This is what I mean, by that definition you can cover almost every war. You don’t see smaller nations invading larger, more powerful ones. You can even use it to say the US influence in Ukraine over the last 30 has been imperialist. The Norman invasion of 1066 becomes imperialist. Can you really not see how meaningless a definition that is?
Agreed as very well known and easy examples that prove not all wars got the definition.
Plus what in the world is wrong with it fitting 80-90% of wars for at least one side of the conflict? It is easily one of the most likely reasons for counties to go to war.
You mean the revolution? Because I’m pretty sure you aren’t about the raise the civil war, where the more powerful north imposed it’s will on the confederacy through military power.
American Revolution - “No Taxation Without Representation” and resulted in documents foundational to American liberalism, like the Bill of Rights and Declaration. Politically and philosophically motivated, not expansionist.
American Civil War - A war of secession, with abolitionism as a root issue. There were economic factors, like the North’s industrialization, but to say that this war is imperialist is to legitimize the Confederacy’s claim to preserve the institution of American slavery.
WWI - America supported Britain and France but was isolationist, until the sinking of the Lusitania. America entered the war to defend trading partners, but again, that doesn’t make this imperialist.
WWII - Again, America was initially isolationist until a decisive moment (this time, Pearl Harbor). Again, this was more diplomatically motivated than a surplus of capital or land-grabbingly expansionism.
It wasn’t until the post-WWII era of the Cold War that America shifted gears from a habit of isolationism to global interventionism, and began a long line of imperialist atrocities.
I’m only bringing these wars up because they’re the ones I’m familiar with - I’m sure there are plenty of examples of wars across the globe, even in more modern eras, that Western Liberals wouldn’t call imperialist.
The US Revolution was justified as being in protest against taxes, but taxes raised to pay for the Seven Years War which (chronologically, if not causally) began with George Washington ambushing French troops and resulted in colonists gaining significant territory. One of the nowadays less romanticised causes of the revolution itself was the block on westward expansion of the colonies by the British government too, incidentally.
Your outline there also ignores the many wars and atrocities that describe the westward expansion of the USA (and beyond, the Philippines for example) as it actually did happen too, they very much did not begin their imperialism with the start of the cold war.
That’s a really interesting perspective on the precursors to the US Revolutionary War, and exactly the kind of think I hope to learn about in these exchanges. I will also concede that Manifest Destiny was, to be glib, manifestly imperialistic and one of the many grand sins of my country.
but to say that this war is imperialist is to legitimize the Confederacy’s claim to preserve the institution of American slavery.
Morality doesn’t change facts. If it is imperialistic then it is, no matter what it means to the Confederacy. At that point it is also possible to question if imperialism is always a bad thing.
Okey doke, I’ll concede that. I’ll admit that I overextended myself rhetorically. I still maintain the point that I don’t think there was anything explicitly imperialistic about the Civil War, though.
Are you saying the south didn’t want to preserve slavery? You’ll note your definition of imperialism doesn’t include anything about right or wrong, just one nation imposing it’s will on another. This is what people mean when they describe liberal politics as vibe based - it fits the definition exactly, but you don’t feel it’s imperialist because it was the morally right thing to do.
While America wasn’t the imperialist power in the world wars, they were thoroughly imperialist wars, by either definition, between European countries.
According to one side. I don’t think there would had been a war if they weren’t actually split. One side declared itself separate, and the other militarily brought them back under their political control. It fits your definition.
Hey I don’t have time to do a whole infodump style reply but off the dome Washington profited immensely from the revolutionary war because he was a land speculator and the us needed to get into ww2 so it could stop the empire of japan from taking control of all the island territories it chased Spain off of.
I wouldn’t personally call the first example imperialism because you gotta make a distinction between Byzantine and American somehow and the one from imperialism the highest stage of capitalism seems appropriate and answers a lot of questions but the second one is literally imperialism by any definition you wanna call it.
Also even if you fully reject Lenin’s work you gotta grapple with the historical facts that the eastern states didn’t really create a program of mass import of raw materials from the western expansion states and complete control over the western states government to the detriment of the people who lived in them to the extent that the nation they represented did to the Philippines for example. The distinction between imperialism and colonialism for the modern age helps with that and fits many other modern examples, most notably israel. Israel isnt doing imperialism to Palestinians, they are doing colonialism.
Regarding Americas western expansion I am compressing a million pages of history and some really powerful counterexamples into a did they didn’t they statement here and I know that.
Like I said I don’t have time to do the other two without referring to a bunch of books to get my claims perfectly exactly irrefutably correct on the (no offense intended) Redditor instance.
Most wars have economic causes and impacts, but that alone does not imperialism make. There are “unprovoked punching down” as well as interventionist components that I don’t think describe America’s intentions or entries into either World War.
Either way, the argument I’m trying to refute is that me, as a Western Liberal, view any kind of modern war as imperialist, and thus dilute the definition of the term. I think I’ve demonstrated that while I don’t adhere to Lenin’s more strict definition, I don’t want to use the term lightly, either.
I’m also not trying to make an argument that the USA isn’t imperialist, in any strictness of the term. Western Liberals aren’t a monolith, my bud.
I don’t care about whatever argument you’re having. It’s extremely inaccurate to claim Americas entry into ww2 was diplomatically motivated when Japan was taking by military force islands that had been part of an extractive zone contested by them and America. It’s literally two imperial powers low key fighting over their periphery then one goes PISS NUKE INCOMING.
Again, I do not care about whatever argument you’re having. If anything I want you to be able to integrate more information into your understanding of imperialism. It’s really hard for us as westerners to do that when so much of the groundwork of our historical understanding is jingoism and great man and it’s good you’re interrogating your own ideas.
Also you should probably start with the Spanish American war as your American point of entry into imperialism (you say here “global interventionism” but idk wth that means.)
Right on, as I said, I’m here to learn too. And I agree that the education and milieu I got in Florida in the 80s is pretty poor. What recommendations would you make to find out about these subjects?
BTW what I meant by “global interventionism” is how the US Government really ramped up manipulating the internal affairs of countries across all over the world, both depth and breadth. Twilight Struggle is one of my favorite board games, because of how much history I learned from it.
This is what I mean, by that definition you can cover almost every war. You don’t see smaller nations invading larger, more powerful ones. You can even use it to say the US influence in Ukraine over the last 30 has been imperialist. The Norman invasion of 1066 becomes imperialist. Can you really not see how meaningless a definition that is?
Only if your reading comprehension sucks…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
Well, I mean, as an American I can mention a couple of important wars to my homeland that weren’t driven by these motivations. Shall I elucidate?
Agreed as very well known and easy examples that prove not all wars got the definition.
Plus what in the world is wrong with it fitting 80-90% of wars for at least one side of the conflict? It is easily one of the most likely reasons for counties to go to war.
Please stop engaging with this troll, they’re not operating in good faith, they just want to engage in russian atrocity apologia
You mean the revolution? Because I’m pretty sure you aren’t about the raise the civil war, where the more powerful north imposed it’s will on the confederacy through military power.
As I understand them,
It wasn’t until the post-WWII era of the Cold War that America shifted gears from a habit of isolationism to global interventionism, and began a long line of imperialist atrocities.
I’m only bringing these wars up because they’re the ones I’m familiar with - I’m sure there are plenty of examples of wars across the globe, even in more modern eras, that Western Liberals wouldn’t call imperialist.
The US Revolution was justified as being in protest against taxes, but taxes raised to pay for the Seven Years War which (chronologically, if not causally) began with George Washington ambushing French troops and resulted in colonists gaining significant territory. One of the nowadays less romanticised causes of the revolution itself was the block on westward expansion of the colonies by the British government too, incidentally.
Your outline there also ignores the many wars and atrocities that describe the westward expansion of the USA (and beyond, the Philippines for example) as it actually did happen too, they very much did not begin their imperialism with the start of the cold war.
That’s a really interesting perspective on the precursors to the US Revolutionary War, and exactly the kind of think I hope to learn about in these exchanges. I will also concede that Manifest Destiny was, to be glib, manifestly imperialistic and one of the many grand sins of my country.
Morality doesn’t change facts. If it is imperialistic then it is, no matter what it means to the Confederacy. At that point it is also possible to question if imperialism is always a bad thing.
Okey doke, I’ll concede that. I’ll admit that I overextended myself rhetorically. I still maintain the point that I don’t think there was anything explicitly imperialistic about the Civil War, though.
Are you saying the south didn’t want to preserve slavery? You’ll note your definition of imperialism doesn’t include anything about right or wrong, just one nation imposing it’s will on another. This is what people mean when they describe liberal politics as vibe based - it fits the definition exactly, but you don’t feel it’s imperialist because it was the morally right thing to do.
While America wasn’t the imperialist power in the world wars, they were thoroughly imperialist wars, by either definition, between European countries.
It was a war of secession, they were part of the same nation…
According to one side. I don’t think there would had been a war if they weren’t actually split. One side declared itself separate, and the other militarily brought them back under their political control. It fits your definition.
Hey I don’t have time to do a whole infodump style reply but off the dome Washington profited immensely from the revolutionary war because he was a land speculator and the us needed to get into ww2 so it could stop the empire of japan from taking control of all the island territories it chased Spain off of.
I wouldn’t personally call the first example imperialism because you gotta make a distinction between Byzantine and American somehow and the one from imperialism the highest stage of capitalism seems appropriate and answers a lot of questions but the second one is literally imperialism by any definition you wanna call it.
Also even if you fully reject Lenin’s work you gotta grapple with the historical facts that the eastern states didn’t really create a program of mass import of raw materials from the western expansion states and complete control over the western states government to the detriment of the people who lived in them to the extent that the nation they represented did to the Philippines for example. The distinction between imperialism and colonialism for the modern age helps with that and fits many other modern examples, most notably israel. Israel isnt doing imperialism to Palestinians, they are doing colonialism.
Regarding Americas western expansion I am compressing a million pages of history and some really powerful counterexamples into a did they didn’t they statement here and I know that.
Like I said I don’t have time to do the other two without referring to a bunch of books to get my claims perfectly exactly irrefutably correct on the (no offense intended) Redditor instance.
Most wars have economic causes and impacts, but that alone does not imperialism make. There are “unprovoked punching down” as well as interventionist components that I don’t think describe America’s intentions or entries into either World War.
Either way, the argument I’m trying to refute is that me, as a Western Liberal, view any kind of modern war as imperialist, and thus dilute the definition of the term. I think I’ve demonstrated that while I don’t adhere to Lenin’s more strict definition, I don’t want to use the term lightly, either.
I’m also not trying to make an argument that the USA isn’t imperialist, in any strictness of the term. Western Liberals aren’t a monolith, my bud.
I don’t care about whatever argument you’re having. It’s extremely inaccurate to claim Americas entry into ww2 was diplomatically motivated when Japan was taking by military force islands that had been part of an extractive zone contested by them and America. It’s literally two imperial powers low key fighting over their periphery then one goes PISS NUKE INCOMING.
Again, I do not care about whatever argument you’re having. If anything I want you to be able to integrate more information into your understanding of imperialism. It’s really hard for us as westerners to do that when so much of the groundwork of our historical understanding is jingoism and great man and it’s good you’re interrogating your own ideas.
Also you should probably start with the Spanish American war as your American point of entry into imperialism (you say here “global interventionism” but idk wth that means.)
Right on, as I said, I’m here to learn too. And I agree that the education and milieu I got in Florida in the 80s is pretty poor. What recommendations would you make to find out about these subjects?
BTW what I meant by “global interventionism” is how the US Government really ramped up manipulating the internal affairs of countries across all over the world, both depth and breadth. Twilight Struggle is one of my favorite board games, because of how much history I learned from it.