Talk:Overseas expansion of the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Overseas expansion of the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Getting 1854-90 for Indian Wars

Where are you getting 1854-90 for Indian Wars? - Hephaestos 01:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Large-scale incidents began after Wounded Knee, and by 1890 there was virtually no Indian opposition to the U.S. --Alex S 01:21, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That doesn't mean there was no fighting; the Battle of Fallen Timbers springs to mind, for example. I think an argument could be made they started in 1776 with regard to the U.S. as such. - Hephaestos 01:26, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Isolated incidents don't equate to a war. I agree that they should be listed, but as sepearte events and not under "Indian Wars." --Alex S 01:33, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

They were all isolated events when looked at that way, including Little Bighorn and Wounded Knee. We can't have it both ways. - Hephaestos 01:35, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

They were "isolated events" only in the sense that each battle between the British and the American Revolutionaries were "isolated events." What makes it a war is the magnitude of conflict. Between the years 1865 and 1898, 943 battles were fought during 12 different campaigns, and over 30 wars were fought between 1850 and 1865. Nothing of this magnitude occured before 1850 or after 1890. --Alex S 01:51, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

big problems with this page

I have big problems with this page. The title expresses a blatant POV, namely that every military action ever taken by the United States was "Imperialist" (whatever that means). We already have a page about the military history of the United States, and that seems to cover all the events mentioned on this page just fine. If anything, this page should be a redirect to the US military history, and nothing more. user:J.J.

I understand what you're saying, but it simply isn't true that every military action taken by the United States is here. There is no mention of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War One, World War Two, or the war in Kosovo. These are all significant wars that have no place in the "History of Imperialism" Page. --Alex S 23:39, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So it doesn't...but what is the criteria for inclusion on this page? Can that be determined without running into significant POV problems? It can be argued that the Indian wars were a domestic issue, since the US considered indian lands part of its own territory. Hawaii wanted to be annexed (it was conquered only through economic means.) How was the Afghanistan invasion not justified? It's all iffy... --Jiang 23:50, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, people who live in other parts of the world find this sort of information very useful to have around. If you want to delete this page (for that is what turning it into a redirect to a page on a different topic amounts to) then list it in the ordinary way on VFD, and see if you can achieve a consensus. (BTW, I think the title sucks, but can't think of a better one at this moment.) Tannin 17:21, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's an important subject

Some advice for those who are working on this page:

It's an important subject and certainly ought to be dealt with here on the Wikipedia. In itself, this list of military interventions is highly informative. However, the title of the page sucks (imperialism is one of those taboo words that you just can't use if you want people to take you seriously - even when it is entirely appropriate). Something better is required. Secondly, it needs some top and tail. Why is this list significant? Who selected these particular events? What is the common thread that binds them all together? My advice to you (the people working on this page) is to sort these to problems out, or else be prepared to spend the rest of your lives defending this page's right to exist against those who like to pretend that none of this stuff ever happened. And anyway it was all an accident. Honest! Tannin

I'll admit that I'm uncomfortable about this page. Partly because, yes, I'm a US citizen, but mostly because it appears to suggest that every war the US has engaged in (with the possible exceptions of the Revolutionary & American Civil Wars) have been acts of imperialism. I'd feel that contributors must confront & explain the following questions:

How are the Indian Wars acts of imperialism? Yes, the US conquered & acculturated the native inhabitants of North America under the ideology of Manifest Destiny, but how is this different from Australia's subjection of its native peoples? Or of how medieval countries like France or England defeated and acculturated neighboring small nations like Brittany, Cornwall, Wales & Scotland? From reading the Imperialism article, I fail to see even the admission that a country or nation can aggressively act towards a neighboring state or nation that is not imperialistic. And if this is true, then we end up removing a specific meaning from that word.
How does US Imperialism relate to 19th century imperialism (e.g., the acts of England, France, Germany, etc.) Quickly reviewing the history of the US, I'd say that there have been several expressions of imperialism in US history: Manifest Destiny, for example, expresses a different vision than does Paul Wolfowitz.
Distinguishing between imperialism as a direct act (i.e., physical coercion of another state or nation) vs. imperialism as a metaphor (e.g., cultural imperialism -- how US fads & fashions shape daily life outside of the boundaries of the US from Toronto to the people of India, Malaysia, & Zimbabwe who can't even speak English). -- llywrch 18:15, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let me try my hand at answering those questions of yours, Llywrch.

How are the Indian Wars different from Australia's subjection of its native peoples? Or medieval countries like France or England (&etc.). Not different in the sightest, so far as I can tell.
How does US Imperialism relate to 19th century imperialism (e.g., the acts of England, France, Germany, etc.) More subtle to begin with, not very different today.
How to distinguish between imperialism as a direct act vs. imperialism as a metaphor for cultural and economic imperialism? Yes, the distinction can become very blurred from time to time. In general, I think I'd be inclined to tackle the two things in different articles. But I don't think there is an easy answer to this one.

There have undoubtedly been wars that the US took part in which were not mainly to do with imperialism - WW1 and WW2 are obvious examples. Korea may be another. Even the Gulf War, maybe. I'd give the benefit of the doubt on that one, anyway, though others may not. You raise good questions. Tannin 18:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Gosh, why not just title this entry American Genocide? American Imperialism is another subject, involving an imperium or hegemony over other states, viz Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Central America. To extend it like this may dilute its meaning. The adjectival form is "American"-- or "North American" or "Yankee" etc. 'United States' is a noun.User:Wetman

It's all well and good, but I still don't understand why these largely military conflicts cannot simply be added to the Military History of the United States page. "American Imperialism," though currently in fashion, is simply not an academic term. This page makes about as much logical sense as a Bad Things the United States Has Done page, or hell, even a Bad wars vs. Good wars page. Just combine it all into one military history page and let people decide for themselves what is or isn't "imperialist". user:J.J.

Also, there is really no distinction between the History of the United States and the History of United States Imperialism. The United States' predecessor colonies were part of the British Empire's imperialism, and they split from Britain largely because they wished to continue it - into the territories like Indiana which is named that precisely because it *was* promised to the natives, along with what is now Ontario (thus the reasoning for natives siding with Britain during the American Revolution). This continued to the rest of the continent, and down into Latin America, and over the Pacific, etc. etc., even into China itself with other imperial powers in the early 20th century. There has always been poo-pooing of US imperialism - around its least defensible acts like the conquest of the Philippines under Theodore Roosevelt - which was against guerillas who had an ideology very much like the American Revolution's own... Cuba, Vietnam, etc., could be seen the same way, both Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh had quite a bit of swaying between the US and USSR, but in both cases the support package for being a Communist was better.

I don't quite understand

I don't quite understand why there's so much opposition to a page entitled history of US Imperialism when no one's said a word about Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, or British Empire. Part of being NPOV means not letting national feeling interfere with judgement. Although I admit that there is an intrinsic POV element in the idea of a History of US Imperialism, doesn't the fact that many (most?) people across the globe view us as imperalist warrant some sort of explanation/historical background? As the year progresses I'll be working on this article slowly; maybe when it's more developed you'll be able to see exactly what sort of content I'm aiming for. All I ask is that you keep an open mind. --Alex S 14:50, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is no doubt that following the Spanish American War the United States did become a formal, European-style Imperial power for some time. However, the fact remains that the United States' formal reign of imperialism was almost entirely centered around that war and its aftermath. Therefore, a page on US imperialism should focus on the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. Calling Vietnam, Iraq, et al "imperialist" is one person's opinion. Certainly these wars were not fought with the goal to "conquor and colonize" these countries, so they are not imperialist. You may view capitalism as a "form of imperialism" but that's a personal view.

I personally think this page should simply be merged with American Empire.

user:J.J.

I'm not creating this page because it's my "personal view," I'm creating it to give a sense of historical background to a view that many people (especially outside the US) share. I'm not trying to prove that the US is or was an imperialist power, I'm just laying out the arguments for those who believe so and the arguments against such a conception. There's nothing inherently non-NPOV about opinions and arguments, as long as they're presented as such. That's what I'm doing. --Alex S 04:27, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is a completely lame article. British Empire etc is not problematic because that's what the British called it themselves - Victoria had the official title "Empress of India" for instance. But it's blaming the victim to call it "imperialism" when the British induced Indian tribes to attack US citizens and the US govt successfully acted to protect its own people. Adding a "many feel" to dress up personal biases and ignorance as NPOV doesn't fool anybody. The westward expansion was an ugly period of ugly deeds, but to call it "imperialism" is to completely misunderstand the times and the people involved. Stan 05:54, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I could say that those in favor of abortion are ignorant and misunderstand the issue, but that wouldn't change what they're saying, and it wouldn't make it any less important to explain and discuss those views on some part of wikipedia. --Alex S 16:04, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Imperialism is rarely admitted to when it is practised"?? That's why the British Colonial Office was so secret that nobody knew its name, and the Spanish viceroys in the New World worked in windowless offices and had a cover story, right? If this article is about the ignorant views of ignorant people repeating leftover Soviet-era calumnies, then the article should be entitled "Claims of United States imperialism", not purporting to be a "history" describing accepted facts. Stan 05:47, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The British did not go around and say "let's invade some country to enlarge our empire". They always had some pretext like everyone else. Even Hitler made up a flimsy excuse when attacking Poland. Which aggressor (in modern times) has ever admitted he's an aggressor? One can easily see a consistent line of U.S. pretexts for aggression, from the "USS Maine" to the "Gulf of Tonkin" to the "Iraqi WMDs". And that is how most of the world sees it. Remember this is not an American encyclopaedia, NPOV is not defined by what is accepted by U.S. opinion. Do you deny that the Spanish-American War is now universally considered imperialist, although at the time that was strongly denied by the U.S. government and its supporters? --Wik 05:50, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Don't you know anything about history? The British dreamed about acquiring the land for the Cape-to-Cairo railway for decades, all very much in public, and they were very forthright about their superiority, the need to "civilize" the locals, the need to forestall competition from other European countries, and so forth. They were very proud of their empire - for instance Canada printed the slogan "we hold a vaster empire than has been" on its Christmas stamp of 1898, the slogan itself being from a poem composed for Victoria's jubilee in 1887. By comparison, it took years of drum-beating about Spanish misdeeds, some sleight-of-hand by Teddy R., and further drum-beating after the explosion of the Maine just to get public support for a war with Spain, support which turned back to indifference in a couple years. US imperialism is a serious subject that deserves to be treated seriously, not as list of superficial bullet points. Stan 17:25, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Of course British imperialism and U.S. imperialism are different in various respects. But in every specific military action which contributed to the creation of their empire, the British had some specific excuse, in the same way the U.S. always has an excuse. And the larger imperialist goals of the U.S. are no secret either, and are spelled out in semi-official documents like "Rebuilding America's Defenses". And when you say the British "were very forthright about their superiority, the need to 'civilize' the locals" that sounds familiar too. Isn't the U.S. saying it is bringing "freedom" to those countries which just can't govern themselves? I see you don't deny that the war with Spain was imperialist, so how can you positively say the war with Iraq is not? --Wik 18:15, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be unforgivably rash at this point to say that the Iraq invasion was about "conquest and colonization," but it would be just as rash at this point to say definitely that it was not. I'll believe that when I see some evidence to the contrary. - Hephaestos 18:22, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Saying that British military actions had to have "excuses" is to apply 20th-century thinking to 19th-century individuals. The British (and French, etc) didn't feel the need to hide any of this; conquest was good in and of itself, blessed by the clergy, approved of by journalists, etc. The Scramble of Africa included highly-visible international conferences for who got to own what, with the universal expectation that the military had a free hand to enforce those decisions on the ground. Also note that I'm not claiming Iraq is not an imperialist move, like Hephaestos I think it's too soon to know - although it tells you something when an administration has to spend months drumming up support for action, even after 12 years of nonstop SH demonization. In Victorian England the local commander would have invaded Iraq on his own authority, and informed the Colonial Office later, after receiving universal adulation in the newspapers. :-) Us evil US imperialists clearly don't have the hang of it yet... :-) Stan 20:35, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree, this Vietnam / Iraq / Afghanistan stuff is total crap, and simply has no place on this page. An encyclopedia is not a place where people put down their wacky conspiracy theories and try to pass them off as fact. I mean, it's like putting "some people consider the Israeli Government to be the secret puppet-masters of the world. Of course they deny this but how do we know for sure!?! " on the Israel page. It's nonsense. I'm deleting it, and this time I hope it will stay deleted. user:J.J.

Where is a "conspiracy theory" here? That the Israeli government are the puppet-masters of the world is not a widely held opinion. That the U.S. is imperialist, however, is a widely held view, and thus deserves mention (not as a fact, but as a view). This can not be dismissed as "wacky". --Wik 05:50, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Last week over 50 Heads of State gave a standing ovation to a Prime Minister who claimed that the "Jews run the world," so I could argue that my comment is indeed a "widely held" opinion. Look, I don't have a big problem with this page, as far as the pre-1910 stuff goes. Hell, I was the one who created the "American Empire" page in the first place! But to claim the Vietnam War, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war were all "imperialist", without a shred of evidence other than some comment about how "they could be, we don't know for sure" is nonsense, and a conspiracy theory. user:J.J.

I haven't heard that the heads of state gave a standing ovation to that specific comment. But even if they share that view, those were the heads of state of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the reaction in other parts of the world has been very different, so I don't think it is a widely held view globally. But if it is, then yes, of course it should be mentioned, no matter how wacky you think it is. It should be said that some people believe this, and others dismiss it, listing the arguments of both sides. Then let the reader make up his own mind. What's wrong with that? The article shouldn't positively claim that the Iraq war was imperialist, but that it is considered as such by many. The fact that the "official" reason for the war has now been pretty much exposed as a lie, and that U.S. corporations are already making good profits of the war [1], is more than a shred of evidence. --Wik 19:53, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Another pathetic and amateurish thing about this article is that it completely overlooks the actions of the US in Latin America in the early part of this century, even though many of those actions are described in detail in the WP articles about the Navy ships that took part. Those actions are much more clearly imperialistic, but of course they're not front page news anymore, so it takes some actual research to learn about them. Stan 17:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree. The article as it stands is poor, but as the consensus seems to be that it's a valid topic for an article, so let's improve it. -- Infrogmation 17:35, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I haven't quite gotten irritated enough to take action myself, but my suggestion would be to turn it into an article United States imperialism that slices through all the events and attitudes that could qualify as imperialism. There are other articles on this already, for instance American Empire - presumably there are lots of US-haters who write these as a way to vent their feelings - plus History of the United States and New Imperialism has relevant material. Despite all the material, we're lacking a cogent summary that goes deeper than reflexive US-bashing, for instance to explain how a democracy could be considered imperialist even though the vast majority of the voters are strongly opposed to the idea of empire, and have been for many years. Stan 18:05, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For all I know some contributors may indeed hate the USA; I am not privy to their personal beliefs. Still, people who thought the USA has behaved imperialistically and have objected to it to have ranged from radicals like Noam Chomsky to staunch conservatives like Robert Taft and Pat Buchanan and American icons like Mark Twain and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Let's watch our POV before throwing around the "US-bashing" "US-haters" label. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:36, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just one more comment; we shouldn't be making up our own stuff and throwing it around, we should be quoting from authorities, whether it be polls ("30% of Germans think the US is imperialist") or sources (for instance, one of my books quotes an 1890s-era Washington Post editorial opining that empire was a strange idea to Americans, but perhaps necessary), or books - there are certainly lots of those to choose from. No sentence without an authority to back it up! Stan 20:51, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but clearly since this is going to be a page that develops gradually, be patient about a ton of facts and figures at first. --Alex S 12:40, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Interesting sidenote: On the United States of America page, there is a section entitled "Colonial Interests," which begins: "The United States has held the following countries as colonies or de facto colonies at various times..." Yet nobody protested the existance of such a section. I think a lot of the complaints about this page are based on context rather than actual historical disagreements. --Alex S 05:13, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have made a fairly acceptable intro

I think I have made a fairly acceptable intro to the post WW2 accusations of American imperialism. I think it is important to portray these accusations as accusations, and make it clear that they are disputed, and not universially agreed upon. -user:J.J.

Why did you remove mention of the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua? -- Infrogmation 06:45, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of vague. The mere existance of a dictatorship does not imply imperialism. I realize the Somoza crew were US-backed, but I see this as more of a strategic Cold War thing (at least in the later days) than a flat out "imperial" one. I mean, is supporting the Saudis "imperialistic"? How about supporting the Canadians? Is every friend of America just a pawn in the grand imperial game? I think the list should just stick with cases in which America actively tried to alter the political status quo of a country.

user:J.J.

The Somoza administration were hardly in the same category as allies like Canada. US armed forces invaded the country to install the regeme. The Somozas made a big deal about their being supported by the US. -- Infrogmation

"actively tried to alter the political status quo"? So, like, if Estonia hires a lobbyist in DC, they're imperialists ruling the US? You can see why it's better to quote actual authorities rather than just making up stuff as you go along. Stan 06:01, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe status quo was not the right term. I just meant that allegations of American "Imperialism" are stronger if the US can be proven to have actively sought a radical change to the country, like by overthrowing the president or something. But you make a good point.

I don't really know much about the Somozas. All I meant was you can't just put their names on the page without explaining how their existance was uniquely "imperialist." I just didn't want every unpleasant US ally to be deemed imperialist sorely on the grounds that they sided with the United States. But if the Somoza situation was imposed by US troops, then sure, add them. user:J.J.

The Kingdom of Hawaii

Should The Kingdom of Hawaii became a republic in 1894 and in 1989 Hawaiian President Sanford Dole agreed to his nation's annexation by the United States. The republic ended in 1900 and the country became a territory of the US. read ... and in 1899 Hawaiian President ...? Kesuari 11.26 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Explanations of some of my changes

I moved the bulk of the section on the Natives to Indian Wars because we were missing an article on that subject, and if we went into that much detail about every American imperialist venture the article would become far to large to be useful.
I made the article more into a discussion of the debate over American imperialism, both today and at the time it was occuring, mostly because imperialism is an idea rather than a concrete event.
I incorporated more on cultural and economic imperialism because I do not think the topics can be separated from military imperialism, nor do I believe that military imperialism is the the central focus of imperialism.
I removed the POV warning because the changes made were fairly large, please feel free to reinsert it if you do not feel the bias has been suitably expunged.

-SimonP 22:27, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Better, but still too many unattributed "many believe" or "many argue". Also you don't mention that imperialism was opposed by conservatives and promulgated by progressives/liberals in the 19th century, but that the positions completely reversed in the 20th century. It would be interesting to trace a connection with the use of "imperialist" as an epithet in Soviet propaganda, I'm sure there are books on the subject although I don't know any titles (currently deep in Teddy R's bio myself). Stan 23:46, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like the changes a lot too. The only major revision was that I moved back a lot of the information on Native Americans, albeit streamlined. I think that while too much information burdens the point the history of native-settler interaction in the US is key to the idea of US Imperialism. I want to start expanding the "current opinions" part of the article with global views (backed by #s and %s) on the idea. --Alex S 00:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More back and forward normative debates

Ugh. More back and forward normative debates. More moral judgments and catch-phrase throwing. This might as well be Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. While AlexS has been doing some serious work, this article isn't going to work out on Wiki. It's just going to become more of a breeding ground for partisan trolling and posturing. On one hand, you'll have a forum for Anti-Americanism, and, on the other, you'll have to deal with J.J.'s personal essays and rationalizations. The only way to create an atmosphere conductive to some real historical writing on the subject is to redirect it to a new article on the diplomatic and military history of the United States. If anyone wants to do so, I can recommend scores of sources with ISBN numbers. I can also provide links to articles online if users want to get the new article done fairly quickly. 172 01:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not "rationalizing" I'm just trying to present the other side, which is lacking. I mean, if this page can openly present the "Marxist view" of how my country is an "imperial fiefdom" of America, than surely my passage about American distain for the term deserves a place as well. user:J.J.

Yes, you are. "Imperialism" is a standard social science term, albeit one defined in a variety of ways depending on the context, and a wealth of literature is available on the subject. It can also be used in a values-neutral context, and it will be used in a values-neutral context in this article. There is no place here for Marxist ploemics (which you are confusing with scholarship that adopts some Marxian analyses and concepts), nor your personal commentaries.

This is not a forum for your creative writing. No one cares how you react to this word personally. When you start talking about what kinds of images of which this word reminds you, everyone's bullshit detector should be going off. I doubt you'd be able to get away with this with your professors. 172 19:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You have to accept that regardless of whatever your own academic views of the term "imperialism" are, there are a lot of Americans who view the term's present-day application as a deliberate attempt to compare the United States to brutal regimes like the Roman Empire or whatever. I'm sure some people who use the term would even happily admit that by refering to American foreign policies as "Imperialism" they are trying to portray US actions as exploitative and brutal. This sort of "guilt by catagorization" or whatever you want to call it, is a legitimate criticism of the modern-day use of the term "American Imperialism" and deserves to be mentioned on this article. If I'm too much of a moron, someone else write it then. But you can't act like my criticism is just something that I thought up in a vaccuum. I could cite many articles where critics denounce the term because they believe it is overtly loaded or partisan. user:J.J.

Readers unfamiliar with sociology, political economy, and international relations easily confuse common technical terms with context-specific, values-neutral meanings - like "imperialism" - with the more popular usage of these terms in the slogans and ploemics of activists. The same goes for "nationalism," another term used - and abused - in popular discourse.

I will continue to revert any attempts to shift this article's focus from history to slogans. 172 22:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed?

maybe a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" is called for? based on this talk page at least... jengod 22:58, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for a neutrality dispute. There is a need for users to stay on topic. "Imperialism" is common technical term in the social sciences with context-specific, values-neutral meanings. J.J just needs to look up what "imperialism" means in the first place and how it is used in the social sciences and history. This doesn't mean finding the first op-ed piece that comes up on Google or Yahoo. This means that he needs to go to his local library or university library and consult encyclopedias, social science sourcebooks, and textbooks. It would behoove him to do this, rather than rambling on about he personally "feels" about the term. 172 00:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There has got to be a more NPOV title for this

The following isn't pretty or perfect, but it's better than the current title:

United States Policies Viewed as Imperialism

the inclusion of the history of such policies is clearly implied, I think. I'm new, and can't quite read whether there is a consensus regarding the original title, so I hesitate to edit it myself. But I do recommend someone second this motion and do so...

title is fine

The title is fine (not my choice for an article entry, though), but I understand why some users are suspicious. When familiar only with the popular usage of "imperialism," general readers and students often use this term without knowing what it means. They assume that it is a pejorative term.

However, in diplomatic and military history, "imperialism" is a standard, value-neutral term. It merely refers to influence by nations or peoples over weaker nations or peoples. Dating from antiquity, imperialism has taken many forms. Thus, general readers often conflate imperialism and colonialism, which is properly used in a more restrictive sense.

Colonialism entails formal political control involving territorial annexation. Imperialism can be exercised formally or informally, directly or indirectly, politically or economically. One can say that colonialism is a form of imperialism, but not vice versa.

Having observed so many ridiculous, protracted edit wars stemming from the failure to understand standard, encyclopedic definitions, I would not have created this article. Given the likelihood of conflicts and misunderstanding on Wiki, a broader focus on the Military and diplomatic history of the United States, IMHO, would have worked out better. But you already have too much work here to change the title. Without a substantial rewrite, no other title is appropriate. While the title is going to raise eyebrows occasionally, it is not a violation of NPOV policies so long as the article stays on focus. 172 11:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172, it is doubtful that a reader would be likely to ignore the popular usage of the term and focus instinctively on a fixed, unambigious, value-neutral usage in military and diplomatic history, if this usage is indeed as you believe. Readers are more likely to be either attracted to or repelled by the article out of hand on the basis of their understanding of the word. A minority might look for context via the Wikipedia definition of imperialism, which is not a bad one, but is not yours, and does not help with the NPOV problems in the title. In any event, the propagandistic use of the word imperialism by supporters and opponents of the U.S. and / or its policies has clearly pushed the word's understood meaning completely beyond the realm of value-neutrality.

Other than re-titling, no rewrite would be necessary. In fact, my proposed title is far more true to the current body of the work - which I have little problem with. In it, each and every idea is introduced as something that *has been viewed as* imperialism:

"According to some who argue America has been imperialistic the first step... was the conquest of the Native American peoples who inhabited North America."

"The Louisiana Purchase... is often considered the first major event in American expansion, although it is rarely cited an act of imperialism."

"The Mexican-American War from 1846-1848 is often viewed as motivated by American imperialism."

"The late nineteenth century is the era which the most historians consider to be one of imperialism."

"The Philippine-American War (1899-1913) is perhaps the most egregious example of United States imperialism." I happen to agree, but the word "perhaps" is still, appropriately, used.

"Many argue that the United States had a de facto empire in the Americas throughout this period."

"As with most aspects of American imperialism these [post-WWII] events are still disputed (especially in America itself) as many believe that they were not imperialist in nature."

This is all fairly good NPOV. The title ought to follow suit.

Like I said, I'm new to this, and if I'm the only one who sees a problem here, it ought to be left as is. If someone else feels I have a point, they can second my motion by editing the title to "United States Policies Viewed as Imperialism."

If users don't know the definition of the term

I haven't added any content to this article (other than removing some irrelevant tangents). Nor was this my choice for an article. If users don't know the definition of the term, you can edit the article and add it to the intro. A word may be widely confused, but it's fine so long as this article uses properly. 172 03:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Imperialism" - POV

The title of this article is inherently POV. Perhaps a name change is in order? Or it can be put under a single article, "US imperialism", which could debate the term, not present it as a POV history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willowx (talk • contribs) 17 July 2005

Delete?

That is not "fact"-- it is POV. The title of this article is fundamentally POV, since the debate would be WHETHER the US was or was not imperial. This article should be merged in Imperialism or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.80.132 (talk • contribs)

This article should separate imperialism that is accepted by mainstream historians (eg. Philipines, Hawaii) vs. speculation. As it stands, it mixes fact with ridiculous diatribe. For example, there is no legitimate reason a 7 paragraph lesson on the Boxer rebellion belongs here--however interesting US diplomacy regarding it may seem. I dare say it is possibly longer than the boxer rebellion section on China's page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.80.34 (talk • contribs)

Discussions

The US was imperialist, all that is arguable is that it still is. It is a fact that it was imperialist however. It was in a situation similar to Russia where its empire was on its borders not in far off lands. I didn't write this too well though hopefully you can understand what I mean and impliment it beter. --Josquius 16:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

That is POV. Wikipedia is NPOV. You must post what others say (magazine articles, academic papers etc) and not your opinion. Get it????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.80.34 (talk • contribs)

What Jasquius said is not strictly POV. You are confusing NPOV with NOR. Either way, he makes a valid point; I don't think anyone would rationally argue that the US has never persued imperialist goals. Anyway, the page title uses the phrase "overseas expansion" (though I don't see why that is any more PC than "imperialism"). -- abfackeln 01:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

CIA support for the overthrow of Allende in Chile is confirmed. Here is a link to the primary source documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex S (talk • contribs)

Uh, no it doesn't. All this confirms is that the US was trying to prevent Allende from coming to power, which is not disputed. Show me the sources where it shows CIA agents giving instructions to the Chilean military on how and when to make the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.J. (talk • contribs)

Um jingoist, read the Salvador Allende section. No, there is no picture with the CIA having a gun to Allendes head. But lets be honest, if there was, this would be explained away too.

Jingoist, Lets read together what we do know from the Salvador Allende section:

A CIA report released in 2000 admitted that the CIA financed this trucker's strike...The "truckers' strike", backed by CIA funding, virtually paralysed the economy for three weeks, which Moscow saw as evidence of the weakness of the Popular Unity government.
Almost immediately after his election, Nixon directed CIA and U.S. State Department officials to "put pressure" on Allende's government, however it is not certain to what degree this influenced Allende's downfall.
It is known that the United States played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup.
After Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S. President Richard Nixon that the U.S. "didn't do it" (referring to the coup itself) but had "created the conditions as great as possible", including leading economic sanctions.
Recently declassified documents show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970, immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT"), through the incident that claimed the life of then Commander-in-Chief, General René Schneider, but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence.

So Jingoist, can we agree that there was a CIA 1970 coup to overthrow Allende? Wasn't this the imperialism that we are discussing today? Where America attempts to overthrow a democratically elected leader?

Can we agree that the CIA put a lot of financial pressure on the government before the coup? That this economic pressure was to try and topple Allende?

Can we agree that the CIA has a recently declassified document, dated September 16, 1970: which states:

"The Director told the group that President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States.. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, The Agency is to carry out this mission without coordination with the Departments of State or Defense."See Project FUBELT

Can we agree that the CIA has a recently declassified cable, dated October 16, 1970, which states:

"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand will be well hidden." See Project FUBELT

Answer my four questions Jingoist, or don't waste my time.

Here we have America attempting to overthrow Allende once before, then they try to destabilize the economy so the people will overthrow him, and then when he is overthrown, you have the audacity to claim that America had no part in the overthrow. True blind jingoism. How could you be so ideologically blind?

New long list

This new long list of alleged imperialism really stretches the meaning of the word. Many of these could simply be "foreign policy" or foreign conflicts with no credible tie to "imperialism". At the very least it should be trimmed. And if it stays, I'm definitely removing the prejudicial rhetoric many entries include. -- V V 21:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, the section on colonialism in China and the Boxers is as long as it is on the page for China! And yet the US involvment here was peripheral. It seems like the agenda for this page is to extend US "involvement" to as much as possible to implicate the US. Why are similar pages for History of Russian Imperialism or History of Swedish Imperialism non-existent or sparse at best? Germany had numerous proper colonies around the globe, yet the page is a simple list. Double-standards are obvious, but more importantly one expects an encyclopedia to have proportional information. An encyclopedia that had 12 pages on "Cats" and a single paragragh for "Dogs" would be a joke. Unfortunately the partisan political agendas of many participants put politics ahead of the user experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates999 (talk • contribs)

I don't accept this. The whole point about this project is that we should aim for detail, and this is one of the most comprehensive lists around. Furthermore it states at the top: "The following is a list of incidents involving the United States which some view as having hidden or overt imperialist motivations" - that is, it points out from the start that only some regard them to be imperialist acts. Moreover, each coup says "alleged", even in cases where it's pretty much generally accepted or proven. Neither do I think it stretches the meaning of the word imperialism - it's a list of actions where the United States is purported to have meddled in the internal affairs of other nations to further its own interests. To simply suggest that the overthrow of governments and their replacement with regimes more pliant to US interests isn't imperialist and indeed is simply "foreign policy" does not seem reasonable to me. And what prejudicial rhetoric are you referring to? Jonesy 22:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think VW makes a valid point. I mean, I was all for the shorter list, of the main, key allegations of third-world meddling, but now the list includes every single possible event of the last 50 years in which American intelligence may have even been slighty present. Every time there is a regime change in some corner of the world that the current occupant of the white house finds preferable it doesn't nessisarily follow that this was the result of some grand imperial scheme. As well, vague terms like "supports" and "backs" are hardly indicators of imperialism. America "backs" the current government of Canada, and would probably defend Canada if attacked. Does that mean Canada is just some imperial puppet state?

See, this article becoming exactly what I knew it was going to be. The term "imperialism" is no longer being used in any sort of factual context, but rather as a "catch all" term to describe any foreign activities (real or imagined) of Republican governments that certain members of the political left do not care for. user:J.J.

I would agree with the above. I think there is a valid place somewhere for the list in Wikipedia, but in general large lists in the middle of an article are bad formatting. (I'm also certain Italy and Greece wouldn't delight at being lumped into the Third World) - SimonP 02:47, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I do find it interesting that, except for Vietnam, every single intervention on the list was the work of a Republican president. That is hardly NPOV. It overlooks, to cite one obvious example, the Bay of Pigs invation under Kennedy; or the various bombings of Iraq under Clinton. I think it is impossible to keep a list of this nature short, because every single instance of US foreign intervention can be described "by some" as imperialist. So I think the short list should be removed from this page, and the link to all foreign interventions kept to replace it. Fishal 03:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For refrence here is a copy of the deleted list:

The Third World

The following is a list of incidents involving the United States which some suspect as having hidden or overt imperialist motivations:

US provides military aid to right-wing forces battling communist insurgents in Greece in 1947.
CIA involvement in Italian elections, involving propaganda and the alleged buying of votes, in order to prevent the Communist Party of Italy coming to power, in 1948.
US-led Korean War from 1950 until 1953.
US-backed overthrow of the regime in Iran in 1953, support for the Shah until his overthrow in 1979.
US-backed overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in 1954.
US support for dictator Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam from 1955 - 1963.
US support for Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista until his overthrow in 1959.
Alleged US-backed establishment of François Duvalier as dictator of Haiti.
US-backed abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961.
Alleged CIA assassination of Congo's democratically elected leader, Patrice Lumumba.
US support of Ba'ath Party coup in Iraq in 1963; support for dictator Saddam Hussein until 1990.
Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Juan Bosch, the democratically elected leader of the Dominican Republic.
Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Jose Maria Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador in 1963.
Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Joao Goulart in Brazil in 1964, CIA training for its death squads.
Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia in 1965, resulting in estimated death of one million suspected Communists.
Vietnam War - (1964-1975) - estimated deaths of three million Vietnamese.
Bombing campaigns against Laos, with more US bombs dropped than during all of World War Two, from 1964 - 1975.
Alleged CIA-backed military coup brings dictator Mobutu Sese Seko to power in the Congo in 1965.
Alleged CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece in 1967.
Alleged CIA-organised military operation ends in execution of Che Guevara in Bolivia in 1968.
Alleged CIA-supported coup against Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia in 1970.
Alleged CIA-supported military coup against President Juan Torres of Bolivia in 1971.
Alleged CIA-supported overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile- 1973
CIA support for UNITA rebels in Angola, from 1976 - 1984.
Following overthrow of the dictator Samosa in Nicaragua by the Sandinistas, the CIA supports the Contras from 1979 - 1989. Nicaragua still has not received the U.S. restitutions for military and paramilitary activities as ruled by the International Court of Justice and as supported by a United Nations General Assembly resolution.
CIA support for death-squads in El Salvador throughout the 1980s.
US invasion of Grenada, overthrow of Marxist government (Operation Urgent Fury) - 1983.
US invasion of Panama, overthrow of Manuel Noriega (Operation Just Cause) - 1989.
US-led Gulf War following Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
US-led sanctions against Iraq, resulting in the estimated deaths of over one million civilians, from 1990 to 2003.
US-led bombing campaign, called Operation Desert Fox, against Iraq in 1998.
US bombing of Afghanistan in 1998.
US bombing of factory in Sudan - later admitted to be a mistake - in 1998.
US invasion of Afghanistan, overthrow of Taliban in 2001.
Alleged CIA-backed abortive coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002.
US Invasion of Iraq, overthrow of Saddam Hussein - 2003

Posted by: —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonP (talk • contribs)

"Imperialism is a value-neutral term"

I'm restoring some of my past comments on this page, seeing how some of the same confusions keep popping up. 172 07:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how this pertains to undoing J.J.'s trimming of the list in the article back to what it was three days ago. The shorter list was good enough Feb 9, why not now? And what about the several other objections? You're even calling Italy third-world again. -- V V 07:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just a correction. I haven't added any content to this article, so I'm not the one making that error. Anyway, this page is going to be a disaster area unless you all agree on a definition for imperialism and accept the usage of the term in a value-neutral context. You can remove the list if you'd like, but hopefully your or J.J. can do a better job of explaining why this list doesn't belong in this article before removing it again. 172 20:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. More back and forward normative debates. More moral judgments and catch-phrase throwing. This might as well be Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. While AlexS has been doing some serious work, this article isn't going to work out on Wiki. It's just going to become more of a breeding ground for partisan trolling and posturing. On one hand, you'll have a forum for Anti-Americanism, and, on the other, you'll have to deal with J.J.'s personal essays and rationalizations. The only way to create an atmosphere conductive to some real historical writing on the subject is to redirect it to a new article on the diplomatic and military history of the United States. If anyone wants to do so, I can recommend scores of sources with ISBN numbers. I can also provide links to articles online if users want to get the new article done fairly quickly. 172 01:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not "rationalizing" I'm just trying to present the other side, which is lacking. I mean, if this page can openly present the "Marxist view" of how my country is an "imperial fiefdom" of America, than surely my passage about American distain for the term deserves a place as well. user:J.J.

Yes, you are. "Imperialism" is a standard social science term, albeit one defined in a variety of ways depending on the context, and a wealth of literature is available on the subject. It can also be used in a values-neutral context, and it will be used in a values-neutral context in this article. There is no place here for Marxist ploemics (which you are confusing with scholarship that adopts some Marxian analyses and concepts), nor your personal commentaries.

This is not a forum for your creative writing. No one cares how you react to this word personally. When you start talking about what kinds of images of which this word reminds you, everyone's bullshit detector should be going off. I doubt you'd be able to get away with this with your professors. 172 19:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Readers unfamiliar with sociology, political economy, and international relations easily confuse common technical terms with context-specific, values-neutral meanings - like "imperialism" - with the more popular usage of these terms in the slogans and ploemics of activists. The same goes for "nationalism," another term used - and abused - in popular discourse.

There is no need for a neutrality dispute. There is a need for users to stay on topic. "Imperialism" is common technical term in the social sciences with context-specific, values-neutral meanings. J.J just needs to look up what "imperialism" means in the first place and how it is used in the social sciences and history. This doesn't mean finding the first op-ed piece that comes up on Google or Yahoo. This means that he needs to go to his local library or university library and consult encyclopedias, social science sourcebooks, and textbooks. It would behoove him to do this, rather than rambling on about he personally "feels" about the term. 172 00:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How is it value neutral? If the meaning is colonialism, then use the word colonialism, which has a concrete technical use. If the meaning is hegemony, regional dominance, use hegemony. If the meaning is globalization , use that word. Using a fuzzy word like imperialism, which technically should be connected to a formal empire, to mean any involvement with a world by a large nation is imprecise and obviously political, coming from its wide use in communist spheres (see so-called Anti-Imperialism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates999 (talk • contribs)

The title is fine (not my choice for an article entry, though), but I understand why some users are suspicious. When familiar only with the popular usage of "imperialism," general readers and students often use this term without knowing what it means. They assume that it is a pejorative term.

However, in diplomatic and military history, "imperialism" is a standard, value-neutral term. It merely refers to influence by nations or peoples over weaker nations or peoples. Dating from antiquity, imperialism has taken many forms. Thus, general readers often conflate imperialism and colonialism, which is properly used in a more restrictive sense.

Colonialism entails formal political control involving territorial annexation. Imperialism can be exercised formally or informally, directly or indirectly, politically or economically. One can say that colonialism is a form of imperialism, but not vice versa.

Having observed so many ridiculous, protracted edit wars stemming from the failure to understand standard, encyclopedic definitions, I would not have created this article. Given the likelihood of conflicts and misunderstanding on Wiki, a broader focus on the Military and diplomatic history of the United States, IMHO, would have worked out better. But you already have too much work here to change the title. Without a substantial rewrite, no other title is appropriate. While the title is going to raise eyebrows occasionally, it is not a violation of NPOV policies so long as the article stays on focus. 172 11:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't added any content to this article (other than removing some irrelevant tangents). Nor was this my choice for an article. If users don't know the definition of the term, you can edit the article and add it to the intro. A word may be widely confused, but it's fine so long as this article uses properly. 172 03:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umm...If you are using a term that is likely to be misunderstood by a large segment of the reading population, it is your responsibility to make its meaning clear. Wikipedia is not a specialized social-sciences encyclopedia. In case you haven't looked, the current contents of the Imperialism article (which this article rightly links to) begins with:

Imperialism is the acquisition and maintenance of empires, through direct territorial control or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

Imperialists normally hold the belief that the acquisition and maintenance of empires is a positive good, combined with an assumption of cultural or other such superiority inherent to the imperial power. Subjects of imperial and post-imperial governments and those sympathetic to them have often considered imperialism to be an exploitive evil, a view often shared by factions of the citizens of the imperialistic state.

That being said, my major issue with this article is the use of "some" and "others" (as in, "Some argue that this means by which the United States expanded and asserted its authority were classic examples of imperialism; others disagree.") Me and my cat could argue something, and that would be "some". You need verifiable sources of information. Of course, this is an issue with many articles, but it's particularly important to correct it here if there is any hope of this article being anything worthwhile. -Rholton 00:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Even though it might be so that some (many?) people are misinformed with regard to the exact meaning(s) of 'imperialism', the word does best describe the totality of many US foreign policies in especially the late 19th century. Above-mentioned examples such as 'colonialism' and 'hegemony' do not adequately cover the whole situation: especially the projected special status of US traders in Japan and the forcing through of the Chinese Open Door-system cannot be expressed together with the above-mentioned words, and clearly result from imperialist tendencies. (Please note that I believe the page on Imperialism should be modified slightly; see the discussion page of that article for my remarks.) Wikipedia should use the correct terminology, and if this terminology is somewhat hazy through popular usage, we should redirect readers to Wikipedia's own definition as soon as the possibility presents itself, and stick to that definition except where the specific usage in an article might deviate somewhat. This is why I'm not too happy with having an explanation about the usage of the term 'imperialiasm' in this article, as this only adds to the confusion. On the whole I do not believe this article to be NPOV, though I too believe the usage of 'some' and 'others' in this article to be somewhat unspecified. Discussion on modern imperialism will always provoke some bad sentiment, as this concept is much less clearly defined than 19th century imperialism; cultural imperialism in particular has few hard definitions. Before fighting over what does and what does not comprise modern American imperialism, a workable definition of modern imperialism should be found, and it should be made clear when foreign policies and even extranational intervention becomes 'imperialist'.--Santetjan 7 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Inhabitants of the Mexican Cession

the entire Southwest and California, which at the time were almost wholly populated by Americans,

I find that surprising. Or are those "Americans" including the Native Americans? Does anyone have a good source for 1848 population figures? –Hajor 19:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They were americans alright; they were born in the continent of America, right? But as far as I know, US citizens only call themselves americans.LtDoc 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The question of how many people inhabited the lands of the Mexican Cession in 1848 is sociologically and anthropologically significant. How many Spaniards/Mexicans were there? Remained? How many Native Americans? How many Americans of European descent? Any census-like data about this would enlighten and make today's immigration and cultural discussion better educated and *people-centered*, which is essential as the topic of immigration is a facet of human rights. -DL March 24, 2006

Look in the Californio article for more information about the Spanish-speaking or Mexican inhabitants of Alta California when the U.S. by act of war with Mexico annexed the province of California in 1848. It's doubtful to call the American expansion into the west coast of North America an act of colonialism, but the Californios were rebelling against the Mexican government at the time and American (or independent away from Mexican) rule was somewhat favored among the Hispanos and Tejanos, other Hispanic peoples of the present-day Southwestern U.S. in the 1840's. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

American Empire

Portions of an article called American Empire duplicate the subject of this article. The rest of the article is about a rhetorical device and should not be merged. -Acjelen 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia

Can anyone tell me how I'm supposed to cite an article in a college paper? Thanks. Karatloz 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If you mean how to cite this page in an article you are writing I would just note the web page of the article. If you mean how do you cite a College paper article you've incorporated into this page in the references see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. -AllanHainey 10:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it should stand as is (combined though)

I don't understand why there is a debate. Just combine the two articles (under the same names) and it's all well and good. - web alias zeppelincheetah

Jefferson and LA Purchase

"After the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson signed the Louisiana Government Bill, which denied the new United States territory the right to self-government. Instead, it was to be ruled by military officials under direct orders from the capitol. Since most of the population of the territory consisted of non-whites and Catholics, Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority."

Can we get some actual cites and evidence for this? Otherwise, it doesn't seem very NPOV

--ViperDaim 64.154.26.251 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Cultural Imperialism

Stating that the current cultural imperialism is "unintentional" and "a side effect of capitalism" and that "government has no role on the industries" of culture is extreme POV.LtDoc 16:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Can quotes be added to this wikipedia site?

I added these quotes to wikipedia and then added an external link to this page.

“…in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent "white man's burden." And in the United States, empire does not even exist; "we" are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide.”

--The Editors, "After the attacks…the war on terrorism", Monthly Review, 53, 6, Nov., 2001. P 7

The term “imperialism”...overuse and...abuse is making it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept. Thorton concluded that “imperialism” is “more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves….Colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against.” --“Benevolent Assimilation” The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903; Stuart Creighton Miller Travb

I pity the jingoists

Jingoist Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

I have been monitoring this entry for about 2 weeks. I am disappointed at the extreme Jingoists who frequent this entry. Every day someone else tries to vandilize this site.

There has never been a "Vote for Deletion" about America being the "beacon of freedom" to the world. None of these jingotists would argue that this is POV.

Since jingotists cannot argue the history of American imperialism, they characteristically attack the source, trying to other like minded jingoists delete the site.

Pathetic, irrational behavior you should be ashamed.Travb 20:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

They wont be ashamed mate, they know exactly what they do. They honestly believe imperialism is a good thing. That they have a right to rule the world. The original phrase jiongism was to take land by force if I am not mistaken? What do we have around the world? Phillipines = US; Kosovo = US; Japan = US; Germany = US; France = US; Spain = US; I could keep going forever.. is there ANY country the US hasnt got a military presence in? OH thats right, libya and iran... and then we know wich two countries are being invaded next...

213.141.89.53 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

24.60.161.63 deleted cartoon

User 24.60.161.63 deleted the cartoon showing uncle sam balancing all his new imperialist treasures. User 24.60.161.63 deleted it stating that it was a "pointless" cartoon. I reverted this cartoon back--can User 24.60.161.63 explain why he feels that this cartoon is pointless?Travb 16:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not 24.60..., but I think this cartoon would not appear in a good article. Why? Because this topic is very important and controversial and these sorts of topics require writing that attempts to focus the mind of the reader on the exact topic under discussion. This cartoon does deal with US imperialist history. However, to modern eyes, it is also relevant to the history of internal US racism. The children have the overemphasized lips and hair of caricatures that are now regarded by many in America as offensive racial stereotypes. Their size and age relative to Uncle Sam is reminiscent of a time when all men with dark skin in the United States were addressed as "boy." This has nothing to do with the message of the cartoon at the time it was drawn, but it has everything to do with what would appear in a good article.

Hiding away such cartoons is stupid political correctness and a denial of history. However, incorporating the cartoon in this article adds heat to an important and controversial topic where light is needed. Whoever added the caption to this cartoon described the children as "savage children," adding more heat and taking away light. What traits of the children in the cartoon appear to be savage to you? They are not engaged in any savage actions and their size and stature suggests that the artist intended to convey dependency, not savagery.

So why don't I delete it myself? See the topic below. The rest of the article is so terribly written that a cartoon with this caption is a good fast way to warn the reader that the rest of the article is garbage. Flying Jazz 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Awful writing for the introduction. Bad to awful writing elsewhere.

In the first sentence of the introduction we read that the United States was initially "of little international import." Little import compared to WHAT?

Later the introduction describes the 13 colonies as "small." Small compared to WHAT? To what it became later? Too obvious to mention. Small compared to European states? Untrue. The remainder of the introduction makes analogies rather than saying what the article is about.

The first dates we encounter in the article itself are the 1960s and 1970s. The historiography is discussed before the history, and then we are told truisms and informed that they are truisms. Fortunately, the rest of the article is better than the terrible start while most of it still manages to be simply bad with lapses into the terrible. I tried to fix American exceptionalism but now I have less time, so I'm just tagging this and hoping someone else will do a repair. This article shouldn't be deleted. It should be improved. Flying Jazz 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The 13 american colonies barely survived the war for independence. I would like to know if it means area or power. If area, then not technically small. If by power, then small in all sences of the word. On comparison with a former empire like spain. Not on par with Britain despite victory. Surviving an invasion is not a sign of a superpower. SO yes, small.

Why is this page here?

I am having a hard time figuring out why this page is here. Most of the topics listed here belong in other articles. Incidents involving the Indian Wars and U.S. westward expansion belong in Manifest Destiny. Incidents involving U.S. policy in the Americas belong in the Monroe Doctrine. Current issues belong in Foreign relations of the United States. This page seems merely to be a place for persons with anti-american views to express themselves. I think this article should be dismantled and the information moved to other appropriate articles. Please discuss.

I think wikipedia should have an article on United States imperialism. Part of that article should deal with its causes. Another part of that article should deal with its history up to the present. This page shouldn't be here, but the fact that this page is here and that United States imperialism redirects to this page is a first sign that horrible, disputed POV writing is ahead as if someone with an axe to grind said, "You think it's debateable whether the US is imperialistic? Ha! I won't even define the term for you! Here's the history!" This page needs a huge rehaul and part of that rehaul should involve a move, not a deletion. The topic of American imperialism certainly belongs on wikipedia. It should just be written better. Flying Jazz 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! That is not very nice at all. Attacking my intelligence will not give any additional weight to your views. In future please stop making statements such as "Ha! I won't even define the term for you!". [2] I also never said I thought "it's debateable whether the US is imperialistic?" All I said was that this is covered in other, better written articles such as Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. I also stated that it seems this article merely provides an area for persons with anti-american views to express themselves. Perhaps if this article is to become what I believe you are advocating it should be set up more along the lines of the British Empire article. By the way, if my mistake in not signing my comment above led you to believe that I was another user than I apologise. Movementarian 04:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, in retrospect I withdraw the my objection. My sincerest apologies to you. This article is very well presented and maintained. I think that the use of the term imperialism, while correct, has an inherently negative connotation. That said, I cannot think of another term that would work better. Once again, I apologise for my previous statements. Movementarian 04:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Without any irony, what would you like to happen? I never meant to insult your intellect. I agree with much of what you said originally. This page shouldn't be here. The same content is presented much better elsewhere. I also think the fact that United States imperialism and American imperialism redirect here is terrible as if those responsible for the redirect were making those not-nice statements. This article should not exist, but an American imperialism article should. Do you really think this article is well presented and maintained? I'm the one who added the needs-to-be-cleaned-up tag to it. What about it do you think is very well presented? Yup. I'm confused.Flying Jazz 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you, I confused myself reading my previous posts. I was addressing two different things at the same time. Personally, I would have liked this article to be dismantled and its pieces exported to more relevant articles, such as those I previously mentioned. I agree that American Imperialism is definitely a subject worthy of an article, but not in this form or under this title. I think this article would be better served if it started with the ideas and policies of the U.S. at given times in history and explained how they were intrumental in extending it's power and influence. This is a difficult task to complete without glorifying or condemning the U.S.

Excuse me, but isn't it up to people to judge the value of the word imperialism? Not you. Using a word like imperialism, does not make it POV. I see imperialism as a bad thing, I think the US consistently have continued in it for the last 150-200 years or so, but does that mean that that everyone sees it that way? Im sure some ultra conservative jiongist thinks its awesome to invade countries. The simple fact is, the US have had a consistent jiongistic/imperialistic foreign policy for a long time. Specific periods might be excluded. It has expanded it's territory or CONTROLLED territory if you will overseas. Question is in my mind what is expansion? Military bases? If so, then this article is way to weak. If it's military bases and puppet regimes, then WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to weak article. And so on.... If you want to argue the issue I'd be happy to provide incitement.

213.141.89.53 23:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

massive copyedit

I went through and basically copyedited the entire article (overall diff). There remains a great deal of work to be done before the NPOV tag can come off, but I hope my edits will be viewed as a step (or giant leap!) in the right direction... Tom e r ^talk 10:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice edits, the article reads better now Travb 07:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Title

Forgive my provocative comment... Is United States an adjective?

Major overhaul

I felt if this article was going to work, it needed a definition of imperialism at the beginning, and to differentiate the different schools of thought about Americas history and place in the world today in America. Inspired by Miller, I added:

why Americans feel they are unique and not imperialists,
a large section explaining the three school of thoughts, and
why Imperialism is such a worthless word for historians today.Travb 09:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

Unfortunatly, in every major overhaul, some sentences and even paragraphs will need to be rewritten or deleted. I am sorry if my actions frustrates some of my fellow wikipedians. To avoid a revert war, I will attempt to explain why I am deleting these sentences, and work on a concensus to make this article more encyclopedic.

The following are some of the sentences I have temporarily deleted from the article, and why I feel they should be temporarily deleted and rewritten:

Deletions in: Continental expansion

Others argue that there is a difference between expansionism and imperialism. They argue that the American expansion driven by settlers and a need for more land was very different from European imperialism that was primarily a search for raw materials and new markets, with colonization and settlement only an occasional side effect.

"Others" is a weasel word. Who exactly? Please name a historian who feels this way, and please quote him or paraphrase his thoughts. This paragraph becomes a little redundant with Miller's three schools of thought. The three schools of thought already discuss the viewpoints, reasoning, and justifications that Americans use.

And indeed almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants, so the notion that the US began its existence through the conquest of native tribes can be called a truism, since the conquest of one population by another and subsequent change of government/sovereignty is more often than not the very definition of a new country. Otherwise, it must be noted that the United States is no more "imperialistic" on sole account of its relationship to native peoples than such nations as Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, etc. Therefore, many would argue that while acts of conquest are generally reprehensible, acts of "imperialism" require a more specific and systematic method of exploitation (oppressive and non-mutually-beneficial in nature) and suzerainty over other nations, as opposed to mere territorial acquisition, an argument which likely makes no difference to the people actually losing their sovereignty.

This paragraph is not well written in its current form.

First portion of the paragraph

And indeed almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants, so the notion that the US began its existence through the conquest of native tribes can be called a truism

followed, ironically by another truism:

since the conquest of one population by another and subsequent change of government/sovereignty is more often than not the very definition of a new country.

"more often than not" is not encyclopedic.

Like the other paragraph, this paragraph becomes a little redundant with Miller's three schools of thought, which is much better written and clearer. The three schools of thought already discuss the viewpoints, reasoning, and justifications that Americans use. The author of this difficult to read paragraph would probably fall in the first category: "patriotic American" apologist.

What exactly is this person attempting to say? I am not quite sure, except he/she is trying to minimize and justify America's actions.

almost every nation on earth is occupied by invaders who wrested territory from previous inhabitants

i.e. Since every country does it, America's territoral expansion is normal. This is a red herring falacy of logic, common with apologists. A red herring falacy of logic is when someone justifies the actions of a person by highlighting the crimes of someone else.

This is not encyclopedic, and maybe an example would explain why:

If I were descibing the attrocities of the French in Algeria on a wikipedia article on this war, would I cite Russian attrocities in Afghanistan in this article?

No.

Why?

Because I am talking about French actions in Algeria. What happened in Afghanistan is irrelevant to the discussion. Similarly, whether "Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia" is imperialistic is irrelevant to this wikiarticle. This article is not discussing "Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia". It is discussing America.

Second portion of paragraph

Therefore, many would argue that while acts of conquest are generally reprehensible, acts of "imperialism" require a more specific and systematic method of exploitation (oppressive and non-mutually-beneficial in nature) and suzerainty over other nations, as opposed to mere territorial acquisition, an argument which likely makes no difference to the people actually losing their sovereignty.

"suzerainty" --is a spelling error, I don't know what this is supposed to be.

This sentence appears tacked on to the other sentence, with no smooth transition.

The first portion justifies America's territorial expansion, stating that America is no different than other countries.

The second portion begins with a weasel phrase: "many would argue" and then states to be imperialistic, a country must be more oppresive and less helpful to the natives. This has nothing to do with the first portion of the paragraph.

Further, what authority is the author citing? Again, this sentence reaffirms Miller and Thortons argument that the word "Imperialism" cannot be used as a historical term.Travb 09:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions in: The Louisiana Territory

"However, the Louisiana Government Bill that followed it, although less well-known, is often cited as an early instance of heavy-handedness and hypocrisy in the early United States."

Who cited it? This is POV "heavy-handedness and hypocrisy" unless you cite and quote who said it (preferably a historian).Travb 09:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Some would argue that the actual owners of the bulk of land was neither France nor the United States but rather the Native Americans who had resided on it for centuries and who were not consulted about this transaction. Others would reply that this would be to apply a 20th century viewpoint to 19th century circumstances, and to assume a concept of ownership of land not actually held by Native Americans, who nevertheless may be entitled to the full benefits of such a concept regardless of their belief systems."

Other weasel phrases: "Some would argue", "Others would reply" Who says this?

This sentence is difficult to understand: "and to assume a concept of ownership of land not actually held by Native Americans, who nevertheless may be entitled to the full benefits of such a concept regardless of their belief systems"

I have no clue what the author is trying to say.Travb 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions about: The Louisiana Territory

Since most of the population of the territory consisted of non-whites and Catholics, Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority. Modern-day critics of this choice point out the irony in the fact that Jefferson, who had decried British denial of American self rule in the Declaration of Independence, was now issuing the orders to deny self-rule in an American territory, issuing commands from half-way across the continent.

Jefferson felt that the government should suspend its right to self-government until enough white settlers moved west to command a majority.

I always cringe when anyone writes how someone felt, especially with no citied source. What did Jefferson say? Why not quote him, or add a footnote with a quote that proves that he felt this way.

Modern-day critics of this choice point out the irony in the fact that Jefferson...

Which "modern day critics"?Travb 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions about: The Mexican American War

The Mexican-American War from 1846 to 1848 is often viewed as motivated by American imperialism. In 1846, President James K. Polk sent soldiers to the disputed zone between Mexico and the newly annexed Republic of Texas in what most historians describe as a provocation for war.

"often viewed" By who? I seriously doubt a majority of Americans view the Mexican-American War as American imperialism.

"in what most historians describe as a provocation for war."

Another sentence that makes me cringe--"most historians"

Why not instead write cite one prominent historian and replace "most" with "many".Travb 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with you. Then you wrote " I seriously doubt a majority of Americans view the Mexican-American War as American imperialism."

What the fuck do you know about that? Have you talked to a majority of Americans? Especially thoose who are dead now, like all of them are. Same situation. I dont care what you believe.

The simple fact is that america moved aggressively westwards under the idea of manifest destiny, and claimed that they had a right to said lands, even though some were under mexican control. How is this not imperialism?

213.141.89.53 23:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions in: The Mexican American War

Today, there is some question over the nature of the Mexican-American war. Most claim that it was aggressive in nature, prompted by Manifest Destiny. Among these, some historians claim that it was simply a grab for more territory, whereas others see it as part of a concerted expansionist movement, reminiscent of imperialism.

Who is questioning this? Which historians? Who are most of these people that claim the Mexican war was agressive? Historians? Americans? If this author is talking Americans, this sentence is incorrect, I have been to the Alamo and I see how Americans look upon this portion of history with pride. The Alamo museum mirrors this feeling, emphasing how ruthless the Mexican government was.

Many weasel phrases in this paragraph....Travb 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions in: Age of imperialism

The population was divided between those that saw the economic and strategic benefits of colonies and those that felt it was countrary to America's founding ideology.

This is a misleading sentence. The majority of Americans were jingoistic and supportive of this war. When the Maine sunk there was national outrage. This imaginary division of the population also ignores the other reason that was peddled by the elite for the Spanish-American war: the freedom of these colonies from Spanish control and for humanitarian reasons. The news had several articles talking about Weyler's attrocities in Cuba. It was the same tired "beacon of freedom and democracy" justification.Travb 10:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions in: Latin America, After World War II, The Third World, Cultural imperialism

Many argue, however, that this situation amounted to the United States having a de facto empire in the Americas throughout this period.

Many would argue, however, that cultural and economic imperialism of far greater import.

Many of these interventions have been denounced by some as imperialist.

Many argue that this serves to inculcate populations with American values, while at the same time destroying indigenous cultures.

who? more weasel words...Travb 10:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletions in:Cultural imperialism

than of any insidious U.S. effort to spread its culture abroad, although this expansion is often condemned as such.

"insidous" is POV, condemned by who? Travb 10:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we make a "ME" list? :P I'm confused though. Who exactly could verify that word? Do I need a PH.D to make it a valid statement? I agree with what you are saying... but.. I'm just saying...

I'm sure we could find at least 5000 people who would agree with that statement, POV as it is. So where does that leave us?

213.141.89.53 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The major weakness of this article: the title

The major weakness of this article is its title (History of United States Imperialism). That is why I added the large section from Miller about "Is the United States Imperialistic?" No other article needs to explain its title in 5 plus paragraphs like this one.

I close with Miller and Thorton's point:

"Miller concludes that the term "imperialism" recent overuse and abuse makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept. Historian Archibald Paton Thorton wrote that "imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where Colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."

This article is a lightning rod of criticism because of the "crusaders for and against", making it "nearly meaningless as an analytical concept". I suggest renaming the title to a less POV title, and moving the article, which will cause less people to attack the article.

Maybe the name: Histoy of United States foreign interventions? Travb 22:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track; good luck trying to get it done. Although this article covers very important topics, the title is unnecessarily provocative, which diverts us from the task at hand. This article is actually four different topics lumped together in one POV stew. Separate them out, and you have the potential for four useful NPOV articles:

History of United States foreign intervention - like you said. There's already a partial list
History of United States continental expansion (not the same thing as Manifest Destiny, which is an idea not a process, but of course they're related)
History of United States overseas expansion - much of the content is here already, and in the redundant article U.S. colonization outside North America. Both History of United States imperialism and U.S. colonization outside North America should redirect to this new article title.
American Empire (term) - discusses history and uses of the term, who believes America is an empire, who doesn't, etc. Basic info is now the "schools of thought" here and at American Empire, but the "term" extension should be used just as in Islamofascism (term), to make clear the article is about a controversial, potentially POV term, and does not endorse or deny the reality of what that term describes.

All of this is an easy fix to create four useful articles. I've thought of doing this for a long time, but figured people who had an agenda other than writing an NPOV encyclopedia would scream bloody murder. But maybe I'm too pessimistic. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comments. I never thought of dividing the article into 4 pieces, only a name change. Thanks for the comments.Travb 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the POV about the title. Its a fact that United States made the Philippenes, and Guam colonies. Later on we confronted the British and Germans over Samoa. Its a fact that we annexed Hawaii. It is a fact that we bought Alaska. That is all overseas expansion? ~~The problem is the content. This article would better be suited with the title History of American Imperialism. 74.137.230.39 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)~~

After further look, I think the content reflects the article well. Now it just needs more citations. I don't really see any POV left in the article. Remember, just because it was at one time it represented one perspective too much, don't let it become pro-American POV either. 74.137.230.39 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)