American Imperialism?

page 1 of 1 23 total items

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

This is in response to a comment in the "Should the US be barred from the 2008 Olympics?" thread

Quote by ArcyxIt should be noted, however that the U.S. and several of it's allies have had a long, sad, and quite involved history of imperialist expansion and ambition prior to this current involvement in Iraq.
Applied to the U.S. exclusively, Iraq is no different than Vietnam, or the Phillipines; the only thing that has changed is the terminology applied to the opposing force. In the Phillipines, it was the 'Insurrecto'. In Vietnam, it was the 'Vietcong' (or several other terminologies). In Iraq, it is the 'Insurgency' or 'Enemy combatant'-- And all of these conflicts have always been preceded by the same lofty and noble cause cloak.

Actually to split hairs I want you to tell me how many "Imperial" US colonies exist in the world.
How many "enemy" countries have we helped rebuild ( I can think of three off the top of my head) after a war? Imperialistic indeed. We have never permanently occupied a foreign nation nor do we have any desire to add the problems of another country to our own on a permanent basis.
In several of the recent conflicts we have acted in a selfish fashion with the intent of removing a perceived threat to our security. However, we are not going to remain in those areas indefinitely (that would actually probably destabilize the regions even more) only until its elected government can stand on its own two feet. This is a responsibility of any force that removes a government, despotic or otherwise. Unless the former power structure is replaced with another structure then the entire effort was useless.

So how many people out there actually believe the US has 'Imperialistic Ambitions"

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Dec 24, 2006

Lionhearted911

Lionhearted911

~:. LioNe$s .:~

Cancel

i am sorry Mnemeth, kinda lost here...do you believe that the US has 'Imperialistic Ambitions" or not? i am kinda confused....
well what i think should be the case, is every country mind their own business and affairs, and deal with their own problems instead of trying to solve the problems of other nations...they say people exist as a whole and all this crap about helping each other...whatever...that has become a scapegoat to world domination...if you ask me, i don't care who dominates what and why...as long as nothing comes in the way of my personal aims and goals, then the US could conquer the moon or Mars for crying out loud...
who decides when something is able to stand on its own two feet? i always say don't underestimate anything and also confuse laziness with inablilty...besides as long as someone else is taking responsibility for you...then why should you stand on your two feet anyway? i mean you are being carried which is better than having to walk on your own...
and also how many more lives should be taken till each country handles it's own problems...they always say send a theif to catch a theif...why not let each counrty handle it's own people,i am sure they are more familiar with their people and culture...interference usually brings rise to more problems...and the more freedom people have, the more astray they go...unfortunately it seems to me people do not know how to handle freedom well anyway...
but all this is just my opinion...no offense to anyone...
i come in peace... later and merry christmas and happy holidays to all!

merged: 12-25-2006 ~ 12:20am
besides i was thinking...people are ungrateful...how many people do you think are actually grateful to the US for "helping out" if they were actually helping out in the first place? i know alot of people and i don't remember any being thankful the the US ...who knows~

Signature Image
FaMiLy MeAn$ NoBoDy GeTs LefT BeHinD 0r ... FoRgoTTen ... ^^

  • Dec 24, 2006
Cancel

Well normally I wouldn't jump on in one one of these more pointless topics. But I think i should here so.

Currently we have 3 "colonies"; Wake island (admittedly it is just an airport but it is still there), American Samoa (witch we got out of a treaty with Germany), and Hawaii (the monarchy was overthrown by a group of mostly American immigrants)

We Also held part panama (the canal from 1914 ish when it was finished till 1999 when we gave it back)

As for are track record on helping rebuild "enemy" countries.
The American Revolution, Nope we where on our own turf.
The War of 1812, Nope, tho that is Probably because we never got far enough in to Canada to do any real damage.
Mexican-American War, Nope tho we did rebuild the land we had claimed as our own.
The Spanish-American War, we may have helped Cuba rebuild then. Tho given it's current state we have probably done more harm then good.
World War I, Nope in fact the allies billing the losing side for the war played a big part in leading to World War II.
World War II, Yep we did help rebuild.
The Korean War, Yep tho only the south.
Vietnam War, Nope we lost.
Desert Storm, Nope. we helped Kuwait rebuild. But they don't count as an enemy.

  • Dec 25, 2006

joemighty16

joemighty16

Hope is an optimist

Cancel

I must admit that even I, living way down here at the bottom of Africa, are puzzled at the animosity towards American Imperialism. I just can't get this "Hate America" fad (not that I ever loved it any more or less than any other country).

It depends on how you define "Imperialism". The whole "The sun never sets on the British Empire" was Imperialism and Colonialism at its best. Germany before the WWII was Imperialistic...How much ground or countries does America OWN or colonise outside its own borders? None that I know of.

Since the WWII America has helped to rebuilt the countries it invaded and conquered. Both Germany and Japan received huge amounts of American help after the WWII. Are they better or worse because of it? How much of those countries does America OWN?

Take into account that before WWI the USA tried the Isiolated policy, basically cutting themselves off from Europe. But when the WWI broke out the allies dragged them into the conflict to supply weapons and soldiers. Check these numbers: World War 1 Casualties, World War 2 Casualties.

Neither where their war. Except for the Pacific one after Pearl Harbour. In the Atlantic the Germans had sunk their convoy ships so eventually it started getting personal.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan their are occupation forces to help rebuilt what's left. What else should they do? Bomb and run? This is the usual way of doing things. But now? They win the war and rebuilt the loser and LEAVE? Whats with that? <very simplistic I know, but this is as far as my perception of American history go. I'm not a political scientist so forgive me if I didn't include any of the ongoing conspiracies X-P >

Commercial imperialism is a different thing however. American franchices in almost every country? (Personally I don't like McDonalds, but other people does. The whole fast food thing don't do it for me and that includes ANY francise - even our local ones) If that's such a bad thing, how come they are so succesful? How come they continue to grow and thrive? Is it because they want to conquer the qorld of buisiness and trade, or is it because they have a good product and good marketing skills in a largely capatilistic world?

So I can ask as well...what about America is imperialistic?

Life is a game played by gods who are bored and who fight over the rules.

Signature
	Image

EternalParadox

Retired Moderator

EternalParadox

.:Enigma Mod:.

Cancel

Quote: Commercial imperialism is a different thing however. American franchices in almost every country? (Personally I don't like McDonalds, but other people does. The whole fast food thing don't do it for me and that includes ANY francise - even our local ones) If that's such a bad thing, how come they are so succesful? How come they continue to grow and thrive? Is it because they want to conquer the qorld of buisiness and trade, or is it because they have a good product and good marketing skills in a largely capatilistic world?

"Commercial imperialism" is in my opinion a baseless protectionist excuse for domestic firms' failure to remain competitive. Why is McDonald's so incredibly popular throughout the world? No one is forced to go eat a Big Mac. No one is forced to buy a pair of Nike shoes or watch a Disney movie. The success of these multinational firms is the result of their ability to leverage resources across different country organizations and implemented good ideas on a world-wide basis, regardless of where the ideas originated.

To say that the United States is practicing commercial imperialism is to blame the entire system of free market economy and ignore domestic failures. In an increasingly free global market, a firm lives and dies by its ability to remain competitive and satisfy consumer demand. American firms have largely succeeded while many other firms have not. That's not the fault of America nor those firms. If the domestic organizations in any given country cannot measure up, then tough for them.

For example, the French especially are vehemently opposed to American cultural hegemony, especially in film. Yet they have continually failed to produce any good quality films themselves. Is it Hollywood's fault that they simply make films that French people like better while the French film industry is incapable of the same? I say not.

Besides, there is no such thing as "conquering the world of business and trade." Business's bottom line is profit. If profit can come from expansion into the international market, then firms will expand.

EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator

  • Dec 26, 2006
Cancel

Imperialism is defined within the terms of political science as a stronger nation imposing its will on a weaker nation. To answer the question, yes under this administration particularly, we have not only aspired to but acted upon imperialistic goals. Our second invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq is a very clear example as the first thing we did after installing a puppet "interim" government was nullify all oil contracts (none of which went to us) and change Iraq's economic and foreign policy to that of an American puppet state with the economic policy of globalization and economic rape of the people of Iraq (i.e removing Agricultural tariffs that hurt farmers, etc).

Aside from that conflict in Vietnam we made sure to keep Ngo Dinh Diem in as leader of South Vietnam despite his obvious corruption and ill-intention until he was assasinated; as stated by another poster we did not rebuild in Vietnam because we lost. The cause of this war? The United States wishing to allow its ally France to keep hold over her colony; form southeast asian capitalist markets in which they could then exploit labor, use the states as political tools against the USSR and PRC, and propagandize the capitalist system to other disenfranchised colonies of European powers.

A few other recent examples would be the 1989 Invasion of Panama and overthrow of General Manuel Noriega because he wanted to nationalize the Panama canal and was beginning to put pressure on US citizens and military personnel who were occupying the canal.

The Shah of Iran was another puppet for the United States, implementing many economic deals, keeping his country free of socialists and communists, and exploiting the citizens of his country until his ouster in 1979 by the Ayatollah Kommenei.

If anyone else would like me to cite even more US imperialist policies I will be more than happy to do so.

Quote by EternalParadox
To say that the United States is practicing commercial imperialism is to blame the entire system of free market economy and ignore domestic failures. In an increasingly free global market, a firm lives and dies by its ability to remain competitive and satisfy consumer demand. American firms have largely succeeded while many other firms have not. That's not the fault of America nor those firms. If the domestic organizations in any given country cannot measure up, then tough for them.

For example, the French especially are vehemently opposed to American cultural hegemony, especially in film. Yet they have continually failed to produce any good quality films themselves. Is it Hollywood's fault that they simply make films that French people like better while the French film industry is incapable of the same? I say not.

Besides, there is no such thing as "conquering the world of business and trade." Business's bottom line is profit. If profit can come from expansion into the international market, then firms will expand.

"Commercial imperialism" is essentially globalization and what has been hailed by the United States and its puppet instutions, The World Bank, and International Monetary Fund, as "economic liberation" is no more than a scam favoring only multinational corporations. What globalization essentially amounts to is the tearing down of tariffs (and if domestic companies can't compete and there were no tariffs around then you could say goodbye to many American companies too, like Harley-Davidson back in the 70's and 80's when the Japanese were first beginning to export their motorcycles) the immunization of these companies to the laws of the country they are operating in, and the privatization of many public works (such as sewers, water supplies, etc). This has also shown to have cataclysmic effects for countries such as Zambia (1983-Present). The US has even tried it with the no-bid contracts within Iraq, a particular example comes to mind of Haliburton being discovered that it was not properly filtering the water both civillians and our troops were using, drinking, cooking and bathing in; there was still sewage as well as other harmful bacteria caused by years of contamination within the water.

Also, when was the last time you saw a French movie Eternal Paradox? Granted they do not seem nearly as popular in the US as they do in per se, the EU, but just like US movies they are a mixed batch. If you're getting this assumption from the fact that French movies aren't very big here, not many foreign movies are unless they've been remade into english-language films. If you're judging this by a French movie or two you've seen and hated, sorry you didn't like it. But movies like Amelie, Monsieur Ibrahim, Les trois coleurs: Bleu, Blanc, et Rouge, Poupées Russes (Russian Dolls), L'Espagnol, Les pacts des lupes (Brotherhood of the Wolf), et cetera, are all fantastic movies and I encourage anyone to check them out.

As for the french resistence and bitterness to American culture, they're like that with everyone. They are extremely proud of their culture and just like mainstream Americans, find their culture better than everyone elses (disclaimer: this is a general statement, don't think of it as anything else).

  • Dec 26, 2006
Cancel

Quote:
A few other recent examples would be the 1989 Invasion of Panama and overthrow of General Manuel Noriega because he wanted to nationalize the Panama canal and was beginning to put pressure on US citizens and military personnel who were occupying the canal.


Can you explain this further because it seems this is a rather one sided version of the story. I'm not saying the us/ or noriega was right and the invasion was not started over his desire to nationalize the canal... there were far more parts/pieces and reasons to this.

"I've had too many stand-offs with you and its about as much as I can stand."

  • Dec 26, 2006
Cancel

American Imperialism? How many people here know at one time America had golden opportunity to become de facto ruler of the world and did not take advantage of it? America is not perfect and have done things that are considered wrong after 20-20 hindsight. But one thing I believe firmly is that we are not imperialistic as some of the people love to think.

After World War II, for a brief time America had in its arsenal one of the largest military might in the world. The country had the sole possession and technology of nuclear bomb. From 1945-1948, had we wanted to we could have picked fight with any country in the world and we would have won because of the bomb. Did we do that, no we did not.

Whate did we do instead? We spent billions of dollars to rebuild Europe and Japan and as far as I can tell none of the countries repaid the money we spent. Older generations who experienced the war know what we did. Younger generation? Most don't know nor do they care except to complain. Fine and dandy. Let's see what your country can do to help make the world better.

I'm amazed that this country forgave the money we spent in helping to rebuild.

  • Dec 26, 2006
Cancel

america! i hate that name.the president,g.w.Bush are killing many innoncences peoples under his stupid comand at iraq.how dare him.!coward.he used milittary power and veto to attack iraq.his objective only one..he want oils.many..many..many oils..pure oils.you know america is big from japan,so he sell that oil to add his millitary budgets.how pityful..

he kills people with his puppet soldiers like animal kill their baby.please give smphaties to the muslims in iraq.anybody who read this..please.. help them..i dont like human bloods

  • Dec 27, 2006

SHK

The Bunker King

Cancel

Quote by Kyo4343america! i hate that name.the president,g.w.Bush are killing many innoncences peoples under his stupid comand at iraq.how dare him.!coward.he used milittary power and veto to attack iraq.his objective only one..he want oils.many..many..many oils..pure oils.you know america is big from japan,so he sell that oil to add his millitary budgets.how pityful..

he kills people with his puppet soldiers like animal kill their baby.please give smphaties to the muslims in iraq.anybody who read this..please.. help them..i dont like human bloods

^I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to be a dick here, but that makes you sound just as stupid as the people you criticize.

Honestly I don't support the Iraq war any more than you do. I think that our current administration has made numerous intellegence and tatical errors which have resulted in a situation that will most likly degenerate into a massive civil war that we will not be able to control unless there is a massive shift in the philosophy of our actions there. Had we made better decisions and taken more time to asses the situatuon, an invasion would likly not have been necessary, and if it had it would have been carried out in a much cleaner and more efficient fashion. The Bush administration is guilty of severe and total incompetance on a massive scale, but that doesn't make them evil. The rest of the world seems to view Bush as some evil genious out of a Bond movie that throws our military into the fray for his own selfish goals. If you would like to argue that he is an idiot and makes poor decisions I'd be with you %100. He is not, however, an evil mastermind, that's giving him far too much credit.

At the end of the day, I feel that the intention of the Iraq war was good, abeit misguided. The execution however was exceptionally poor, and has turned into a very bad situation that will get a lot worse before it gets better. This is a result of incompetance and poor leadership, not some comic book supervillan's world domination scheme. The rest of the world needs to get over themselves and stop throwing your wild conspiracy theories at our country for the sake of your own amusment. It's not as though we're the first country to screw up because of poor decisions on the part of our leaders. I'd like to remind those of you in other countries that Bush only has about a 30% approval rating here, so we don't like it any more than you do.

I don't like Bush, or anyone else in our current administration for that matter, but they are not supervillians, just idiots. Rest assured that as soon as our country manages to elect someone who isn't a moron we will do everything in our power to rectify the situation.

If America is guilty of anything, it's that we're a far too self righteous when it comes to foreign affairs. The majority of our country seems to be convinced that we are always right and the rest of the world should follow our example. This is something that I vehemently oppose. For the most part we do want to help other countries, but kicking the door in and starting a democracy is about as far from the right way to go about that as you can get. Though the intentions may be good and noble, that's just not the way a supposedly civilized country should behave.

As for our so called "economic imperialsim", that may be a valid arguement. I'm not expert on that subject, and I won't pretend to be for the sake of arguing my point. I do believe we are in need of serious and total refom of what is considered proper business ethics, and I do agree that simply having money get's you much further politically than it should. There is however, little I nor the rest of the American population can do about it until someone in power can make these reforms. We live in a capitolist society, and I will not apologize for that because it isn't my fault.

  • Dec 27, 2006

EternalParadox

Retired Moderator

EternalParadox

.:Enigma Mod:.

Cancel

Quote: "Commercial imperialism" is essentially globalization and what has been hailed by the United States and its puppet instutions, The World Bank, and International Monetary Fund, as "economic liberation" is no more than a scam favoring only multinational corporations. What globalization essentially amounts to is the tearing down of tariffs (and if domestic companies can't compete and there were no tariffs around then you could say goodbye to many American companies too, like Harley-Davidson back in the 70's and 80's when the Japanese were first beginning to export their motorcycles) the immunization of these companies to the laws of the country they are operating in, and the privatization of many public works (such as sewers, water supplies, etc). This has also shown to have cataclysmic effects for countries such as Zambia (1983-Present). The US has even tried it with the no-bid contracts within Iraq, a particular example comes to mind of Haliburton being discovered that it was not properly filtering the water both civillians and our troops were using, drinking, cooking and bathing in; there was still sewage as well as other harmful bacteria caused by years of contamination within the water.

Also, when was the last time you saw a French movie Eternal Paradox? Granted they do not seem nearly as popular in the US as they do in per se, the EU, but just like US movies they are a mixed batch. If you're getting this assumption from the fact that French movies aren't very big here, not many foreign movies are unless they've been remade into english-language films. If you're judging this by a French movie or two you've seen and hated, sorry you didn't like it. But movies like Amelie, Monsieur Ibrahim, Les trois coleurs: Bleu, Blanc, et Rouge, Poup

EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator

  • Dec 28, 2006

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

Quote by BlueSkyCurrently we have 3 "colonies"; Wake island (admittedly it is just an airport but it is still there), American Samoa (witch we got out of a treaty with Germany), and Hawaii (the monarchy was overthrown by a group of mostly American immigrants)

Well, I don't know if Wake could be considered a colony as it has no indigenous people. Its a spit of land about 8ft above the water thats been claimed by Japan, The RMI (Republic of the Marshall Islands), and the US. I don't even think is even currently populated since the last Typhoon went through.
Hawaii was never a colony but I am not surprised the US had a hand in the overthrow of the monarchy and the subsequent request to be annexed by the US. However they are now a full fledged state with all the rights and privileges that go along with that.

On the commercial imperialism issue, well seeing as many major corporations are global in nature this issue is fast becoming a moot point. In fact quite a few very successful global corporations are not even US based.

I do want to say its great that everyone (except one) has really thought out their responses. Thats really gratifying

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Dec 29, 2006
Cancel

Quote by BlueSkyCurrently we have 3 "colonies"; Wake island (admittedly it is just an airport but it is still there), American Samoa (witch we got out of a treaty with Germany), and Hawaii (the monarchy was overthrown by a group of mostly American immigrants)

How does Hawaii (a U.S. state) count as a colony?

At the same time, if Hawaii counts as a colony, how do Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Marianas and the U.S. Virgin Islands not?

Cancel

Hawaii is an example of us permanently occupying a foreign nation. Whale our government didn't directly play a part in setting up the new government there. Our citizens where over 50% of the group that did. Our government did play a part in protecting the new government from an armed rebellion. I imagine many true Hawaiians feel about the same as the American Indians.

As for why i didn't list those other places. This topic really didn't interest me enough to look up our current status in those places. I only listed the places i knew we still had activity.

  • Jan 01, 2007
Cancel

Quote by BlueSkyHawaii is an example of us permanently occupying a foreign nation.

The same thing can and has been said about the United States annexing the Republic of Texas in 1845. But that doesn\'t matter. Hawaii is today an integral part of the United States. It\'s been almost half a century since you could legitimately call it a colony.

Using your logic, though, Northern Ireland, Corsica and Hokkaido are all colonies, as well.

Cancel

Well hate to break it to you but my logic doesn't really come in to play here. Using the definition you can even fit American towns in, like Carville Louisiana (up untill 1950) for example.

Yep those places are Islands they fall within the definition.
Edit: Tho i only know the political status of Northern Ireland, and i don't care enough to look up the others. I assume they are separate from there ruling nation. Sense you brought them up.

  • Jan 01, 2007
Cancel

As a matter of fact, they are not seperate from the ruling nations; like Hawaii, they are all integral parts of their nations proper, not colonial possessions.

Northern Ireland is one of the component parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That it is across the Irish Sea from Great Britain and there is a large Irish Catholic minority that wants to be part of Ireland is irrelavent.

Corsica is one of the regions of France, and contains 2 departments. That it is physically seperated from mainland France by the Ligurian Sea and its people and language are closer to Italian than French is irrelavent.

Hokkaido is a Japanese prefecture, and more importantly, one of the Japanese home islands. That it became Japanese later than the other three, and that the Japanese suppressed the non-Japanese native population is irrelavent.

Hawaii is one of the 50 United States of America. The process it went through to become one is irrelavent.

Quote by BlueSkyWell hate to break it to you but my logic doesn't really come in to play here.

It most certainly does, because you're using it, and because it's flawed.

PROTIP: Don't go into specifics unless you know the specifics you're using are correct. If they're not, such as saying that the United States has three "colonies" which you list, when we in fact have more, or listing a U.S. state as a colony, when by definition it is an integral part of the United States proper and thus as far removed from a colony as you can get, does you no favors.

If you're not interested enough to look up the specifics you're naming, there's no point in naming them.

Cancel

If anyone wants to look up the info on U.S. colonies check out wikipedia or any history book. But here is a quick break down if you don't. There are NO U.S. colonies at the present. We have territories which is what all of the areas listed in the previous posts are. Two of them (Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands) are of a higher status a "commonwealth" territory, which basically means they have more rights than a regular territory but short of an "incorporated" territory which is the step right before statehood the final level of a territory (states count as territory).

Also if you do insist that Hawaii counts as a colony your definition would mean that all states besides the original 13 are colonies of the U.S. But that is a moot point if it is a state it's a part of the U.S and can never leave, we fought a war over this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territory

  • Jan 02, 2007
Cancel

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colony

Quote by LordStyphonAs a matter of fact, they are not seperate from the ruling nations; like Hawaii, they are all integral parts of their nations proper

So your arguing that Hawaii isn't an island that is separated from us by the pacific?

Why are you assuming that a colony has to be politically oppressed?

I'm not arguing that Hawaii counts because of how we took it. I'm arguing it counts because it falls in to one of the definitions.

Normally I have no sympathy for arrogant fools, that can't understand literal sentences. And tonight is no different. So "PROTIP:" don't come off sounding to much like an arss in your closing.

All the specifics I've gone in to so far are true. All my examples I know well enough to defend. The three places I've listed do fall under the definition. I didn't say we only had three. And Hawaii is physically separate from the main land.

Now I did admit to not looking up your examples. But where did I ever say I didn't know my examples?

And lastly where does my logic come in to my argument? As far as i know all my statements here have been literal.

Quote by # chobits19Also if you do insist that Hawaii counts as a colony your definition would mean that all states besides the original 13 are colonies of the U.S

Nope as stated above I'm using a literal definition.
Only Alaska would.

And just because you failed to do decent research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taos_art_colony

  • Jan 02, 2007
Cancel

Quote by BlueSkyAnd lastly where does my logic come in to my argument?

Clearly, it doesn't, since there is no logic to be found in your argument.

Or rather, your new argument.

Any argument about imperialism is by default a political one. As such, there are specific political definitions that apply to such terms as "colony" in such a discussion. In fact, you understood this, and the original argument you tried to use clearly says so.

Your original argument on Hawaii being a colony centered, not on Hawaii being an island, but on the Hawaiian monarchy being overthrown by American fruit-growing interests and the islands subsequently annexed by the United States, creating the Territory of Hawaii, which was subject to direct American political (colonial) control.

When asked why Hawaii was a colony, you said it was because it is an example of us "permanently occupying a foreign nation". Clearly, your meaning was that Hawaii was a colony because of American political control. Nothing to do with geography at all.

From 1898 to 1959, you'd have been right; Hawaii was, for all intents and purposes, a colony of the United States. After 1959, and Hawaii's admission into the Union, that status no longer applied. Hawaii was no longer a possession of the United States; it was one of the United States. By becoming part of the integral territory of the United States, political colonial status is removed.

Which is the status you were talking about originally. You only switched your basing to Hawaii being physically seperated later, when your original argument became untenable and your pride prevented you from admitting defeat to an "arrogant fool" such as myself.

So you substituted your orignal, refuted argument for one that may be literally true on some level, but not on the one we had been discussing before. It is a similarly weak argument, as there are all sorts of extremes it can be logically taken to. If being an island is all that is required for something to qualify as a colony, what prevents Manhattan Island or Staten Island from qualifying?

You've changed your argument from one that was factually unsound to one that is logically ridiculous.

Cancel

Thank you for the nicer reply with out any of the protips. My original argument was attempting to use definition 6. "any group of individuals having similar interests, occupations, etc., usually living in a particular locality; community"

The similar interest was meant to be disliking the US. However seeing that it was highly unlikely I would convince you that any one treated fair ish in our system of government could hate it. I did switch to an easier definition. I also wasn't in the mood to explain the finer workings of the electoral collage, and our democracy to you in order to make my first argument work.

As for the fact that colony can apply to many places. It isn't really my fault we are speaking English, and the words are literally so encompassing.

It appears sense you didn't bother to rebut the two towns I listed. My argument must have been logically, and factually plausible.

  • Jan 03, 2007
Cancel

Quote by BlueSkyThe similar interest was meant to be disliking the US. However seeing that it was highly unlikely I would convince you that any one treated fair ish in our system of government could hate it.

Dislike the national government by a segment of the population does not make a part of a country a colonial holding. If colonial status was to be granted based on a part of the Hawaiian native population's dislike of Hawaii being part of the United States, the status can be applied to numerous other U.S. states, as well. There are plenty of people in the South who are less than pleased to be part of the United States, for instance. That dislike doesn't make Mississippi a colony anymore than it does Hawaii.

Quote: I also wasn't in the mood to explain the finer workings of the electoral collage, and our democracy to you in order to make my first argument work.

You would also need to explain how they were relevant to the discussion in the first place.

Quote: As for the fact that colony can apply to many places. It isn't really my fault we are speaking English, and the words are literally so encompassing.

Similarly, it isn't my fault that there are specific definitions of the words that apply to different situations. "Colony" when used to discuss imperialism (or colonialism) means something different than "colony" when used to discuss a community of nudists.

Trying to use an improper definition as a means to be literally correct does your argument no favors, and if you feel the need to do so, your argument must not have been strong enough to survive without doing so.

Quote: It appears sense you didn't bother to rebut the two towns I listed. My argument must have been logically, and factually plausible.

Or your examples simply weren't relevant to the discussion.

Unless your argument on the State of Hawaii being a colonial holding of the United States really has no support outside of comparing it to an art colony and a former leper colony and playing word games.

Cancel

Heres my Take

Okay, you can't call America an empire Just because It has Hawaii, and Guam, because almost every western power has foreign territories, and also america isn't on the lookout for new territory in less powerful countries.
America knows the importance of the soveriegnity of other nations, Thats why we gave the Phillipines their Independence.

Yes America had an Imperialistc era in the first half of 20th century, but thats long gone

  • Jan 06, 2007

page 1 of 1 23 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.