Talk:American imperialism

Removal of Okinawa from list of colonies

I removed Okinawa from the list of former U.S. colonies recited in the article, because as far as I can discern no one ever intended Okinawa to become part of the national territory of the United States. That territory is occupied by a military of a particular country, does not itself cause the occupied territory to be a "colony;" rather, at least some intention to make the occupied territory a part of the occupying country (or at least an intention never to relinquish control of the occupied territory) should be present in order for the term "colony" to properly apply.

Thus even Gibraltar might be termed a colony, or even Holstein in Germany (a stretch perhaps) because these territories (which were formerly under the administration of a foreign sovereign) are now either under permanent occupation or integrated into the national territory of the occupier, but I've seen no evidence that the U.S. ever planned to make Okinawa a U.S. territory or possession (or even to occupy it forever). --Ryanaxp 22:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Iraq

Shouldn't the list of former colonies include Iraq?

Iraq was never officialy a colony. And besides it is not a former one ;-)

Turrican

Dispute of neutrality

I hereby dispute the neutrality of this article. While the author mentions that "America's military presence by itself is breathtaking and influential", I as an uninformed Reader would believe that the term is only used by some freightened people who do not want the US to bring Peace just because they prefer some undefinable form of diversity. Look how much the US has messed with the interior politcs of "Former" Colonies like Cuba or the Dominican Republic. There is a difference between calling a state independent and being independent - the current example is the recent "indepence" of Iraq.

I also believe that the millions of live lost because of american wars of agression and because they supported questionable regimes, for example in order to support the financial goals of US Companies ( United Fruit) should be mentioned in this article.

Turrican 22:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So, go ahead and do it. Remember: Wikipedia:Be Bold in Editing. --Ryanaxp 22:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Someone wrote: "Most of America's former colonies have since become independent countries, states of the American union, or self-governing commonwealths"

Ahem. While this is true, it is still false. Most of these (notably the Philippines) didnt get to be "independent countries" by the simple tutorship of America. Nonsense -- read up on the Phillipine-American war, Cuba.-戴&#30505sv

It never said "thanks to America most of these former colonies have since become..."

I as an uninformed Reader would believe that the term is only used by some freightened people who do not want the US to bring Peace just because they prefer some undefinable form of diversity. Sure, sure, the USA is the sheriff of the world, bringers of light and paladines of all that is just and good. Who wouldnt want them to bring peace and salvation to your country? LtDoc 17:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of paragraph?

What exactly does this passage mean:

"Often by exporting America's self popularized political system to a conquered territory with false promises of self-government, only in exchange for America's military occupation and total control of its natural resources. Such can be seen where America's post Cold War military involvements are primarily focused on mineral rich regions of the world."

I think I understand the gist, but its wording is a little confusing. user:J.J.

Today, what many consider to be the "American Empire" does not fit historical definitions of imperialism and colonialism, but the United States influence takes on different and discrete forms.

Did you mean discreet as in secretive? Discrete also would make sense because of the modular, sequential nature of US intervention.

Further dispute of neutrality

I also dispute the neutrality of this article. Its thesis is that the United States is in actuality or effect, or acts like, an empire. It then proceeds to offer support for this argument. While I would not argue with most of the points made here, I don't think that this sort of polemics has a place in an encyclopedia.

Name, Split

If this article is to be about a political and rhetorical view of the United States and not about some actual entity (the United States territory outside of the 50 states), then the article title needs some kind of qualification. In that case, information from this article about American imperial territory should be removed to some other article. -Acjelen 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would think this article should be about American imperialism and how they incorporated their empire directly into their main territories - Josquius

How that would be different from the article History of United States imperialism? --Kevin Myers 13:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Since the half of this article about actual extra-state territories is duplicating the article History of United States imperialism, that half should be merged there. The article will need a clear qualifier to its title and a good see reference at the top. -Acjelen 16:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This Is A Joke

This is totally politically charged, anti-American stuff as usual. In order to be imperialist, you would need an imperial family, or some sort of oligarchy to use that qualifier. From its inception, it has been a democracy. Not some kingdom with expansionist aims.

The United States of America is the only country in the history of the world to give back territory which it won in war, back to the people living there (i.e., Germany, Japan, Iraq, etc.)

This sucks.

Are you kidding, plenty of countries have given back territories they conquered in wars. And besides, how does the fact that it's a democracy mean it could never have been expansionist?

Also, saying that we cant qualify the US as imperialistic because it hasnt an imperial family just shows how ignorant of the subject the user is.LtDoc 22:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Imperialistic" and actually being an empire are two very different things. Where's our imperator? The United States is, and always has been, a republic. Senatus Populusque Americanus. GreatGatsby 05:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Being a republic does not automatically exclude a nation-state from being an empire. Great Britain adopted a form of democracy certainly in 1832, and depending on personal opinion its roots go as far back as the Magna Carta. However, this did not prevent them from conquering and holding the British Empire. Your first point is a semantic difference; usually, having intentions toward empire will lead to becoming one, in name or not.

Also, for the top comment: It is a regular occurance for countries to return conquered territory, for a variety of reasons. For example, in the Franco-Prussian War the Prussian armies conquered most of northern France, but returned it in 1873 after reparations were made. The only territory they kept was Alcase-Lorraine. Tommyknockers 15:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)