America Goes Imnperialist

The American expansion westward was not Imperialism! As the areas conquered were absorbed directly into the Republic. Are association with Puerto Rico, Guam and other dependencies could be considered Imperialist.

A good POD could be The All-Mexico Movement succeeding. Areas gaining Anglo majority populations get admitted as states while the US embarks on White man's burden with the rest of Mexico then Central America.

The Native Americans displaced and exterminated on both sides of the Mississippi might disagree with that.
 
The American expansion westward was not Imperialism! As the areas conquered were absorbed directly into the Republic. Are association with Puerto Rico, Guam and other dependencies could be considered Imperialist.

A good POD could be The All-Mexico Movement succeeding. Areas gaining Anglo majority populations get admitted as states while the US embarks on White man's burden with the rest of Mexico then Central America.

I disagree. Just because we incorporated the west into our political system does not make it non-imperialist. There were people living there too, who, uh, aren't any more. How is taking other people's land, colonizing it and annexing it anything but imperialist?
As for the OP, America has been much more successful at having an informal empire based on protectorates than a formal, European style empire. An empire à la Britain does not suit American interests.
Scipio
 
The American expansion westward was not Imperialism! As the areas conquered were absorbed directly into the Republic. Are association with Puerto Rico, Guam and other dependencies could be considered Imperialist.

A good POD could be The All-Mexico Movement succeeding. Areas gaining Anglo majority populations get admitted as states while the US embarks on White man's burden with the rest of Mexico then Central America.
So what about France and Algeria? Or China and Tibet? Or the UK and Ireland? Or Germany and Alsace-Lorraine? Or Portugal and Angola, East Timor, Mozambique, the Azores, and Guinea-Bissau?
 
I disagree. Just because we incorporated the west into our political system does not make it non-imperialist. There were people living there too, who, uh, aren't any more. How is taking other people's land, colonizing it and annexing it anything but imperialist?
As for the OP, America has been much more successful at having an informal empire based on protectorates than a formal, European style empire. An empire à la Britain does not suit American interests.
Scipio

Whether a country is an imperialistic or not is more a question of degree. It seems to me that by definition every single country in the last 2,000 years can be called an imperialistic power since all have at varying times incorporated new territory that previously belonged to someone else (with maybe the exception of the various Polynesian Islands). The United States, unlike many, has at least incorporated the new territory into the political system and extended its rights to everyone within its boards (albeit way too slowly). Of course that is cold comfort to the millions of dead Native Americans and slaves that suffered along the way.
 
Completely different scenarios.
Algeria was absorbed directly into France and administered as an integral part thereof (French Guinea, today, enjoys the same status.)

Tibet was absorbed directly into the PRC in the 1950s, and is governed as an integral part of China.

Ireland was, with the Act of Union of 1800, absorbed directly into the Kingdom, and administered as an integral part of the UK until 1922..

Alsace-Lorraine was absorbed directly into the Kaiserreich in 1871, and was administered as an integral part of Germany until 1918.

Angola, East Timor, &c were absorbed into Portugal and administered as integral regions of Portugal. (I could also mention Brazil and how, for a while, it was rather more a matter of the Brazilian Empire with Portugal than the Portuguese Empire with Brazil.) (And I am fond of this map.)

How is this any different from the US taking land from whatever bodies happened to own it, absorbing it into the US, and administering it as an integral part thereof?
 
How is this any different from the US taking land from whatever bodies happened to own it, absorbing it into the US, and administering it as an integral part thereof?

Counterquestion: How is what the US did "imperialism" (sans the Philippines, but we gave them independence).
 
Counterquestion: How is what the US did "imperialism" (sans the Philippines, but we gave them independence).
Louisiana- buying excessive amounts of imperial territory off another imperialistic power to expand your territory simply because it gains you resources, territory, and prestige. Imperialism.
Texas- Americans move in until they overwhelm the people already living there, and when the people who govern the territory tell them that to continue living there, they have to follow certain rules, the Americans say 'screw that' and join America. Americans taking land they want without regards to local government=imperialism.
Mexican Cession- Then go to war with the country that owns the land you ('you' in this case meaning Polk) want, and take it in the peace settlement. Imperialism.
Oregon- I'm not going to begrudge this one too much, except for the fact that if Canada was part of the British Empire, Oregon is part of the American Empire.
Alaska- See Louisiana, above.
Hawaii- This one's so incredibly obvious it's not even worth discussing in detail.

If the British Empire had allowed American representation in Parliament, or if the Imperial Federation had formed, it would have been no less an Empire than it was previously, and only through significant, long-term connexion betwixt the countries would result in the decline of that status. In the same way, the American Empire was no less an empire merely because its scattered denizens gained the right to vote dozens of years after the land was acquired; it became less of an empire once those territories- later states- became fully integrated into the national system, politically, economically, and culturally. California was a territory gained in the conquest of an empire, and was no different in that respect than was French Guinea from France. I don't consider French Guinea an imperial possession today any more than I consider California to be one, but at the time they were acquired, both were imperial territories.

It is worth noting that I have no qualms or moral issues with terming America an empire. I don't feel disgusted at the term. It simply is what it is, and the fact of integration does not change the fact that the territories were gained as far-flung regions of an empire.
 
The American expansion westward was not Imperialism! As the areas conquered were absorbed directly into the Republic.

It most certainly was - and during the expansion numerous genocides occured. The American expansion westwards in North America can be directly compared to the Russian expansion eastwards into Siberia which was occuring at roughly the same time. Both were cases of outright imperialism even if the areas absorbed were incorporated into the respective states and it was done over land rather than over sea

I can't help but think that the attitude that some Americans have towards their expansion not being imperialism basically come down the assumption that it's not imperialism because the US was doing it. I've got news for you. The US has been one of the foremost Imperial powers of the 20th and early 21st centuries and it started being an Imperial power from it's very beginnings in the 18th century
 
Counterquestion: How is what the US did "imperialism" (sans the Philippines, but we gave them independence).

It was theft and looting of what belonged to others with an ideology of superiority that said that all this was perfectly acceptable when the USA did this. The Indian Wars are pure imperialism. The Louisiana, Gadsen, Florida, Mexican, and so on land grabs are classic examples of one power using military might to force land from another. The Banana Wars are straightforward imperialism on the British Imperial model. The Hawaiian Putsch certainly qualifies, as does the Purchase of Alaska.....
 
Louisiana- buying excessive amounts of imperial territory off another imperialistic power to expand your territory simply because it gains you resources, territory, and prestige. Imperialism.
Texas- Americans move in until they overwhelm the people already living there, and when the people who govern the territory tell them that to continue living there, they have to follow certain rules, the Americans say 'screw that' and join America. Americans taking land they want without regards to local government=imperialism.
Mexican Cession- Then go to war with the country that owns the land you ('you' in this case meaning Polk) want, and take it in the peace settlement. Imperialism.
Oregon- I'm not going to begrudge this one too much, except for the fact that if Canada was part of the British Empire, Oregon is part of the American Empire.
Alaska- See Louisiana, above.
Hawaii- This one's so incredibly obvious it's not even worth discussing in detail.

Do not forget Guam and Samoa and all those small atolls acquired for their guano.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Except all areas existing today are either fully incorporated or slated to become fully incorporated parts of the country. Only the Philippines were never going to be that way.
What about the natives of those areas what about them do you feel they were "fully incorporated parts of the country" like white citizens were?

Also what about the Banana Wars or any of stuff like Guatemala 1954?
 
There any maps of that? I can't find any…

No...and with a POD of 1933, the USA has roughly the same borders. The difference is the absolute abattoir the US had turned the rest of world into. In essense, the US is scary enough that Hitler and Stalin stay allied with each other, and even the the Japanese, Spanish, Italians and French join in an alt-WWII against the US. The US (and UK) still win, and it is ... ugly.


Mike Turcotte
 
Top