Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

US stance against imperialism (historical)

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 6:43:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is said that US and USSR are one of the two European-style power which took opposing stance against colonialism. Is it still stand in the modern context?

I am not talking about Iraq, but what about Phillipino-American War and the annexation of Hawai? If American government at the time was still opposing the act of colonialism? What reasons did it had to justify their action in conflict such as this ?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 4:15:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 6:43:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It is said that US and USSR are one of the two European-style power which took opposing stance against colonialism. Is it still stand in the modern context?

I am not talking about Iraq, but what about Phillipino-American War and the annexation of Hawai? If American government at the time was still opposing the act of colonialism? What reasons did it had to justify their action in conflict such as this ?

Pineapples and sugar when it came to Hawaii. That was basically all the reason that they had. And we were at war with Spain and took their colonies from them, and anti-imperialist sentiment in the US drove us to grant the Philippines independence shortly afterward, so that wasn't colonialism per se. I would say that we even helped them by giving them separation of church and state, which they maintain to this day. Hawaii was another story, and what we did there was deplorable, but sort of inevitable. If we hadn't the Japanese would have.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 4:28:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 4:15:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2013 6:43:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It is said that US and USSR are one of the two European-style power which took opposing stance against colonialism. Is it still stand in the modern context?

I am not talking about Iraq, but what about Phillipino-American War and the annexation of Hawai? If American government at the time was still opposing the act of colonialism? What reasons did it had to justify their action in conflict such as this ?

Pineapples and sugar when it came to Hawaii. That was basically all the reason that they had. And we were at war with Spain and took their colonies from them, and anti-imperialist sentiment in the US drove us to grant the Philippines independence shortly afterward, so that wasn't colonialism per se. I would say that we even helped them by giving them separation of church and state, which they maintain to this day. Hawaii was another story, and what we did there was deplorable, but sort of inevitable. If we hadn't the Japanese would have.

I'm going to disagree about Hawaii, although my point is not substantiated historically.

Currently, Hawaii's largest industry is tourism. Hawaii's 2nd largest industry is the MILITARY.

---

Monroe Doctrine could easily be interpreted as "Europe, stay out of our way. This land is MY LAND."

---

Also, the US stance against imperialism around WWII was probably used to weaken European power globally. By doing so, America was more easily able to assert its own hegemony over Europe. To my knowledge, European armies are largely useless...EXCEPT for police action in their former colonies.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:21:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agreed with you that US would probably want a colonial power of its own at the time (and may still do).

However, its public stance is clearly against imperialism, so what kind of reasons or excuses the US leader at the time came up to justify their action?

By the way I got a very old friend there, he used to send me macadamia and it is superbly delicious :D
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 12:57:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 4:28:23 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/22/2013 4:15:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2013 6:43:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It is said that US and USSR are one of the two European-style power which took opposing stance against colonialism. Is it still stand in the modern context?

I am not talking about Iraq, but what about Phillipino-American War and the annexation of Hawai? If American government at the time was still opposing the act of colonialism? What reasons did it had to justify their action in conflict such as this ?

Pineapples and sugar when it came to Hawaii. That was basically all the reason that they had. And we were at war with Spain and took their colonies from them, and anti-imperialist sentiment in the US drove us to grant the Philippines independence shortly afterward, so that wasn't colonialism per se. I would say that we even helped them by giving them separation of church and state, which they maintain to this day. Hawaii was another story, and what we did there was deplorable, but sort of inevitable. If we hadn't the Japanese would have.

I'm going to disagree about Hawaii, although my point is not substantiated historically.

Currently, Hawaii's largest industry is tourism. Hawaii's 2nd largest industry is the MILITARY.

I would agree that military needs almost always come into play during territorial acquisition. However, we annexed Hawaii largely due to political pressure from American plantation owners who wanted to circumvent tariffs. The biggest supporter of the coup and subsequent overthrow of Liliʻuokalani was Sanford B. Dole, after all. It later came into play as a strategic point, hence the military prominence.

Monroe Doctrine could easily be interpreted as "Europe, stay out of our way. This land is MY LAND."

---

Also, the US stance against imperialism around WWII was probably used to weaken European power globally. By doing so, America was more easily able to assert its own hegemony over Europe. To my knowledge, European armies are largely useless...EXCEPT for police action in their former colonies.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 1:01:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 12:21:01 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I agreed with you that US would probably want a colonial power of its own at the time (and may still do).

However, its public stance is clearly against imperialism, so what kind of reasons or excuses the US leader at the time came up to justify their action?

By the way I got a very old friend there, he used to send me macadamia and it is superbly delicious :D

Manifest Destiny. It's a really complicated and involved concept in American political history, and has always been bitterly contested. The short answer is that not all Americans were against imperialism. For the long answer, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2013 6:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/23/2013 1:01:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/23/2013 12:21:01 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I agreed with you that US would probably want a colonial power of its own at the time (and may still do).

However, its public stance is clearly against imperialism, so what kind of reasons or excuses the US leader at the time came up to justify their action?

By the way I got a very old friend there, he used to send me macadamia and it is superbly delicious :D

Manifest Destiny. It's a really complicated and involved concept in American political history, and has always been bitterly contested. The short answer is that not all Americans were against imperialism. For the long answer, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Monroe Doctrine was the official policy that facilitated Manifest Destiny.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:34:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So America never officially oppose imperialism at the first place? More like one faction of them did, and one not?

So essentially the US is just another western power with faction opposing colonialism is often in government (as oppose to other european which often dominated by the one who favour colonialism)?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 11:42:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 11:34:45 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
So America never officially oppose imperialism at the first place? More like one faction of them did, and one not?

So essentially the US is just another western power with faction opposing colonialism is often in government (as oppose to other european which often dominated by the one who favour colonialism)?

Yep. As a general rule the Whigs were against it and the Democrats were for it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2013 10:48:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/24/2013 10:45:15 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
funny I always thought that the Democrat is on liberal, peaceful side of US politic.

They've gone through a lot of changes. They were also the party of the south, and were generally pretty racist. I think that opposition to strong federal power was their original rallying cry.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 7:37:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Imperialism has been the Hallmark of America from the very beginning.

Why tried to claim all of North America for ourselves. Causing an enormous holocaust of Native Americans in the process, many times larger than the Nazi holocaust.

America has been involved in continuous war for the last several decades. The wars have overlapped without any breaks.

We have endlessly sought to impose our will on other countries, both with economic and forceful action. We have overthrown democratically elected governments and installed our own for own interests.

We have several colonies right now, including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:47:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 7:37:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imperialism has been the Hallmark of America from the very beginning.

Why tried to claim all of North America for ourselves. Causing an enormous holocaust of Native Americans in the process, many times larger than the Nazi holocaust.

America has been involved in continuous war for the last several decades. The wars have overlapped without any breaks.

We have endlessly sought to impose our will on other countries, both with economic and forceful action. We have overthrown democratically elected governments and installed our own for own interests.

We have several colonies right now, including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.



They said both the USSR and US had taken stance against imperialism. Seem like neither had.

I am no fan of native Indian though, at that time they are just little more than cannibal tribe, I suspect that they might literally eat you out if given a chance. but I agreed that plundering their land is morally wrong.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:25:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:47:38 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:37:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imperialism has been the Hallmark of America from the very beginning.

Why tried to claim all of North America for ourselves. Causing an enormous holocaust of Native Americans in the process, many times larger than the Nazi holocaust.

America has been involved in continuous war for the last several decades. The wars have overlapped without any breaks.

We have endlessly sought to impose our will on other countries, both with economic and forceful action. We have overthrown democratically elected governments and installed our own for own interests.

We have several colonies right now, including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.



They said both the USSR and US had taken stance against imperialism. Seem like neither had.

I am no fan of native Indian though, at that time they are just little more than cannibal tribe, I suspect that they might literally eat you out if given a chance. but I agreed that plundering their land is morally wrong.

Just to forewarn you, this phrase means something sexual in English. I wouldn't use it like that xD.

But the tribes were all very different. Some were aggressive and warlike. The Lenape were generally peaceful. The Iroquois were very advanced. Just think, you're talking about an entire continent. To say that they're all the same would be like saying that Thai, Champa, Khmer, Japanese, Han and Mongolian cultures are all the same.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:47:38 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

They said both the USSR and US had taken stance against EUROPEAN imperialism. Seem like BOTH DID.

I corrected this for you.

I am no fan of native Indian though, at that time they are just little more than cannibal tribe, I suspect that they might literally eat you out if given a chance. but I agreed that plundering their land is morally wrong.

Hmm. I'd be extremely careful with this kind of language if I were you. There's little if any support to substantiate what you said here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 7:59:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/22/2013 6:43:52 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
It is said that US and USSR are one of the two European-style power which took opposing stance against colonialism. Is it still stand in the modern context?

It wasn't true in the historical context, and it's equally false now.

I am not talking about Iraq, but what about Phillipino-American War and the annexation of Hawai? If American government at the time was still opposing the act of colonialism? What reasons did it had to justify their action in conflict such as this ?

No, you're talking about some idiotic quasi-imperialism that involves associating the moral condemnation of european imperialism with what the United States and the USSR did in the cold war, and what the US does now. It's lunacy at best, abominable intellectual dishonesty at worst.
Tsar of DDO
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 7:09:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 5:25:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/26/2013 9:47:38 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:37:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imperialism has been the Hallmark of America from the very beginning.

Why tried to claim all of North America for ourselves. Causing an enormous holocaust of Native Americans in the process, many times larger than the Nazi holocaust.

America has been involved in continuous war for the last several decades. The wars have overlapped without any breaks.

We have endlessly sought to impose our will on other countries, both with economic and forceful action. We have overthrown democratically elected governments and installed our own for own interests.

We have several colonies right now, including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.



They said both the USSR and US had taken stance against imperialism. Seem like neither had.

I am no fan of native Indian though, at that time they are just little more than cannibal tribe, I suspect that they might literally eat you out if given a chance. but I agreed that plundering their land is morally wrong.

Just to forewarn you, this phrase means something sexual in English. I wouldn't use it like that xD.

But the tribes were all very different. Some were aggressive and warlike. The Lenape were generally peaceful. The Iroquois were very advanced. Just think, you're talking about an entire continent. To say that they're all the same would be like saying that Thai, Champa, Khmer, Japanese, Han and Mongolian cultures are all the same.

I am aware, sorry if that isn't funny T_T
it takes a lot of courage you know..
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 7:24:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, this may be my poor choice of word but when I said "little more than cannibal", I didn't really mean that they have specifically ate people and even if they did I wouldn't be this mush skeptical about their historical practice (provide that they only ate the corpses).
My point is actually I found many aspect of Indian culture to be very brutal and salvage in nature, which could provoke a similar reaction as to cannibalism. For example human scarifies, I know, that's sound pretty mush like Aztec but I heard native American in Eastern half of the States did that too. There is also a ritual of torture where there PoW were kept alive to torture for days before the actual killing.

This is only my point of view, but I think that some aspect of their culture is really in conflict of what their image is displayed to the world as nature-loving peaceful people. There may be some peaceful folk in there but I think at the time, given their situation, the warrior should be more.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 5:57:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 7:09:57 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/26/2013 5:25:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/26/2013 9:47:38 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/25/2013 7:37:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imperialism has been the Hallmark of America from the very beginning.

Why tried to claim all of North America for ourselves. Causing an enormous holocaust of Native Americans in the process, many times larger than the Nazi holocaust.

America has been involved in continuous war for the last several decades. The wars have overlapped without any breaks.

We have endlessly sought to impose our will on other countries, both with economic and forceful action. We have overthrown democratically elected governments and installed our own for own interests.

We have several colonies right now, including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.


They said both the USSR and US had taken stance against imperialism. Seem like neither had.

I am no fan of native Indian though, at that time they are just little more than cannibal tribe, I suspect that they might literally eat you out if given a chance. but I agreed that plundering their land is morally wrong.

Just to forewarn you, this phrase means something sexual in English. I wouldn't use it like that xD.

But the tribes were all very different. Some were aggressive and warlike. The Lenape were generally peaceful. The Iroquois were very advanced. Just think, you're talking about an entire continent. To say that they're all the same would be like saying that Thai, Champa, Khmer, Japanese, Han and Mongolian cultures are all the same.

I am aware, sorry if that isn't funny T_T
it takes a lot of courage you know..

No, I got a chuckle out of it. I just didn't want you using it in the wrong way if didn't know.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 6:03:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 7:24:30 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Anyway, this may be my poor choice of word but when I said "little more than cannibal", I didn't really mean that they have specifically ate people and even if they did I wouldn't be this mush skeptical about their historical practice (provide that they only ate the corpses).
My point is actually I found many aspect of Indian culture to be very brutal and salvage in nature, which could provoke a similar reaction as to cannibalism. For example human scarifies, I know, that's sound pretty mush like Aztec but I heard native American in Eastern half of the States did that too. There is also a ritual of torture where there PoW were kept alive to torture for days before the actual killing.

This is only my point of view, but I think that some aspect of their culture is really in conflict of what their image is displayed to the world as nature-loving peaceful people. There may be some peaceful folk in there but I think at the time, given their situation, the warrior should be more.

The main issue is that there were no 'indians'. There were many different tribes which were distinct from one another. There were warlike tribes and peaceful ones. The Iroquois were skilled negotiators who actually manipulated the Americans, British, and French on several occasions, while the Lenape were largely peaceful tribes who made peace with William Penn (his sons later betrayed them and stole their land, which is considered to be one of the most shameful events in my state's history by many). The Maya, Inca, and Aztecs were very culturally advanced. The peaceful image isn't accurate, but neither is that of the warlike savages. They were nations just like any others: culturally and politically diverse across a wide spectrum.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:07:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 6:03:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/27/2013 7:24:30 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Anyway, this may be my poor choice of word but when I said "little more than cannibal", I didn't really mean that they have specifically ate people and even if they did I wouldn't be this mush skeptical about their historical practice (provide that they only ate the corpses).
My point is actually I found many aspect of Indian culture to be very brutal and salvage in nature, which could provoke a similar reaction as to cannibalism. For example human scarifies, I know, that's sound pretty mush like Aztec but I heard native American in Eastern half of the States did that too. There is also a ritual of torture where there PoW were kept alive to torture for days before the actual killing.

This is only my point of view, but I think that some aspect of their culture is really in conflict of what their image is displayed to the world as nature-loving peaceful people. There may be some peaceful folk in there but I think at the time, given their situation, the warrior should be more.

The main issue is that there were no 'indians'. There were many different tribes which were distinct from one another. There were warlike tribes and peaceful ones. The Iroquois were skilled negotiators who actually manipulated the Americans, British, and French on several occasions, while the Lenape were largely peaceful tribes who made peace with William Penn (his sons later betrayed them and stole their land, which is considered to be one of the most shameful events in my state's history by many). The Maya, Inca, and Aztecs were very culturally advanced. The peaceful image isn't accurate, but neither is that of the warlike savages. They were nations just like any others: culturally and politically diverse across a wide spectrum.

I can understand what you mean. In normal circumstance this will mean very little for me (I am quite realistic when come to the nature of human). Only problem, is that I am greatly surprise and horrified to the fact that the peaceful Indian as I have seen as a child in Pocahontus, can be this salvage sometime. Many of their torturing ritual can put Japanese rape of Nanking and Spanish inquisitor to a shame. So mush that I can understand while colonial settler at that time view them with fear.