To be honest, Im over reacting. I just cant get past that one point.
Rather than derail thread further, Id best withdraw from it.
Rather than derail thread further, Id best withdraw from it.
Well, not all serious scholars agree with you. European colonialism can be seen as an economically, structurally, and politically distinct process from the westward expansion of white settlement in the United States and Canada...or for that matter the expansion of Han Chinese power throughout what became the Chinese Empire or the expansion of the Russian Empire. Just because China, Russia, and the United States can be lumped together as "empires" on one level because of their expansionist history of conquest and settlement, it ignores some key differences by calling it all "colonialism."
The OP wanted to explore what could have made the United States seek a different avenue for empire than expansion in North America and what this would look like. This was a perfectly reasonable question that does not imply racism or gringoism.
Right.
The distinction between 'overseas' and 'across land' is IMO irrelevant. If you want to distinguish between expansion/settler colonies on the one hand and ruling over local cultures then I'll buy that distinction easily. But in that case, if you want to disregard the US expanding west of the Appalachians, you really have to consider Canada and Australia as British expansion, too. In which case the further expansion of the British Empire (India, chunks of Africa) are almost irrelevant (geographically) compared to the settler colonies.
Yes, we read your original post.
It's the "by colonialism I mean..." that I don't accept. Like Lincoln's quote "How many legs does a lamb have, if you call the tail a leg?"
Your wording was
That states that you mean that expansion west DOESN'T count as colonialism.
People who start Sealion threads, saying 'I don't care how the Germans get to Britain, what happens if...' get the same treatment.
If you want to create an artificial distinction, don't expect everyone to accept it.
Sorry. But claiming that moving west isn't 'major colonization' just leaves you
open to charges of (unconscious) racism, gringoism and American exceptionalism.
Sorry. But claiming that moving west isn't 'major colonization' just leaves you open to charges of (unconscious) racism, gringoism and American exceptionalism.
You group American Exceptionalism with racism like exceptionalism is a bad thing.
You group American Exceptionalism with racism like exceptionalism is a bad thing.
With a PoD anytime during or after the Constitutional Convention, how do we make the USA a major colonial power? By "major colonial power", I mean on the same scale as Britain or France, where the "mother country" holds a vast amount of overseas territory significantly larger than the OTL US colonial empire (1898-1945).
"America already was a colonial power because of the Native Americans" posts need not apply.
It's not a coincidence the US really only got into the "colonial game" pretty much around the time that the western expansion was complete. There would have to be some strong reason for the US to look across the sea as opposed to across the plains.
The idea of manifest destiny would have to have been radically altered or made non-existent. Perhaps Britain somehow holding onto most of the land west of the mississippi?