the Phillipine example was to show that the claim it was the road to independence or statehood was utter bullshit because like all white mans burdens, it’s simply a paper thin justification to rule over a population who don’t want to be part of the nation yet.

When you have an actual argument, feel free to post it.

Just because most US territories ended up settler colonies does not change how a settler colony is still a colony

I’m not sure we’re going to get very far until you accept that a territory isn’t a colony.

 

[Danth]

I’m not well-versed on that. Was Algeria intended to become a department of France?



No, that’s just wrong.

Yes Algeria was a department of France.
" From 1848 until independence, the whole Mediterranean region of Algeria was administered as an integral part of France, much like Corsica and Réunion are to this day"
Several British Colonies even became Fully fledged Dominions.
Both cases the areas were integrated just like the US.

How is it wrong? White people moved natives from their land. Thats colonialism, unless your going to tell me that the whites actually owned the entire USA before the natives lived their.