| Revision as of 02:48, 1 October 2005 edit134.69.160.216 (talk) →The Louisiana Territory← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:14, 18 December 2022 edit undoMainframe98 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users989 edits Undid revision 1128057816 by 12.2.125.2 (talk) That should go on the target pageTags: New redirect Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{USHBS}} | |||
| At its start, the ] was a collection of small ] on the ] with little international import. What was to become the ] had existed for almost two centuries as part of the ]. The emergence of independent nations through the ] was a rejection of this colonial relationship. Over the next two centuries the United States first spread across the ]n continent and then rose to become the world's most dominant power. Some argue that the means by which the United States expanded and asserted its authority were classic examples of ]—the United States was simply in a situation like that of ], where it had its empire touching its borders, unlike the ]an powers who could expand their borders only at the expense of other European countries and otherwise had to go overseas. Such a definition of imperialism could, however, result in a great many countries being defined as "imperialist"—], Russia, ], modern ], perhaps even ], and so on—since it would simply mean that a nation has expanded its territory in some way in the past. | |||
| ==Continental expansion== | |||
| ''See also ]'' | |||
| According to some who argue the U.S. has been imperialistic, the first step on the road to imperialism was the conquest of the ] peoples who inhabited ]. This view began to be advocated in the 1960s and 1970s by such historians as ]. The American expansion westward had many similarities to European activities in ] and the first arrivals of Europeans in the Americas. 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. | |||
| 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 aquisition. | |||
| This of course in no way refutes other historical instances of US imperialism which are consistent with systematic exploitation. | |||
| === The Louisiana Territory === | |||
| The ], the 1803 transaction of the gigantic western ] from France (]) to the United States (]), is often considered the first major event in American expansion, although it is rarely cited an act of imperialism. 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. | |||
| ] | |||
| After the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson signed the ], which denied the new ] the right to self-government. Instead, it was to be ruled by military officials under direct orders from ]. Since most of the population of the territory consisted of non-whites and ]s, 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 ], was now issuing the orders to deny self-rule in an American territory, issuing commands from half-way across the ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==The Mexican American War== | |||
| The ] from 1846 to 1848 is often viewed as motivated by American imperialism. In 1846, President ] sent soldiers to the disputed zone between ] and the newly annexed ] in what most historians describe as a provocation for war. After war broke out, American forces quickly defeated those of Mexico, and in the ], Mexico ceded its claims on what is now almost the entire Southwest and California to the United States, in exchange for $15 million and the settlement of pending individual claims against Mexico valued at about $3 million. | |||
| Many aspects of the war and its aftermath were controversial. A faction called the ]s had advocated annexing all of Mexico, some arguing that Mexico should be punished for its behavior. Others, largely in the North, denounced the war variously as imperialism and as a pro-] stratagem to add more slave territory to the United States. | |||
| Today, there is some question over the nature of the Mexican-American war. Most claim that it was aggressive in nature, prompted by ]. 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. | |||
| ==The Civil War== | |||
| At the time of the ] many ] looked on the Union's action as imperialistic. Tracing their ideals back to the ], the ] proclaimed that they had the right to self-government just as young America did in 1776. Some Southerners today still refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression." | |||
| ==Age of imperialism== | |||
| ''See also ] and ].'' | |||
| ] | |||
| The late nineteenth century is the era which most historians consider to be that of ]. Starting as early as the 1870s the United States began to aggressively expand its influence overseas. The annexation of ] and the fall-out from the ] saw the United States very closely adopt the European model of empire. The era also saw the first widespread protest against American imperialism. The population was divided between those that saw the economic and strategic benefits of colonies and those that felt it was counter to America's founding ideology. Noted Americans such as ] spoke out forcefully against these ventures. The same period saw other notables such as British author ] advocate the idea of ] to "civilize" the rest of the world. | |||
| During this same period the American people continued to strongly chastise the European powers for their imperialism. The ] was especially unpopular in the United States and soured Anglo-American relations. | |||
| ===Causes=== | |||
| ] from 1898: "Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a ]) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. The cartoon contrasts this with a map of the smaller United States 100 years earlier in 1798.]] | |||
| There are two major historical schools of thought as to this period of expansionism. Some historians, notably ], concluded that the imperialism of the 1890s was "the great aberration", a very different form of territorial growth than that of earlier American history. Others, such as ] saw this expansionism not as an aberration but as a culmination of Western United States expansion. In any case, a variety of factors coincided during this period to bring about an accelerated pace of U.S. expansionism: | |||
| *The industry and agriculture of the United States had grown beyond its need for consumption. Powerful business and political figures such as ] believed that foreign markets were essential to further economic growth, promoting a more aggressive foreign policy | |||
| *The prevalence of ], notably ]'s "biogenic law," ]'s conception of ] racial superiority, and ]'s call to "civilize and Christianize" - all manifestations of a growing ] and racism in American thought | |||
| *The development of ]'s "]," which stated that the American ] was the wellsprings of its creativity and virility as a civilization. As the ] was gradually becoming less of a ] and more of a part of America, many believed that overseas expansion was vital to maintaining the American spirit | |||
| *The publication of Alfred T. Mahan's ] in 1890, which advocated three factors crucial to The United States' solidarity as a world power: the construction of a canal in South America (later influencing the decision for the construction of the ]), expansion of the U.S. naval power, and the establishment of a trade/military post in the Pacific, so as to stimulate trade with ]. This publication had a strong influence on the idea that a strong navy stimulated trade, and influenced policy makers such as ] and other proponents of a large navy. | |||
| ===Alaska=== | |||
| In 1867 president ] ] of ] from the ] for seven million dollars -- or two cents per acre ($500/km²). It was the first acquired piece of American territory to not be a direct part of the continental United States. At the time, the purchase of Alaska was roundly criticized, with some calling it "Johnson's polar bear garden," "Seward's Icebox," or "Seward's Folly," for Secretary of State ], who negotiated the deal. | |||
| ===Hawai‘i=== | |||
| The Kingdom of ] was long an independent monarchy in the middle of the ]. During the nineteenth century first American missionaries and then American business interests began to play a major role in the island. Most notable were the powerful fruit companies, such as ]. After a coup financed and directed by American interests overthrew the isolationist ], the island became a republic in 1894 and in 1898 Hawaiian President ] agreed to his nation's annexation by the United States. The republic ended in 1900 and the country became a territory of the US. | |||
| ===The Spanish-American War=== | |||
| ] | |||
| With the ] the United States greatly increased its international power. | |||
| US opponents of the war, including ] and ], organised themselves into the ]. | |||
| The Spanish-American War took place in 1898. The ], ended the Spanish-American war, giving the United States possession of the ], ], ], and ] in exchange for $20 million.' | |||
| ===The Philippines=== | |||
| The ] (1899 to 1913) is often cited as another instance of United States imperialism. While many Filipinos were initially delighted to be rid of the Spanish rule of the Philippines, the guerrilla fighters soon found that the Americans were not prepared to grant them much more autonomy than ] had. Thus for the next six years American forces engaged in a war in the jungles of the Philippines against the Filipino resistance. The war was expensive and quite unpopular in the United States, but eventually victory was attained. | |||
| ===Latin America=== | |||
| The early decades of the 20th century saw a great amount of interference in ] by the US government, often under the guise of the ] to the ], and most often openly in aid of US corporate interests. President ] viewed "]" as a way for American corporations to benefit while assisting in the national security goal of preventing European powers, above all the ] and ], from filling any possible financial or power vacuum. Many argue, however, that this situation amounted to the United States having a ''de facto'' empire in the Americas throughout this period. | |||
| *]: ] effectively renders ] a protectorate of the United States, putting severe restrictions on the Cuban government's financial freedom, granting the US its base at ], and reserving the right of the US to intervene in Cuban affairs. Cuba is also pressured to write the provisions of the Platt Amendment into its constitution. | |||
| *]: US customs receivership in ] following collapse of Haitian government and threats by ] and ] to intervene to collect their debts. | |||
| *]: US backed independence of ] from ] in order to build the ]; ] | |||
| *]: ] announces his "Corollary" to the ], stating that the United States would intervene to protect Washington's interests in the Western Hemisphere should Latin American governments prove incapable or unstable. | |||
| *]: forced resignation of President ] after triumph of US-backed rebels in ] | |||
| *] to ]: US occupation of ] | |||
| *] to ]: ] conflict, including US troops occupying north of the country and port city of ] | |||
| *1915 to 1934]]: US occupation of ] | |||
| ===Asia=== | |||
| While American intervention had begun earlier with ] forcibly opening ] to the West with the ] in 1854, this period saw the United States expand its presence in Asia. The US pushed through the ] that guaranteed its economic access to ]. It also vigorously acquired small islands in the Pacific, mostly to be used as ]s. | |||
| Not long before the turn of the century, China was divided into what some call "spheres of influence" - areas to which a European nation (some involved were Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia) had claimed exclusive trading rights, or even the territory itself. The United States, having recently captured the Philippines and thereby becoming a power in Asia, was eager to reap its own benefits from China, but felt impeded by these "spheres of influence". In an effort to eliminate this hindrance, ], secretary of state at the time (under ]), sent letters to European leaders suggesting an "open door" policy in China, one that would grant equivalent trading rights to all powers inside the spheres of influence. The proposal was gently rejected. Following the ], John Hay called again for an expanded "open door" policy effective throughout China, not just within "spheres of influence". The United States and the European powers agreed to preserve Chinese independence and government, but continued to use the country for monetary gain until World War II. | |||
| Critics contend that US policy was for open-trade and not imperialist. | |||
| ==After World War II == | |||
| After helping defeat Nazi Germany, the United States occupied the Western sector of Germany (]) for ten years, 1945 to 1955. More intense was the occupation of ] from 1945 to 1951, during which time the US occupation force, led by General ] staged a dramatic restructuring of Japanese society in order to prevent the nation from re-emerging as a military threat. | |||
| As with most aspects of American imperialism these more recent events are still disputed (especially in the United States itself) as many believe that they were not ] in nature. Many of the post war actions were implemented as the result of ] policy and ] feelings, which were the basis of much of the United States foreign policy. During this period the United States actively intervened in the politics of many nations, usually on the stated grounds to prevent the expansion of the influences of the ], which quite openly employed imperialistic policies. | |||
| Some critics alleged that the United States' adversary to the Soviet Union and anti-Communist paranoia was causing the American government to become needlessly imperialistic, and was either propping up or overthrowing foreign regimes on often questionable grounds or suspicions. Other critics, especially those on the ] went even farther, alleging that the threat of Communist / Soviet expansion was a largely non-existent, and that the United States was simply meddling in the affairs of other states for more openly imperialistic purposes, such as gaining control of resources, land, or military bases. | |||
| This left wing thought became prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, mostly as a result of the backlash against the ]. Leading advocates of this new anti-imperialism included ], ], and ]. | |||
| The most notable aspects of this period tend to be American military interventions in areas such as ], ], and ]. Many would argue, however, that cultural and economic imperialism had far greater effects. | |||
| ===Europe=== | |||
| During the 1960s and 1970s it became fashionable to view the Soviet empire in eastern Europe as comparable to the American domination of western Europe. It was argued that through economic and military pressure the United States pursued hegemony just as aggressively as the Soviet Union. The post-revisionist school, which since the fall of the USSR has come to dominate the study of Cold War history, has rejected this view. They argue that the full extent of Soviet aggression has become apparent after the opening of their archives. See ] for more. | |||
| === The third world === | |||
| During the Cold War the United States maintained an active presence in many third-world nations, especially in the form of spy groups and intelligence-gathering agencies. These groups often earned a reputation for active meddling in a country's government, and in some cases were blamed for orchestrating coups or assassinations that occurred. | |||
| The number of times that the U.S. has intervened in foreign nations since 1945 is too great to be included in this article. For a full list, see ]. Many of these interventions have been denounced by some as imperialist. | |||
| === Iraq === | |||
| There is evidence from declassified British Cabinet papers, published in ] in 1994, that the CIA and ] both provided backing for the 1963 military coup of Colonel ] which overthrew Brigadier General ]. Qassim had attempted to nationalise the Iraq Petroleum Co, of which US companies were major shareholders and to assert Iraqi rights to the territory of ]. Following the coup both these policies, which were disapproved of by the USA & UK governments were dropped. | |||
| === Cultural imperialism === | |||
| Since the end of the Second World War the United States has been dominant in most of the cultural industries, and has often been accused of ]. American ]s, ], ], and ] are popular throughout the world. Many argue that this serves to inculcate populations with ] while at the same time destroying indigenous cultures. This is often of greatest concern in other developed nations such as ] and ]. However, American cultural imperialism can not be considered intentional on the part of the United States government, as it has no significant role in these industries. The lack of government role or investment in these industries makes the spread of American movies, food and so on, more of a side-effect of ] and foreign consumers' own desire for American culture than of the U.S. itself pushing it out to them. | |||
| In fact, it can even be argued that for any nation to seek to "preserve" (viewable as a euphemism for "impose") a national cultural identity for its citizens, by openly condemning external "interference" in native cultures, and opposing the freedom of individuals to arbitrarily desire, select, and mix cultures, or adopt foreign ones, with the aim of maintaining a perceived ideal of national cultural "purity," is an attitude best described as Cultural Fascism. | |||
| Proponents of this view argue that not only is "Cultural Imperialism" a misnomer and an intellectually invalid concept, but is by nature a culturally fascist accusation/retort against cosmopolitanism, and is ultimately racist. This is part of a larger world view known as Circular Political Theory (the farther you go to the extreme left, the closer you come to the extreme right, and vice versa), which interprets so-called "anti-imperialist" movements and the "new leftism" as merely superficial reworkings of classic fascism. | |||
| === Late 20th century === | |||
| While for most of the United States' history ''imperialism'' has been a term used by critics to decry American policies, in recent years some have adopted the view that some forms of imperialism are desirable. ] argues that American interventions should enforce intrinsic notions of human rights, and should have a form of "Empire Light" to do so. On the right-wing there are now thinkers who believe the United States should aggressively pursue a sort of democratic imperialism, these include ] and ]. | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| === Ideas === | |||
| *] | |||
| *] ''(in relation to the Spanish-American War)'' | |||
| *'']'' | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| === Key figures === | |||
| *General ] | |||
| *] | |||
| *President ] | |||
| *President ] | |||
| *President ] | |||
| *Chief ] | |||
| *President ] | |||
| *Colonel ] | |||
| *] | |||
| *President ] | |||
| *President ] | |||
| === Historians === | |||
| Views on the concept of United State imperialism have often been influenced by the opinions of the well-known historians of that period, who, in turn, are often influenced by the cultural and social attitude of their eras. Historians known for their views on the topic include: | |||
| *], author of ''Clash of the Fundamentalisms'' (2002) | |||
| *], author of ''Colossus: the Price of America's Empire'' (2004) | |||
| *] | |||
| *], author of ''Commonwealth or Empire?'' (1902) | |||
| *] | |||
| ==Related articles== | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| * by John B. Judis in '']'' | |||
| * by John B. Judis in '']'' (Full article, no subscription needed) | |||
| * | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 10:14, 18 December 2022
Redirect to: